“If Al-Qaeda Wants To Demolish The America We Know And Love, They Better Hurry, Because Obama Is Beating Them To It.”

House Republicans Move to Defund ACORN

House Republicans Move to Defund ACORN
ACORN Contributed to Financial Collapse & Was Rewarded With Tens of Millions in Federal Funds
Washington, Jun 4

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and dozens of other House Republicans today became original cosponsors of the Taxpayer Protection and Anti-Fraud Act, a bill introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to prohibit organizations indicted for violations of state or federal election laws from receiving federal funds through programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 


A voter registration fraud trial currently being conducted in Pittsburgh reveals one of many examples of the techniques employed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to illegally influence elections:



Sign the ACORN petition—-By Michelle Malkin


Sign the ACORN petition

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 5, 2009 05:25 PM

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner:

Thousands of Americans are expressing support via an on-line petition for new legislation that would block taxpayer funding for organizations with a criminal history such as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has introduced the Taxpayer Protection and Anti-Fraud Act, which would restrict access to taxpayer dollars available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for groups that have been indicted for violations of state or federal laws. Almost 5,000 citizens have registered their support for the bill available through Bachmann’s online site, according to her press office.

As The Examiner has previously reported ACORN has received at least $53 million in federal funds since 1994, and the controversial group could potentially gain access to $8.5 billion in additional taxpayer dollars, unless Congress intervenes. The track record is not encouraging.

…“No one has a right to federal funds,” she said. “We have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Congress to establish criteria by which groups can gain access to federal dollars. I believe we should be able to raise the bar above indictment and not be restricted solely to convictions. This in no way denies someone their due process rights in court.”

Under her new bill a determination would be made on a “case by case” basis to determine whether or not a particular organization should be eligible for federal support, despite indictments.

Sign the petition here.

The U.S. Department of Injustice By Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin 

The U.S. Department of Injustice

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 5, 2009 09:56 AM

My column today looks at the political corruption of the Obama Justice Department. With the crime-coddling crony Attorney General Eric Holder in charge, no one should be surprised, of course. Members of Congress who care about electoral integrity need to press the administration on who intervened in the New Black Panther Party case and why. Members of Congress who care about voter fraud need to press the administration on its decision to undermine Georgia voter verification rules. And members of Congress need to continue connecting the dots to ACORN and the larger plan to wield power to preserve and protect a permanent Democratic majority.


The U.S. Department of Injustice
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The seal of the U.S. Department of Justice bears a Latin phrase: “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur. The motto refers to the Attorney General “who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice.” But under Barack Obama’s politically corrupted DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.

To wit: Let’s examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia.

Oh, wait. There’s been no uproar. Let me tell you why.

Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On November 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly-dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: “I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.”

That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson “the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life.”

One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: “[Y]ou are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, all hell would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to “guard” the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out.

Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel, and blasting our founding fathers as “snakes.” His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz’s “field marshals,” Minister Najee Muhammad, held a “black power” rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country “to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote.”

The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz, Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson in early January 2009. None of the defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. Instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the Obama team fully dismissed the lawsuits against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson. Jackson, you should know, is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher. Witness Greg Lugones told me “Obama campaign operatives were on site throughout the entire episode.”

Former Justice Department official and voting rights scholar Hans Von Spakovsky added: “I have never heard of the Department dismissing a case it has already won by default. They have…sent the message that hurling racial epithets and slurs at voters and intimidating and threatening voters at the polls is fine with the Holder Justice Department – at least if you are African-American. I seriously doubt that would have happened if the races had been reversed in this case.”

Exactly. And to repeat: The harassment was aimed not just at voters, but at white poll workers trying to ensure a fair and lawful process in a city infamous for machine politics and street money pollution.

Who are the racial cowards, Attorney General Holder?

On the heels of this voter intimidation protection plan, the Obama Justice Department issued another decision that undermines electoral integrity – but bolsters Democratic voter drives. The department this week denied the state of Georgia the ability to enact strict citizenship voter verification rules previously approved by two federal courts. As the Georgia secretary of state Karen Handel explained: “DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists.”

On top of all that, Holder recently politicized the legal review process involving the contentious issue of D.C. voting rights. After careful study, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional. Holder, who supports D.C. voting rights along with President Obama, overrode his staff lawyers’ ruling—and simply ordered up an alternative opinion that fit the White House agenda.

Lady Justice is now protected by a security force armed with billy clubs and lawyers who serve the cause of protecting the re-election of Barack Obama over the rule of law.

Does Obama’s speech herald the end of our strategic relationship with Israel?

Does Obama’s speech herald the end of our strategic relationship with Israel?

Caroline Glick, frequent contributor to the Jerusalem Post, writing at The Corner thinks so:

From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.

Rhetorically, Obama’s sugar coated the pathologies of the Islamic world – from the tyranny that characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world and the free world.

In contrast, Obama’s perverse characterization of Israel – of the sources of its legitimacy and of its behavior – made clear that he shares the Arab world’s view that there is something basically illegitimate about the Jewish state.

That’s a pretty heavy indictment. Glick uses history to buttress her case and adds:

Just as abominably, Obama compared Israel to Southern slave owners and Palestinians to black slaves in the antebellum south. He used the Arab euphemism “resistance” to discuss Palestinian terrorism, and generally ignored the fact that every Palestinian political faction is also a terrorist organization.

In addition to his morally outrageous characterization of Israel and factually inaccurate account of its foundations, Obama struck out at the Jewish state through the two policies he outlined in his address. His first policy involves coercing Israel into barring all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank), and Jerusalem.

The second Obama policy that hits at Israel and our strategic alliance is his attempted rapproachment with Iran. She questions Obama’s belief that he can alter the relationship with the mullahs and wonders if he is stupid or naive. Either way, Glick believes Iran will get the bomb which will change everything.

Read the whole thing.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/does_obamas_speech_herald_the.html at June 05, 2009 – 05:54:25 PM EDT