&cat=1&pid=13750&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=13750&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Houston Election Headquarters Warehouse Destroyed by Fire, Just Days After Fraud Allegations" />

From Election Law Center blog : A few days ago we blogged how the Houston voter registrar had a press conference announcing widespread voter fraud and thousands of illegal and phony voter registrations submitted by an ACORN-like organization called “Houston Votes.” Those stories are here and here . Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez accused the group of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls. Well this morning Mr. Vasquez’s warehouse containing all of the voting machines, supplies and equipment burned to the ground. A note of caution: obviously law enforcement officials in Harris County will get to the bottom of this. We are posting this because, for now, Harris County is going to have a mess of an election in November because all of their equipment and supplies have been destroyed.

&cat=1&pid=13172&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=13172&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Obama Lawyer with SEIU, AFL-CIO Connections Sidesteps Ethical Complaints" />

An Obama attorney charged with overseeing labor disputes has resisted well-documented ethical complaints built around potential conflicts of interest with “pure sophistry” and misleading statements that call out for a larger investigation, a foundation opposed to forced unionization has argued. In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWF) points out that Craig Becker, who now sits on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a recess appointee, has declined to recuse himself in multiple cases involving his former employers, most notably, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO. There is a strong case to be made that Becker’s actions are in direct violation of the ethics pledge he signed in April, the Foundation’s letter states. In the past, he has litigated against Foundation clients and also helped craft legal strategies for SEIU affiliates. Becker has also suggested in his academic writings that major policy changes could be implemented without legislative approval. These controversial views greatly complicated Becker’s confirmation process and President Obama ultimately settled for a recess appointment, which lasts through 2011. To date, NRTW attorneys have filed over a dozen recusal motions against Becker but he has refused to comply in every case except one. The ethics pledge Becker signed includes the following pledge: “I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.” Nevertheless, Becker has proceeded to take part in cases involving SEIU affiliates. On June 3, an NLRB panel that included Becker issued a decision involving St. Barnabas Hospital in New York  and SEIU Local 1957. On June 8, another NLRB panel with Becker issued a ruling involving the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center in Calif. and Local 121RN. In response to NRTW, Becker has argued that his participation in cases that concern SEIU affiliates do not violate ethical restrictions because the locals are “separate and distinct entities.” But the SEIU’s own constitution describes local affiliates as “constituent subordinate bodies” of the national union. Furthermore, over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees, government records show. “If Craig Becker’s shaky analysis stands, the Obama Administration’s much-touted ethics pledge clearly is not worth the paper it is printed on,” Mark Mix, the NRTWF president has observed. “Independent-minded workers who dare to challenge the SEIU’s coercive practices deserve a fair hearing, but how can they get that from the very same union’s former top lawyer?” NLRB Inspector General David Berry did investigate Becker’s participation in the St. Barnabas case but also concluded that the SEIU locals “are considered separate legal entities.” The Foundation has requested that the IG expand his investigation to include the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, which concerned nurses who wanted to end their association with the SEIU local. Thus far, NRTWF has not received any official response. But its letter to the attorney general raises the stakes. “Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed,” Nick Cote, deputy legal information director for the NTRWF said.  “The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.” Becker’s arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny the Foundation explains in its letter because they overlook “the deep and interconnected constitutional, administrative, and financial ties between SEIU and its locals, evidence of which to our knowledge was not considered by the NLRB IG in his ruling concerning St. Barnabas Hospital.” The Foundation’s letter also suggests to the AG that Becker’s recent involvement with cases that impact hospitals  should be of particular concern. He has been directly involved with the SEIU’s national campaign for organizing healthcare workers.  No less than Wade Rathke, former head of SEIU 100 who founded the ACORN organization, saw fit to lavish praise on Becker. Rathke is quoted as follows in the NRTWF letter: “For my money Craig’s signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies and protections which have allowed the effective organization of informal workers, and by this I mean home health care workers, under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act…. Craig was the key lawyer from the beginning in the early 1980’s who was able to piece together the arguments and representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and elsewhere to beat back the arguments that such workers should be denied NLRA coverage because they were either self-employed or tainted by a co-employer situation where they might be quasi-public employees because they were directly reimbursed. His role was often behind the scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers, writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.” During his confirmation hearings, Becker has also made reference to a separate ethics agreement with NLRB. However, this went unmentioned when he ruled against the recusal requests. For this reason, the Foundation saw fit to raise several additional questions in its letter about the special agreement and its relationship to the ethics pledge. “Is Becker’s Ethics Pledge properly considered as a stand-alone legal commitment, as stated in the Executive Order? As such, did his decision to participate in the SEIU cases, as well as his refusal to recuse from most upcoming SEIU cases, violate the Ethics Pledge? Did Becker’s “special agreement” somehow make it possible for him to sign the Ethics Pledge despite the obvious conflict arising from his former employment and the terms of the Pledge? Was the “special agreement” an element in Becker’s refusal to recuse himself when SEIU or an SEIU subordinate affiliate is a party? If so, why is it not mentioned in his ruling on the motions to recuse? Did the special agreement override the need for a waiver from the Ethics Pledge?”

An Obama attorney charged with overseeing labor disputes has resisted well-documented ethical complaints built around potential conflicts of interest with “pure sophistry” and misleading statements that call out for a larger investigation, a foundation opposed to forced unionization has argued. In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWF) points out that Craig Becker, who now sits on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a recess appointee, has declined to recuse himself in multiple cases involving his former employers, most notably, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO. There is a strong case to be made that Becker’s actions are in direct violation of the ethics pledge he signed in April, the Foundation’s letter states. In the past, he has litigated against Foundation clients and also helped craft legal strategies for SEIU affiliates. Becker has also suggested in his academic writings that major policy changes could be implemented without legislative approval. These controversial views greatly complicated Becker’s confirmation process and President Obama ultimately settled for a recess appointment, which lasts through 2011. To date, NRTW attorneys have filed over a dozen recusal motions against Becker but he has refused to comply in every case except one. The ethics pledge Becker signed includes the following pledge: “I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.” Nevertheless, Becker has proceeded to take part in cases involving SEIU affiliates. On June 3, an NLRB panel that included Becker issued a decision involving St. Barnabas Hospital in New York  and SEIU Local 1957. On June 8, another NLRB panel with Becker issued a ruling involving the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center in Calif. and Local 121RN. In response to NRTW, Becker has argued that his participation in cases that concern SEIU affiliates do not violate ethical restrictions because the locals are “separate and distinct entities.” But the SEIU’s own constitution describes local affiliates as “constituent subordinate bodies” of the national union. Furthermore, over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees, government records show. “If Craig Becker’s shaky analysis stands, the Obama Administration’s much-touted ethics pledge clearly is not worth the paper it is printed on,” Mark Mix, the NRTWF president has observed. “Independent-minded workers who dare to challenge the SEIU’s coercive practices deserve a fair hearing, but how can they get that from the very same union’s former top lawyer?” NLRB Inspector General David Berry did investigate Becker’s participation in the St. Barnabas case but also concluded that the SEIU locals “are considered separate legal entities.” The Foundation has requested that the IG expand his investigation to include the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, which concerned nurses who wanted to end their association with the SEIU local. Thus far, NRTWF has not received any official response. But its letter to the attorney general raises the stakes. “Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed,” Nick Cote, deputy legal information director for the NTRWF said.  “The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.” Becker’s arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny the Foundation explains in its letter because they overlook “the deep and interconnected constitutional, administrative, and financial ties between SEIU and its locals, evidence of which to our knowledge was not considered by the NLRB IG in his ruling concerning St. Barnabas Hospital.” The Foundation’s letter also suggests to the AG that Becker’s recent involvement with cases that impact hospitals  should be of particular concern. He has been directly involved with the SEIU’s national campaign for organizing healthcare workers.  No less than Wade Rathke, former head of SEIU 100 who founded the ACORN organization, saw fit to lavish praise on Becker. Rathke is quoted as follows in the NRTWF letter: “For my money Craig’s signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies and protections which have allowed the effective organization of informal workers, and by this I mean home health care workers, under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act…. Craig was the key lawyer from the beginning in the early 1980’s who was able to piece together the arguments and representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and elsewhere to beat back the arguments that such workers should be denied NLRA coverage because they were either self-employed or tainted by a co-employer situation where they might be quasi-public employees because they were directly reimbursed. His role was often behind the scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers, writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.” During his confirmation hearings, Becker has also made reference to a separate ethics agreement with NLRB. However, this went unmentioned when he ruled against the recusal requests. For this reason, the Foundation saw fit to raise several additional questions in its letter about the special agreement and its relationship to the ethics pledge. “Is Becker’s Ethics Pledge properly considered as a stand-alone legal commitment, as stated in the Executive Order? As such, did his decision to participate in the SEIU cases, as well as his refusal to recuse from most upcoming SEIU cases, violate the Ethics Pledge? Did Becker’s “special agreement” somehow make it possible for him to sign the Ethics Pledge despite the obvious conflict arising from his former employment and the terms of the Pledge? Was the “special agreement” an element in Becker’s refusal to recuse himself when SEIU or an SEIU subordinate affiliate is a party? If so, why is it not mentioned in his ruling on the motions to recuse? Did the special agreement override the need for a waiver from the Ethics Pledge?”

&cat=1&pid=13127&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=13127&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Facts Obama Doesn’t Want You to Connect" />

What really happened during the 2008 elections? Recent information regarding the primary caucuses paints the picture of a campaign that would stop at nothing to win. A campaign that was willing to strong arm candidates and volunteers in order to meet its goal. The documentary We Will Not Be Silenced delves into the Obama 2008 Campaign. “We believe The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.” In July, the 2007 2 nd Quarter Obama Donor List was revealed and tied back to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its sister organization Project Vote. On Friday, August 13 th a three-judge panel of the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a funding ban on ACORN stemming from Congressional action: “Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.” A clear picture of Obama and his desire to win has emerged and the public is now aware of strong arm tactics and illicit coordination with groups like ACORN. Will an imminent FEC complaint reveal that ACORN/Project Vote used tax-exemept grants and funds to run a partisan voter registration drive to get Obama elected? Project Vote’s 2007-2008 Development Plan lays out a plan to raise over $20 million dollars through a program that including targeting maxed-out presidential donors. The plan– unaltered since June of 2007 — can be found here . // What is particularly interesting about the plan is that Sandy Newman is mentioned several times including in a the section below. “Establish a ‘Finance Committee’ who will serve as the financial voice of PV. Put together a small group of PV core funders and/or supporters who can solicit new donors and/or connect PV staff to donors or the appropriate contacts. Points: Sandy, Zach, Jeff, Slater, and Karyn” As a Development Associate with Project Vote, I attended meetings with Sandy Newman, Zach Polett, and Karyn Gillette at Newman’s offices in downtown Washington, DC. As a founder of the organization, Newman was extremely involved in Project Vote’s finances despite having left the leadership staff in the early nineties. Newman is mentioned on Obama’s website as a friend, and mentor. Click to enlarge. According to Ballotpedia : “Project Vote (or Voting for America, Inc.[1]) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization. According to its website, Project Vote provides “professional training, management, evaluation and technical services on a broad continuum of key issues related to voter engagement and participation in low-income and minority communities.” It was founded in 1982 by Sandy Newman and its current executive director is Michael Slater, who has worked for Project Vote since 2004.” The problem with lying is that it often becomes hard to keep those lies straight. Project Vote’s own website states that it has been around since 1982 and several of its grant application reference this year, but Project Vote and Obama both maintain that he worked for a different organization that was started around 1994. This organization, they claim, of course, was never affiliated with ACORN. The screen shot below was taken last year of Project Vote’s website. Interestingly, Project Vote’s own tax returns repeat this lie as seen in the screen shot below: Maybe Michael Slater of Project Vote can explain why their website says one thing but their tax returns say another. Back to Sandy Newman. In 2007, Newman did reach out to potential funders and penned a memo to interested parties in the voter registration/participation community. Newman stressed the importance of the work that ACORN/Project Vote and how important the 2008 elections were. “ Together with the voters added to and remaining on the rolls because of the registration drives conducted over the last two cycles, voters galvanized by these three kinds of programs (even before counting voter turnout work) would exceed the 2004 presidential margin in nine states! They would also have an important impact (whomever they may choose to support) on other elections up and down the ballot, from US House and Senate races, Governor and Secretary of State through state legislature and races at the bottom of the ballot” Newman also urged funders to give even if the reasons may have been to influence the outcome of the election. Newman gently suggested other ways of giving. “They may also believe that reducing such distortions is likely to yield policies more in keeping with the interests of those whose representation in the electoral process has been inadequate. The fact that a donor may hold such a belief, or even that it may motivate giving decisions, does not cause a charitable contribution to be improper, provided that the donor intends that the actual work supported remain strictly non-partisan – that is, the work supported may not provide support or opposition to any candidate or party.” As the chart below reveals, ACORN/Project Vote’s voter registration drive was not targeted at registering voters as it was at winning for Democrats. A number of their political plans and ACORN’s own endorsements of the likes of Obama and Donna Edwards made it clear whose side they were on. In 2008, it was revealed that the Obama Campaign had given over $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate, Citizens Service Inc, “The Ohio primary was March 4. According to FEC records, the Obama campaign paid Citizens Services Inc. $832,598.29, from Feb. 25 to May 17. A Trib analysis of campaign finance reports showed Obama paid CSI for services that stood out as unusual. For example, CSI received payments of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent with other organizations was $558.82 per check on more than 1,200 entries classified as advance work. Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN’s national headquarters in New Orleans. Citizens Services was established in December 2004 to “assist persons and organizations who advance the interests of low- and moderate-income people,” according to paperwork filed in Louisiana. In a 2006 ACORN publication, Citizen Services Inc. is described as “ACORN’s campaign services entity.” Project Vote’s own 2009 tax returns reveal that it gave a similar amount to CSI. Here is the explanation: Ballotpedia quotes from a New York Times article that references the Elizabeth Kingsley report gives insight into who Project Vote was paying at CSI. “An example would be Zach Pollett, formerly Project Vote’s executive director and also ACORN’s political director, until July, when he relinquished the former title. Mr. Pollett continues to work as a consultant for Project Vote through another Acorn affiliate” As evidence continues to mount against Obama and ACORN it remains to be seen how long Obama’s Teflon will last. While the public was distracted by ACORN’s antics like registering Mickey Mouse to vote, the group implemented a strategic plan in battleground states to produce the right margin of victory for Democrats. ACORN’s own 2008 Get Out the Vote plan illustrates how this was done. Click to enlarge. ACORN’s impact in shaping American politics has become clearer since Obama took office. Considering the number of corrupt politicians holding office, that ACORN effect should not be surprising, nevertheless, the actual numbers are quite startling. When you break those numbers down by battleground state, the true threat of ACORN and its friends becomes even clearer. With his ineffective leadership, lies to the American people and an imploding economy, the commander-in-chief is starting to resemble yet another corrupt politician from ACORN- a usurper intent on making deals and passing agendas that push America closer to ACORN’s socialist utopia. Cross-Posted from my new site  Emerging Corruption .

&cat=1&pid=12972&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=12972&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Federal Appeals Court Rules Against ACORN" />

From the Associated Press : A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a decision that had barred Congress from withholding funds from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes. The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a decision by a district court judge in Brooklyn that found Congress had violated the group’s rights by punishing it without a trial. Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities. Fueling the outrage was a video that caught three employees allegedly advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. ACORN responded with a lawsuit accusing Congress of abusing its power with what amounted to a “corporate death sentence.” The appeals court disagreed, citing a study finding that ACORN received only 10 percent of its funding from federal sources. “We doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds were so disproportionately severe or so inappropriate as to constitute punishment,” the three-judge panel wrote. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which argued on behalf of ACORN, said it was considering asking the appeals court to rehear the case with more judges. Read the whole thing here .

&cat=1&pid=12307&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=12307&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Electoral College Attack Leads to Voter Fraud" />

The latest attack perpetrated by progressive-statists strikes at the republican nature of our constitutional system through the destruction of the electoral college. No doubt Project Vote, the ACORN spawn and the Secretary of State Project are behind this tyrranical endeavor.  We already know how these groups sought to dilute the vote throught the NVRA and HAVA .  Opposition to Voter ID and a push for Election-Day Registration furthers the agendas of these groups by hijacking the popular vote, especially when the voter-rolls are not purged of fraudulent voters . We can see the connection between all of these endeavors through the actions of Missouri’s own Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan .  While the current Missouri legislature would never pass the electoral college law being pushed by these groups, Carnahan’s meddling with the state elective process aims at diminishing the conservative vote within the state.  And the DOJ appears complicit in this attack through its failure to prosecute Carnahan for failing to clean the voter rolls, the same rolls she will rely on for her Senate run. This all matters because of the first principles embodied in the Constitution.  Federalist 39 discusses the electoral college and our republican form of government envisioned by the Constitution: The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features. The election of a president consists of a combination of both popular and state will.  However, the popular will is represented as the state.  We can further extend this analysis by examining the process of electing the president should a candidate not receive the required majority within the electoral college.  Election of the president passes to the House of Representatives, and the 12th Amendment outlines this process: But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representatives from each state having one vote…. Ultimately, states determine the presidency.  Regardless of their populations, each state receives one vote.  Under the progressive-statist plan to eliminate the electoral college, a state’s popular will would be rejected for the national will.  I cannot think of anything more un-democratic than changing someone’s vote without his consent!  But this is the plan states like Masachusetts now encourage . Imagine (as painful as this might be) the progressive-statist utopia in which universal voter registration (without ID) exists, and the electoral college does not.  Voter fraud would run rampant as challenges to one’s qualifications to vote would be virtually non-existant.  Illegals, dead people, and individuals voting in multiple jurisdictions could cast votes with impunity.  A high burden would be placed on challengers to prove that these individuals were ineligible, since everyone within the United States would presumably be eligible (without ID). Do not forget that universal voter registration would further diminish the nature of Senators as representatives of states.  The 17th Amendment has already caused much damage to our constitutional system, as Senators are no longer beholden to the interests of their respective states .  And this was one of the first shots in the war waged against our Constitution by the progressive-statists. Eliminating the electoral college constitutes their latest shot.  It encourages voter fraud on a massive scale.  As the election returns come in from the eastern seaboard, states like California could add massive amounts of fraudulent votes to sway an election.  Corrupt municipalities like Chicago could withhold returns until midnight to generate the desired vote total, as they have already done in the last century. This is the nature of the beast we are fighting.  And this is only one of the many stealth attacks being carried out by the progressive-statists.

&cat=1&pid=11941&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=11941&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="Fascism… Yes, It Can Happen Here" />

I’m a warrior trained by Khalid Muhammad I’m a terrorist trained by Usama bin Laden Demolitionist, breaking down the walls of the rotten Never hit and miss So, first time, take out your target You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies! Minister King Samir Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party Patriots understand the threat posed by the New Black Panthers and ACORN and other Democratic Party-protected groups.  As the mid-term elections approach, these thugs will become ever more aggressive.  Remember that Barack Obama’s marching orders were for them to get in the faces of his opponents and to bring a gun .  Where can all this be headed? In 1935, at a time when many intellectuals viewed fascism as a progressive movement, Sinclair Lewis wrote a novel that envisioned a political tragedy akin to the Obama presidency.  It Can’t Happen Here is the story of Berzelius Windrip, a charming, charismatic demagogue who, in the midst of an economic crisis, is elected president by promising lots of free goodies for everyone. Once in power, he ruins the economy, neutralizes Congress and cracks down on dissent.  He makes himself dictator, with assistance from a civilian national security force .  Berzelius Windrip… mmm mmm m mm!

ACORN whistle-blower Anita Moncrief held a press conference Friday at the Right Online Convention in Las Vegas. She announced today that she will press FEC charges against the Obama Administration for the campaign’s illegal coordination with ACORN during the 2008 election. Anita also rolled out her new website Emerging Corruption . The website will focus on fraud and corruption in ACORN and affiliated groups. Anita already posted the Obama Donor List on the website as promised.

&cat=1&pid=11803&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=11803&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="ACORN-Led ‘Think Tank’ Works In Concert With NY Times To Attack Energy Companies" />

Earlier this month,  The New York Times ran a  front page article that claimed, “an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”  The thesis of the article was that oil companies are the benefactors of enormous subsides, primarily through complicated maneuvering of offshore assets, “tax breaks,” and “loopholes.” Unfortunately, the copy of the American tax code that  The Times used to conduct their careful analysis appears to have been heavily edited by a cadre of left leaning groups, including ACORN President Maude Hurd, Citizens for Tax Justice, Center for American Progress and the Clean Energy Works campaign. The smoking gun comes in the form of  a leaked memo from CEW communications advisor and former Democratic congressional staffer David Di Martino just days after  The New York Times ran it’s wildly misguided assessment of U.S. tax policy. In the memo, Di Martino outlines a strategy to change America’s perception of increased taxes on energy producers as a tax on consumers by arguing “the American people already have a national energy tax — The Big Oil Welfare Tax — in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to the wildly profitable big oil companies.”  The same day that Di Martino released his memo, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) released their own defective and dishonest hit piece, titled “What Oil and Gas Companies Extract from the American Public.”   The tax breaks referred to by Di Martino and the CTJ memo, in reality, are the same credits that every American company receives for taxes paid overseas to foreign governments on income earned abroad. Di Martino’s ammunition to redefine these essential standard tax credits?  It should come as no surprise that its  The New York Times skewed assessment of the U.S. tax code and biased analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP). Before we let  The Times and its allies at CEW “redefine” the tax credits that allow America’s oil and gas industry to remain competitive with foreign oil companies that receive more favorable tax treatment, we should ask who’s really behind this smear campaign: Citizens for Tax Justice :  A progressive tax policy “think tank” that actively campaigns for the Obama Administration’s tax policies.  CTJ board members include: o       Maude Hurd, President of ACORN o       Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group CEW :  A collection of labor and environmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club and the  Community Action Partnership – a network of 1,100 ACORN like Community Action Agencies across the country.

&cat=1&pid=11765&cache=true">&cat=5&pid=11765&cache=true" class="alignleft" alt="At Politico, Context and Facts Are Negotiable" />

Today’s lead story at Politico is one of the finer examples you will find of ideological ax-grinding dressed up as straight-news reporting. The piece, by Ken Vogel and Keach Hagey, uses just about every journalistic trick in the book, assembling a selection of quotes and points to establish a narrative that was set in the authors’ minds long before they sat down at their keyboards. But the piece does so much more too; it flirts with some blurry ethical lines as well. Shouldn’t, for example, a Politico article about Journolist have perhaps mentioned or disclosed that at least some reporters for Politico were, you know, members of Journolist? Perhaps Politico has an incentive to downplay the impact of the listserve? (And, Mr. Vogel, did Andrew Breitbart really not respond to Politico?) I will leave it to my colleagues at Big Journalism to give the proper attention this article is due. However, in building their ideological case, the authors point to certain “facts” about stories that first appeared here, which necessitates a few words here. In discussing the recent Shirley Sherrod imbroglio, the authors write that Breitbart, did not quite own up to the seriousness of the error he committed – posting a video misleadingly edited to make it appear that a black Agriculture Department named Shirley Sherrod was boasting of discriminating against a white farmer. We did not edit, much less misleadingly edit, any of Ms. Sherrod’s remarks. We posted two excerpts from her speech, representing the sum total of the video we had. We didn’t cut anything out of her speech. Is any news organization in the future who only posts excerpts from a speech vulnerable to the charge that it “misleadingly edited” it? At the very end of one of the video excerpt’s, Ms. Sherrod begins to explain how she later realized her initial discrimination of the white farmer was wrong. In Andrew’s article about the speech he   noted Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. If we were trying to show that Ms. Sherrod was “boasting” of discrimination and were prone to editing the tape as evidence, wouldn’t we have cut that part out? Wouldn’t we have neglected to mention that she eventually did the right thing? But, the media’s focus on Ms. Sherrod is really an attempt to misdirect attention from the NAACP, who was the real focus of the article and the video excerpts. As Andrew’s article noted: Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance. We all now know that Ms. Sherrod’s anecdote was part of a larger point about the need to move beyond racial prejudices. But, the NAACP audience did not know that as they heard the speech. As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. By itself, that made the video excerpt newsworthy. Indeed, the NAACP, who was in possession of the full video for months, even noted in its initial statement condemning Ms. Sherrod: The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action. This was always the story and it is clearly an uncomfortable one for the NAACP and, obviously, the authors of the Politico article. The media would rather focus on Ms. Sherrod or Andrew Breitbart than report that leaders of a state chapter of the NAACP approved of racial discrimination. But, the authors aren’t finished there. To further underscore their point, they return to that old lefty cliche from last year; that what you saw with your own eyes on the ACORN tapes didn’t really happen. The authors make this outright statement: The ACORN videos were later revealed to have been misleadingly edited… Not alleged, mind you, but “revealed,” as if the Oracle of Delphi issued a formal proclamation. And, who exactly “revealed” this “fact:” oh, yes, Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown . Brown is a long-time ally of ACORN and is running for Governor again this year. As ACORN had traditionally been an important part of Democrat candidate’s election efforts, he might have had an incentive to find that the ACORN videos were “misleadingly edited.” In fact, at the beginning of Brown’s investigation, a local ACORN spokesman told a meeting of local democrats that he had spoken to Brown’s office and was assured : the fault WILL be found with the people that did the video — not ACORN. That certainly adds some interesting context to Brown’s “finding.” Of course, Brown may objectively believe the ACORN videos were “misleadingly edited.” But he isn’t a disinterested observer. Politico should have noted that, even if it would have weakened their intended point. So too, they should have noted that, from the very beginning, the full audio recording and transcript of the entire ACORN interviews were available here. I have heard many on the left say ad nauseum that the ACORN videos were “heavily edited”, but I have yet to see one concrete example of how this alleged editing altered the substance of what the videos revealed. At the very beginning of Andrew’s article on racism at the NAACP, he noted that “context is everything.” To the authors of the Politico article, context is negotiable; simply another weapon in a reporter’s ideological tool-kit.