Glenn Beck was wrong, its as simple as that. He wasn't wrong for interviewing Eric Massa because as a TV commentator, showman, and the man responsible for generating ratings for the Fox News network during the 5-6 hour it was an interview that Beck had to take. Where Glenn Beck was wrong, was apologizing for wasting our time at the end of the interview. This interview was no waste of time because it moved the story along, in the end it destroyed the myth that Eric Massa's claim had any viability.

Last year ACORN alter ego Project Vote sued me for telling the people the ugly truth. Now the ACORN 8 are attacking me because I have acted on my belief that the people deserve truth, transparency and accountability. (The ACORN 8 slogan only calls for “truth, transparency and accountability within ACORN.”) ACORN 8 spokesman Michael McCray recently noted in a hit piece on me that “others have waged a war of rhetoric and words against ACORN and President Obama” while the ACORN 8 “focused on criminality within the association” and described my allegation of “illegal coordination between Project Vote and Obama Campaign” as not having been “publicly verified.”

Marcel Reid, as a former ACORN national board member and head of DC ACORN, understands the Obama/ACORN relationship AND the thuggish way ACORN pursues its goals.

Evidence exists that suggests that the ACORN 8’s denial of illicit coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN has more to do with the fact that unlike me, Reid and the ACORN 8 are still radical Obama supporters and that’s why the ACORN 8 have avoided the subject of the Obama/ACORN relationship.

Fact: ACORN 8 leader Marcel Reid emailed me more than a year ago (before Heather Heidelbaugh, Esq.’s Congressional testimony based on my testimony in October 2008 in the Pennsylvania ACORN case, my appearances on Fox News and the sensational ACORN videos) that it is a “fact” that “ACORN isn’t sure that it has it’s fingers around Obama’s throat quite as tightly as they would like” and “might do a little street theater” to “cower him into submission the way they have everyone else with few exceptions.”

The Roots of Obama’s Radical Agenda

Obama’s poll numbers are sliding and his healthcare bill does not have public support, but he continues to push a radical agenda onto the American people. Could ACORN and its leftist allies like SEIU have Obama over a barrel? Someone like Reid, a former ACORN national board member, could have these answers.

Obama and Reid are both alums of the Marxist New Party, and Reid served as an officer of the party. The New Party is described this way:

“Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials — most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN.“

If the ACORN 8 are misleading America about their knowledge of ACORN’s political activities and its relationship with Obama, what else are they lying about? Grab a cup of coffee and get comfy, we are going to dig into the accusations by McCray and the facts the ACORN 8 want to avoid. Note: Click on the pictures below to enlarge.

Fact checking the ACORN 8

Lie #1 “Mailroom MonCrief”

My article titled “For CPAC and Glenn Beck: the Truth About the ACORN 8” predictably produced a pained response from the ACORN 8: Michael McCray’s article titled “ACORN Whistleblower / Anita Mailroom MonCrief” posted days later by James Murtagh. Instead of addressing allegations of an internal ACORN power struggle, the ACORN 8 have decided to present a set of lies as fact.  McCray’s article is lacking in substance but high in rhetoric and misdirection, with even the title set up to misinform people and belittle the target, me.

Unsurprisingly, McCray was upset that I “refused [ACORN 8's] advice and pursued [my] own individual advocacy against ACORN and Project Vote” and he did not address on the merits the revelations about himself and the ACORN 8 in my article and instead tried to discredit me, as ACORN did. Contrary to what is stated in his article, I always knew that the ACORN 8 would cover for Obama and I declined to be a part of the group.

What was surprising is that McCray tried to discredit me with a sexist strategy (”hell hath no fury,” he wrote) and a bogus description of me as a former ACORN mailroom employee.

“…perhaps the most damning revelation comes from court filed pleading by Anita MonCrief herself in her answer to Project Vote’s $5 Million lawsuit against her Case No. 09-cv-01109 (RWR).

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ASHAWNITA MONCRIEF

Paragraph #22 which reads

‘22. Defendant [Anita MonCrief] admits that a Pitney Bowes postage meter machine was installed at Project Vote’s Washington, D.C. office…

This is an incredible admission because it means that Anita MonCrief admits she worked in the mailroom at Project Vote….”

The ACORN/Project Vote Washington, D.C. office did not have a mailroom and, although I certainly don’t disparage mailroom employees, I have never been one. I am equally surprised that a lawyer such as McCray, who is affiliated with several legal non-profits and who appears to have helped draft the ACORN 8’s “civil RICO” complaint, would make such a demonstrably false claim.

In December of 2009 I appeared at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee’s  GOP Forum on ACORN and submitted the followed description of my duties at ACORN/Project Vote. A copy of the testimony is available here.

While at ACORN/Project Vote, I worked in the Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD) within ACORN’s Political Operations (POLOPS). As part of the SWORD staff my title was Writer/Researcher. My salary was paid by Project Vote, with which I held the title of Development Associate, but I had an ACORN email address.

In addition, to combat more revisionist history from the ACORN 8, here is an unmodified copy of ACORN’s own 2006 Year End Year Beginning (YEYB) Report, the same one quoted recently at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government.

The ACORN 8 appear to be so comfortable with the fact that the lies they have told on national television about ACORN have largely gone unchallenged that McCray has decided to invent more.

Perhaps McCray did not check with other ACORN 8 people as to the access I had. And unfortunately for the ACORN 8 few of his outlandish accusations would pass muster at a middle school newspaper.  Using tactics honed through years of ACORN campaigns and organizing strategies, the ACORN 8 exhibit exactly the type of mentality that founder Wade Rathke encouraged in his ACORN Community Organizing Manual.

McCray strove to discredit me because the ACORN 8 could not disprove any number of facts stated in my previous article, so they resorted to common Alinsky tactics of ridiculing, polarizing and attacking the enemy. It is worth noting that ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote have taken legal action against its real threats, Andrew Breitbart, Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe and myself. All of us are victims of multimillion dollar lawsuits.

As this leaked internal ACORN email posted by National Review shows, ACORN talked to the lawyers about an employee because “he knows too much. He can hurt us.” Surprisingly, besides a cease and desist letter, ACORN has largely left the ACORN 8 to spread their revisionist history. A history that did not pose a threat to ACORN’s survival.

The other explanation could be that the leader of the ACORN 8 had signed a joint defense agreement (JDA) with ACORN that none of the other members were aware of. Did that include the other members of the ACORN 8?

In sharp contrast to McCray, the Republican National Lawyers Association expressed a different opinion of me in a blog post after I spoke at CPAC 2010.

“leading figure in the fight for fair elections” and the “ACORN whistleblower ACORN [who] had the CPAC crowd on its feet” by describing her experiences working with ACORN and how the organization engaged in a concerted effort to learn the provisional and absentee ballot laws in each of the 50 states in an effort to see where they could get away with mischief” and “achieved their ultimate goal of the Presidency with the election of Barack Obama”

Lie #2 Muscle of the Money?

Another excerpt from McCray’s poorly written diatribe states:

“Mailroom MonCrief made two powerful allegations which have never been publicly verified (1) illegal coordination between Project Vote and Obama Campaign / Donor List and (2) SEIU Muscle for Money program which are two of the rights favorite accusations.”

The funny thing about lies is that it is often hard to keep track of them. In October of 2008, as the ACORN 8 were struggling to gain attention with their lawsuit against Wade Rathke, I testified under oath about the Muscle for Money Program was the first mention of the program. ACORN 8 leaders Marcel Reid and Karen Inman feigned surprise and then recounted stories of reluctant participation.

“Muscle for Money has generated significant opposition within ACORN.

“‘I don’t mind being up on a soapbox to get someone’s attention but I would much rather talk an’ negotiate, said Karen Inman, a Minnesota resident and former ACORN national board member. “But I just refuse to go someone’s home, that’s a privacy issue and I think this ‘Muscle for Money’ program really went too far.”

“Inman and Marcel Reid, a former board member based in Washington D.C., formed ACORN 8 in October 2008 …The lack of financial transparency and the continued use of Muscle for Money techniques remain top concerns for the whistleblower organization, which has about 30 dues paying members in multiple states, Inman said.”

Reid also seems to have selective memory about her numerous press statements regarding Muscle for the Money and she apparently does not recognize the very evidence she provided. The following email provided by Reid, president of DC ACORN, is from Inga Skippings of the SEIU Equity Project regarding the Carlyle Group.

Reid also provided a similar email to CNN regarding SEIU/ACORN and bank bailouts.

The Fox News special titled “The Truth About ACORN” and broadcast on October 2, 2009 did not address the illegal coordination, but it certainly covered the second, with guest Marcel Reid claiming that she was shocked to learn what “Money for the Muscle” involved when she participated in it with National Paint and Coating as the target. The video can be accessed here and Marcel’s statement begins around minute 16.

Lie #3 The ACORN 8 exposed a one million dollar embezzlement scandal

Further proof of the ACORN 8’s self-serving revisionist history lies in the following statement from their “response article”:

Marcel Reid a former ACORN Board member (DC) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Karen Inman a former ACORN Board member (MN) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Michael McCray a former ACORN Board delegate (GA) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and ACORN 8 spokesperson;

Nonsense. There is a whistleblower to credit. Neither Marcel Reid, nor Karen Inman, nor Michael McCray was that whistleblower. While working as a confidential source for the New York Times, I found out that not only is the real anonymous whistleblower known to the ACORN 8 but also New York Times Reporter Stephanie Strom. The ACORN embezzlement story was made public by The New York Times on July 9, 2008:

“A whistle-blower forced Acorn to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization’s founder, Wade Rathke. ‘We’ve told them that when the process is ended, we’ll have a look at it,’ said Dave Beckwith, executive director of the Needmor Fund, which has given money to some of Acorn’s charity affiliates for at least 10 years and was contacted by the whistle-blower in May.”

So here is the time-line:

May 2008- ACORN funder, the Needmor fund was contacted by a whistleblower in May.

July 2008- Bertha Lewis, Marcel Reid and Karen Innman all appointed to positions of power within ACORN. New York Times article appeared.

August 2008- After the proposed hand over to Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union was declined by ACORN and CCI, Marcel and Innman sued CCI and Rathke.

That time-line hints at the truth behind ACORN insider allegations that the plotters of a successful coup began to immediately fight amongst each for control. Court documents point to Reid’s relationship with KAPFCU and the question of whether she was really acting on behalf of ACORN:

So far it has been established that the ACORN 8 have a serious problem with the truth if it does not suit their needs and/or financial goals and we have learned that they are hesitant to debate the facts of my argument.

Over a once Mighty Oak, Tiny Nuts Fight for Control

ACORN insiders paint a tale of internal strife and power struggles that date back to at least 2006. On page 37 of the aforementioned ACORN YEYB report, ACORN Wade Rathke hinted at this struggle:

“Leadership Maude Hurd, as President, and her team continue to be somewhat embattled but opposition has become more specific and marginalized on many issues. It is easiest to understand the national board though these days as having two parties: the ruling party and the opposition party. Some progress was made in some ways in the October meeting in moving the opposition party to being more of a ‘loyal’ opposition, and that is a hopeful sign, if it continues to trend.”

Evidence exists to suggest the departure of Wade Rathke as a result of a whistleblower disclosing the embezzlement scandal permitted the opposition party to use the embezzlement to gain control. ACORN board meeting notes seem to suggest at the alliance between Marcel Reid, Karen Inman and Bertha Lewis that was exposed in my prior article

Bertha takes control:

Lie #4 KAPFCU

In addition, Michael McCray appears to be very upset that his connection to KAPFCU has been exposed and so he tried to rewrite history.

“KAPFCU was contracted by an ACORN management committee to investigate and perform due diligence following the $1 Million embezzlement….”

I told the real story in “For CPAC and Glenn Beck, The Truth About the ACORN 8,” backed with citations and screen shots but I do have additional research.

Apparently, Reid’s unsolicited proposal from Michael McCray’s Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union (KAPFCU) could be considered part of  the opposition party of the ACORN board strategy to control ACORN for their own gain.

The proposed agreement between ACORN and KAPFCU was an attempt to wrestle control of CCI’s ACORN business for the benefit of KAPFCU without disclosing a potential conflict of interest.. As a member of the associate board, McCray had significant financial interest in this deal. Fourth quarter reports show a net worth of just over $831,083.41 for KAPFCU, so one can assume that millions of dollars a year and control of ACORN’s vast financial network may have been incentive for the ACORN 8’s next actions.

When the proposal was not immediately accepted, Inman and Reid descended on New Orleans with an attorney ACORN insiders claim was hired and paid for by the KAPFCU. The ACORN 8 hired James Gray, the former law partner of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.

What followed can only be described as misleading press pieces and self-serving statements such as the ones below. The ACORN 8’s lawsuit filed in Louisiana District Court (ACORN vs. Rathke, et al., case no. 08-8342,) was dismissed, but a number of misleading articles and statements made their way into the press.

ACORN insiders state that Reid manipulated the situation. When their deception was revealed to the board, a number of members voted to withdraw the lawsuit and then to remove Reid and Inman. According to ACORN Association board meeting notes dated June 20, 2008, Bertha Lewis and Steve Kest were tasked with hiring professional consultants, not Reid. Inman and Reid’s positions were temporary and the committee reported to the entire board. Reid was expected to  step down at the next board meeting in October of 2008.

The ACORN 8 paint a scenario of ACORN leadership throwing them out, but their peers voted for each action including one of their own ACORN 8 members. Coya Mobley initially voted to withdraw the lawsuit, but changed her mind three days later in a rambling email to the board:

“He is beating us down as if he was our Slave Master with a whip and still creeping into our homes to take what ever he can get. And, all we are going to do is say Master please don’t whip me any more, don’t rape me any more, don’t master don’t!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE……….SLAVERY IS OVER……….STOP THIS MADNESS AND GET OFF OF WADE RATHKE’S TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!. “

Mobley repeated the same sentiment on the 6/22/2009 episode Glenn Beck show in a video that has been yanked from the web.

As this is the only video of the ACORN 8 on Glenn Beck that has disappeared, one has to wonder if the removal of the video may have something to do with the embarrassing admission of active participation in the Muscle for Money program.

The Root of All Evil

Michael McCray’s KAPFCU is the nation’s first “virtual credit union” and as a small credit union, KAPFCU is constantly looking for opportunities to grow:

“In 2008, KAPFCU has applied for $100k in financial assistance and $500k in technical assistance.

…Vic also announced that there’s a $1.2B credit union in Baton Rouge that is designated as a low-income institution. This allows them to take in secondary capital, and not affect their net income ratio. KAPFCU is currently at 3.18%. The NCUA would like us to be at 7%. So, the low-income designation is one of the vehicles that KAPFCU plans to utilize to increase its net income ratio.”

In what appears to be a closely knit network of affiliated organizations with the same board members and suspect motives the ACORN 8 are really similar to ACORN. PRWeb searches show press releases where the related organizations laud each other (here, and here)  and in some cases bestow newly created awards on members of the group. My prior article touched on this network, but research has uncovered additional affiliates of the ACORN 8. The new list is as follows:

The Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement (CARCLE)

Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored (POPULAR)

The ACORN 8

The International Association of Whistle-blowers (IAW)

National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project

The 3.5.7 Commission (appears to be inactive)

The E-Accountability Project

Focus on Indiana

National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA), the official network of Community Forums on Judicial Accountability (CFOJA)

As the KAPFCU Administrator of Community Development Financial Initiatives, McCray seems well placed to coordinate the activities of the organizations, including lending the KAPFCU name to rival ACORN projects:

By starting an organization in direct competition with ACORN and then “Whistle-blowing” on ACORN, the ACORN 8 appears to have deceived America into believing that their intentions were noble.

The biggest PR move involved the so-called Department of Justice complaint. The complaint to the DOJ addressed the embezzlement scandal and used a number of examples to support their “civil RICO” complaint. No disputing the facts here, ACORN is corrupt. However, what is missing from the complaint is intriguing and ties the ACORN 8 back to Obama. Reid appeared eager to file the complaint and was even ready to send it to the press without some exhibits being prepared by the lawyers (screenshot below).

At the last minute the complaint was amended to protect Obama’s mentor, former ACORN leader, Madeline Talbott and her husband, Keith Kelleher. Talbott, is also a fellow New Party alum of Reid and Obama. National Review Online provides the background:

“ACORN’s leading role in the New Party as the result of a conscious decision by the organization to move into electoral politics in a more substantial way than they had been able to solely through their political action committee. In addition to [Wade] Rathke and [Zach] Polett, a key early supporter of the New Party was Obama’s closest ACORN contact, Madeline Talbott.“

The startling fact about the “Department of Justice Complaint” is that when filed in District Court by an ACORN 8 member, it was dismissed. Despite the presence of lawyers McCray, and Zena Crenshaw Logal in the ACORN 8, the complaint was found to lack the basic requirement of a cause of action.

“In the law, a cause of action (sometimes called a claim) is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue.”

The judge dismissed on the grounds that the complaint lacked standing and a cause of action, but it did generate the desired media attention the ACORN 8 needed after the Rathke case was dismissed. Click here to read the entire decision.

Dissecting McCray’s Final Lies

Lie #5 Disparaging other ACORN Whistleblowers

McCray, a co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, used the “MGM” acronym for myself, Michael Gaynor and Michelle Malkin without crediting the originator, blogger Michael Volpe. McCray seems to adopt the same faulty logic as Volpe, who assumes that if someone I know writes a piece about a person or even mentions their names, that is disparagement. For the record, I have never attacked Greg Hall, Hannah James, James O’Keefe or any of the others named in McCray’s rant. Mentioning someone or pointing out facts in regards to the ACORN 8 is not meant to disparage (unless the truth is damaging for that individual).

“Mailroom MonCrief, offered one piece of information purporting to link Project Vote and the Obama campaign which has yet to be publicly proved. She studied the ACORN 8 website and presented our arguments and information as her own until the ACORN 8 cut her off. She became frustrated and resentful having no other contacts or access to inside information, and so she began to attack Marcel Reid, the ACORN 8 and any other noteworthy ACORN critic.”

Two quick things here;  first, besides some puff pieces about the embezzlement and a failed lawsuit against ACORN, the bulk of the ACORN 8’s accusations only involved actions related to the board and their financial rival in the KAPFCU deal, CCI. It was only after my October 2008 testimony, that the ACORN 8 started to acknowledge real ACORN criminality.

Second, if one were to apply McCray’s logic, then HE would be accused of attacking James Murtagh, the other co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, or these statements by Volpe, who wrote at length about Murtagh,

“Dr. Murtagh was paid off to the tune of 1.6 million dollars and silenced at the exact same time that the NIH was investigating Grady Hospital…”

Volpe continued:

“Former Grady trustee Bill Loughrey tells me that the settlement with Dr. Murtagh was never approved or even accurately described to Grady’s board of trustees. He says that he was stunned to learn that tax dollars were paid to Dr. Murtagh, conditioned on his silence. He thinks the agreement is invalid and that the judicial process has been misused.”

Volpe is a minor character in the ACORN 8 story, but he offers an opening to explore a pattern of behavior by Marcel Reid of lying and manipulating bloggers and some media persons.

Volpe’s reward for writing hit pieces on Reid’s enemies was a recommendation of his Wade Rathke interview to Breitbart’s Big Government. Reid helped a so-so writer with a very small following gain access and attention he could not have gotten on his own . As the screen shot of a misdirected email below illustrates, Reid is quite content to pull the strings and let others do her dirty work. While she “lols”, her fingerprints are covered by so-called bloggers like Volpe.

Bloggers and journalists who have written favorable pieces on the ACORN 8 have been granted appearances on “Beck”. Including the late blogger Nancy Armstrong (MsPlaced Democrat).

Print journalists Kevin Mooney and his friend Matthew Vadum, associates of both myself and the ACORN 8, both made appearances during “ACORN 8 week.” Marcel and I worked on a number of pieces with both Vadum and Mooney, who have been responsible for a number of breaking pieces on ACORN. Vadum and I have also appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show.

Lie #5 “Rage Against the Beck”

In yet another ridiculous error-filled and sexist claim McCray states that:

“On March 13, 2009 [This should be May 13, 2009] U.S. Representative Michelle Bauchman [It's Michele Bachmann] (R-MN) appeared on the Glenn Beck show and announced a press conference she was having on Capital [This should be Capitol] Hill. Rep. Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] disclosed the topic was ACORN and she invited both Marcel Reid and Anita MonCrief to participate in the event. In response, Glenn Beck encouraged Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] to continue to put pressure on ACORN but he advised her to be careful with Anita MonCrief considering her checkered past. From that day forward Anita MonCrief has engaged in a personal vendetta against Beck, Reid and ACORN 8 for the slight she believes she received from Glenn Beck on March 13, 2009 [May 13, 2009] - hell hath no fury. “

What McCray does not state is that Marcel Reid had promised Beck’s producers that she would deliver me as she had promised other whistleblowers and ACORN experts to Beck. On May 10, 2009 while reviewing the Elizabeth Kingsley report with Marcel, I took a call from Susan Wertheim of the Beck show on Marcel’s phone. Here is the follow up email Susan sent.

I had begun working with a Eric Shawn of Fox’s America’s News Headquarters. I trusted Shawn’s work on ACORN and finally decided to go on TV and tell my story. On Mother’s Day, I appeared with Shawn and the Nevada Secretary of State.

This appearance had been in the works for sometime and Marcel was aware of this, so when I got the following email from Beck’s Producers, I assumed that Marcel had arranged it and gave her the back story.

Megyn Kelly interviewed me the next day, and Beck wanted me for that evening. Things went a little haywire because, as a novice, I did not know that by accepting Megyn’s invitation that I would upset Beck’s producer Susan, and what followed is a clear indication of how alliances can compromise the integrity of a story. Susan lectured me on the competition for guests at Fox and indicated that I had committed some type of faux paus by appearing on anything but Beck first.

Just two short months after the March show with the RNLA’s  Cleta Mitchell, on which I declined to be interviewed, but for which I provided important background on the AIG bus tour, Beck began warning others, including Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, to stay away from me in favor of the ACORN 8.

Michael McCray appeared in my place in what became “ACORN 8 Day.”

Despite Beck’s slight, even he can not deny that I have provided much evidence connecting ACORN/Project Vote and Obama. The problem with me seemed to lie in the fact that Reid could not control me and make me appear on “Beck” at her command, and it apparently became easier to spread lies than to deal with someone who would not compromise herself for Reid’s power grab. Just a month later,  Beck did not mind relying on my blog for information that would serve as the background for at least two of his shows.

Realizing that we can not let the Left silence us, I put my feelings about Beck’s comments to Bachmann aside, and supported Beck during a summer boycott of his advertisers by the Van Jones affiliated Color of Change.

McCray insinuated that I attacked Beck in my first piece, but instead I pointed out the same inconsistencies in his approach that many other conservatives like Mark Levin have pointed out. Did the ACORN 8 fool Beck? After all, McCray portrays himself and his ACORN 8 allies as friends of the conservative movement.

“MonCrief is featured favorably in the OGR committee report along with Karen Inman, Michael McCray, the ACORN 8 and Marcel Reid who also attended the conservative convention.”

Marcel Reid is about as conservative as Max Blumenthal, who also showed up for his own purposes at CPAC 2010.

Lie #6 The ACORN 8 are allies of the conservative movement

The ACORN 8 use conservatives for their own purposes and those conservatives either do not know the reality of the ACORN 8 or accept the ACORN 8 as an enemy of their enemy.

McCray went on to state:

“We have never professed to be anti-ACORN or anti-Obama. Although many other conservative activists want us to be; which brings us back to Anita MonCrief.”

“While others have waged a war of rhetoric and words against ACORN and President Obama we have focused on criminality within the association…. We have not criticized others for their activism and collaborate with those whom we share common interests; and we respectfully disengage from those who do not share our goals or approach.”

As one blogger put it at Hot Air in a post about Beck, “Its not conservative”

Lie #7 Anita MonCrief is a thief

Beck’s CPAC speech mentioned ‘redemption’ a number of times and like it or not, he did make some powerful points. By admitting that he is not perfect, he opens a door to himself and let’s people in. People love him for his boldness and the way he interacts. Redemption means acknowledging fault and being vulnerable in a public way. I’m not perfect, as I’ve explained repeatedly (here,  here,  here, and here ) but I admitted that I was on the wrong path.

Despite the way Beck speaks of redemption, he still used the fact that I put personal expenses on a Project Vote credit card to warn Bachmann away, a tactic used repeatedly by the ACORN 8. The ACORN 8 have joined ACORN in trying to discredit me now that I am exposing them. I testified under oath regarding the credit card matter and discussed it on “The Laura Ingraham Show” in October 2008. Contrary to what McCray would like you to believe, I did not try to pass my expenses off as company expenses and was paying the balance. I wrote about it extensively here.

Conclusions

I have addressed the allegations made by McCray in his piece without alliteration, slogans or lies.  On the other hand, the ACORN 8 have done everything to paint themselves in a favorable light while bullying and marginalizing anyone who dares to speak the truth about them

The irony is that as America fights back against Obama’s dictator-like attitude towards passing healthcare, we are continuing to make the same mistakes of the past. ACORN was funded during Republican administrations because we did not have our own infrastructures in the minority and low-income areas. Unfortunately for Republicans and conservatives is that what was most expedient was also most harmful. ACORN invaded our schools, toyed with our banks, wrecked havoc on the electoral system, and laid the groundwork for a permanent leftist majority. By aligning ourselves with radicals to solve one problem, we create others. The ACORN 8 have been conning conservatives and protecting Obama and his dangerous agenda.

I’ve put off writing this long enough.

Some weeks back while I was abroad St George posted a piece about Liberals “not of the Left” here at RS, which I’d written back in ‘07. As far back as I can remember I’ve sent off an annual ceremonial email to Rush Limbaugh for his misuse of this term, reminding him that not all liberals are “of the Left.” Oh, well. We all know what he means, in a general sort of a way, and I was merely expressing my distress that many “good liberals” would never come over to our side as long as he was painting them with such a broad leftish brush. Words mean things, and I’ve been quoted by so many others.

In 2009 enter the meteoric rise to national prominence of Glenn Beck, since he moved over to Fox, for he has grabbed hold of that “progressive” word in much the way Limbaugh has “liberal”, as a shibboleth that somehow sets him apart…in this case, from Limbaugh.

Therein lies a problem.

Even before CPAC, when it was announced that Beck would be giving the keynote, I told Bernie, If he hits a home run with his use, and misuse, of “progressive”, expect the fur to fly. He did, it has, and just as I predicted, from Beck’s fans, some of whom are just as loyal, and blindered, as Limbaugh’s.

Last week a lady called Rush (I get to listen to his show more often than Glenn’s) to lambaste him about  “going easy” on the Republican Party (who Glen infers are just as “progressive” as the Democrats). So, for a few days Rush dished it back in his inimitable way by having Snerdley blow a horn from to time to time to signal that he had to say something bad (gratuitously) about the GOP, thus mocking the Beck fans, for their pettiness. Get my drift, girls?

This is a staking out of turf, plain and simple, but it is getting perilously close to petty, a la Letterman and Leno. “The View” petty. It’s as if two gamblers were trying to set up competing high stakes poker tables at opposite ends of a cruise ship…losing sight that they were on the Titanic.

This is also childish, and if you have followed both as long as I have, you’ll know the potential danger that can arise here, over just two words, neither of which are correctly used. If Limbaugh’s and Beck’s armies start going at at it, and the Left is egging this on, imagine how the Tea Parties might be split.

Now inferentially, the logic of what Glenn Beck is teaching is that the GOP is “progressive”, just like the Democrats, and in George Corley Wallace’s words, “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between ‘em.” He isn’t preaching third party, but he’s getting close to it….all to satisfy a distinctive characteristic that is as much professional vanity as it is a misguided sense of scholarship. (If Beck had called progressives “socialists” then I wouldn’t be writing this.) But neither would he have his argument that the Republicans and Democrats are closer to one another than they really are. He would have lost his singular position. (I have other issues with the trail of Mr Beck’s logic.)

Now Limbaugh understands the score on this point. I agree with his argument. He believes that Conservatives have to take back the Republican Party, while Beck seems to be saying Conservatives need to learn and know, and understand who they are, become more centered, then bring whoever will agree with them over to their side. To hell with the parties. (If you’ve ever wondered how the Second Century Church ever split up so quickly, you’re seeing it here.)

Ironically, while I think Limbaugh’s right on the strategy, I believe Glenn Beck is the only public person who can make that strategy happen, except, if you’ve noticed, they’re not on the same page. Why? It’s all really about “biznez”, and those two damned words, and not the “Wahr”. The poker game trumps the seaworthiness of the ship.

So, this is where I get a little irate, and I go over and get my little Commie cap with the Red Star, and wonder how the Enemy might be seeing this turf war develop, and how they might want to help it along.

Now, I’m older than both those guys, and quite frankly am more experienced in many ways (other than broadcasting), e.g., I once shot a good stick of golf (better than Rush, around 8), and have been thrown out of more saloons than Beck, slept on a pool table, been to two state fairs, been drug through a bush backwards, and can tell a horse from a mule…which means I can for sure as hell tell a Republican from a Democrat, Mr Beck. In fact, both get on my nerves at times, but then again, I never liked Hawkeye Pierce, either, but watched that show anyway.

But see, that’s the test we all have to confront here everyday on RedState…having to dig deep to agree with someone we probably wouldn’t like if we knew them in real life. For you see, those two men are one-man armies that are indispensable to this fight, each in his own way. But much like Hamilton and Jefferson, they have to keep their respective “petty differences” and the sauciness of their devotees, at bay. Resume the fight after the war.

I just wish they were a two-man army instead.

For you see, in like manner as Limbaugh’s “liberals”, there have always been throughout modern history progressives, who also were “not of the Left”. Limbaugh uses “liberal” colloguially to express many things that are defined differently, but Beck attempts to use “progressivism” as a precisely-defined scholarly term to define many different things cultural having nothing to do with the political aspirations of “progressivism”, as if they were the same. In many ways, his misuse of the word is more dangerous, precisely because it leads one off into a direction of third party, or a non-party, and it omits the historical notion that the ground he claims for conservatism has already been staked out, a flag planted, and that banner is the Republican Party. The GOP is the natural home of liberty and conservatism. It’s our brand. Why go searching for a new plot of ground?

To put progressivism in the proper context of American history I suggest Mr Beck go back to the founding of the GOP in 1856 and the writings of even lesser known political philosophers such as George William Curtis, for it was their ideals that held sway in America from the Civil War forward to the beginning of intellectual progressivism around 1900-1910. And it was the risen “common man” who defined that era, especially amidst those great waves of foreign immigration. It was the “American Doctrine of Liberty”, and those teeming millions coming through Ellis Island, seeking to be free, more than the Founder’s vision, that confronted the progressive vision in 1900.

Besides, and I know I’m beating a dead horse here, why use “liberal” when you know there are liberals not of the Left, or use “progressive”, when you know there are progressives not of the Left…while you also know there are no socialists who are not of the Left, nor any Marxists, fascists, Nazis, Communists, also who are not of the Left?

For want of nail, the shoe was lost…..(Ben Franklin)

To be “of the Left” you have to have an added ingredient, a teaspoon, maybe, a tablespoon, I’m not sure, but that ingredient isn’t stupidity, or good intentions, or guilt. But simply being for “big government”, or adhering to a body of knowledge and political customs we here call big-city or up-east (blue state), or RINO, but which has been around since their grandfathers were in knee pants, does not make one a man of the Left. What it does is make one “not a conservative”. The Constitution itself does not paint its citizens with such bold, broad strokes. It understands you are “for it” and it understands you are “against it”. But most of all it understands the far larger group, “don’t know that much about it”. That was always the contest….educating them and bringing them over…and our side seems to be losing.

Using Mitch McConnell as a foil, I’m on record here as wanting him gone. Not just from GOP leadership, but the Senate. But I want him replaced by a conservative, not a “Louavul Leftie”. And since Blue Dogs have proved how well “conservative-to-moderate” Democrats are allowed to behave in Congress, I want him or her wearing a big R- in front of their name, not a D-. Sorry, Glenn, that’s how I see it. Even the Maine Blueberries are more apt to vote the Big R than Blue Dogs are the Little C.

Limbaugh knows McConnell, and likes him, and holds back his most strident language for people he genuinely doesn’t like, such as M’Cain. (Just because of an annual black-tie cigar smoke with Arnold every year, it’s taken Limbaugh longer than most to finally see through the fakery of California’s second most famous actor-governor. ) Limbaugh’s weakness is the politics of friendship…which only means he’s neither a Trotsky nor a Cromwell. He’s human. He still criticizes McConnell, but he is absolutely correct in drawing daily distinctions between the GOP, who are gelded big-government “moderates” (dare I use that word?) and the bulk of the Democrats, who, in one form or another, are dedicated “socialists, of the Left.”

Beck really doesn’t make those distinctions, and again, in order to stake out his own professional ground, seems to argue against these distinctions even being made.

But Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are indispensable to the conservative movement, and the conservative movement is just about all that stands between the greatest experiment in human freedom since the beginning of time, and abject tyranny. The stakes cannot get any higher. It’s from this observation that I make this little criticism.

I’m not a pedant or prig, but a pragmatist….and this is war in which we cannot go off spitting over lines drawn in the dirt. Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams overcame this, dammit! Limbaugh has staked out his turf as that of analyst. He’s the best there is. But he is also “planned for” by the Left. While I rely on his opinions about events, he really isn’t kicking the war forward, as Nimitz did, from the Solomons, to Tarawa, to Iwo Jima, and onward to Okinawa.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is un-planned for, (although he’s beginning to telegraph a little) and possibly the most important general in this war, short of Aragorn suddenly showing up after his walk through the Paths of the Dead. So far, he still seems to be able to stay a step ahead of the Left.

Three times now I have asked these guys to sit down and stake out “areas of responsibility” and sign some sort of mutual non-aggression pact. (Bad choice of words, huh?) Let Levine and Judge Napolitano draw up the papers. But they won’t, even though AH, TJ and JH did.

In my own garrulous way, I’ve just given you 2000 words of preface, just to say that we really need to make “socialism” and other words dirty again. If Limbaugh and Beck were more caring for their misuse of what have become very important words, we wouldn’t be talking about this sideshow….for as I write this…

…Recent polls show up to a third of the people aren’t too bothered by the word “socialist” or even by being called that name. But since polls also show that 80% of college students (and probably the media) would fail (below 60%) a standard 9th grade civics exam…it’s also clear most of them don’t know what that word “socialist” even means, or the implications of what it means. (Design or accident? Gimme a break.)

In other words, kids today, and for at least thirty years, haven’t been taught anything about the fundamental principles of our system of government; it history, its heroes, and its wonderfulness, and certainly nothing about the enemies of these things.

They aren’t being taught…which in sum, allows both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to pervert the language and possibly split the armies of conservatism…over a damned nail for a horseshoe.

Then consider that home schooling, while helping, isn’t helping enough, by a long shot. First, kids learn best when they share the wonderment of a thing with their peers. Just take your 8 year old to see E.T. alone, and take him with six or seven other kids, then observe the differences; in wonder, in passion, in enjoyment. Paul Revere’s Ride is no different. Washington’s crossing of the Delaware is no different.

Author’s message, Author’s message, Author’s message

We’re asking home-schoolers to consider having night courses for classrooms of 15-20 kids, in the 4th, 6th-7th grade, then again in the 11th-12th grade as information becomes more sophistication. This requires organization, it requires planning and it requires commitment.

We’ve written often about winning the politics, taking back the institutions, and the culture, but not necessarily in that order. Here you/we must take back the culture now, in the words of Latin smugglers, in the “informal economy” of ideas and education.

GLENN BECK’S BLACK & WHITE (OR, ENOUGH TEDDY-BASHING!)
Glenn Beck bashed Theodore Roosevelt in the CPAC speech and Beck bashed TR again today. Painting TR’s presidency in black and white (and to Beck, it’s all black) is just wrong.

The Progressives of the Progressive Era (1890-1920) did some very good things and some very bad things, and we should acknowledge both. Teddy’s progressive philosophy was a far cry from the progressives-on-steroids Alinsky-Obama model of today. Glenn Beck had people at CPAC and in his studio audience today booing Theodore Roosevelt, as if he had been Haman of a Purim play, or as if he had been Stalin or Mao or Hitler.

Progressives (especially in the Progressive Era, like TR) were not all collectivists (Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, what have you)–the really toxic stuff. In 1912, TR’s Progressive Party (”Bull Moose”) ran against Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party.

Theodore Roosevelt is now lower than Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Beck calculus–TR’s three evils being that he had been earlier than FDR, that TR was a Republican (who should have known better), and that TR is John McCain’s hero.

Thomas Paine, in contrast, is not demonized by Glenn Beck. Paine is a hero. From CampusProgress:

Trying to make ‘Sense’ of Glenn Beck
The conservative icon’s latest book blends Beck’s typical hyperbole with a gross misrepresentation of Thomas Paine’s political views.
By Michael Corcoran
August 3, 2009
(…)
Paine in his own time was radically progressive—in some ways socialist—and on most issues would be way to the left of the typical parameters of debate in Washington D.C. In the 1775 writing Agrarian Justice, Paine became among the first in the colonies to advocate for a “guaranteed minimum income.” Sounding a lot more like Eugene Debs than Beck, Paine’s proposal was to “create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person when arrived at the age of twenty-one years … for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property.”

I don’t hate Teddy Roosevelt and I believe that all of you should at least give him a fair shake, before blasting TR’s image from Mount Rushmore. Picking on a long-dead guy and distorting his record is wrong.

My parents were both born in New York City (I was born in a suburb) and my late father (who was a Republican) admired TR, telling me several of his quotations. TR’s house on East 20th Street in New York City is a landmark that’s worth a visit. When I ran for Manhattan Borough President, I held an event at the Metropolitan Republican Club (which features a huge bust of TR) and I spoke before the TR Club.

The Daily Caller quickly addressed the issue; this slightly longer interview is from Matt Lewis’s own website:

TR Author Responds to Glenn Beck’s Criticism
James Strock — author of “Reagan on Leadership” and “Theodore Roosevelt on Leadership” — just emailed me his thoughts on Glenn Beck’s criticism of Teddy Roosevelt:

TR—a great student of history as well as one who made history—cautioned: “There is nothing cheaper than to sneer at and belittle the great men and great deeds and great thoughts of a bygone time—unless it is to magnify them and ascribe preposterous and impossible virtues to the period.”

It is impossible to know what TR would have thought of our challenges today. But we know that he was a voracious learner, immensely creative. To take him, in amber, and thrust views expressed in 1910 may be amusing but it’s not serviceable.

Here’s an article from More or Less Bunk:

Glenn Beck throws Theodore Roosevelt under the bus.
(…)
I look forward with bated breath to reading Beck’s forthcoming defense of tainted meat, denying women suffrage and child labor.

Here’s an article at FrumForum::

Beck’s Small Tent GOP
February 25th, 2010 at 12:33 am by David Jenkins
At the recent CPAC gathering, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, in an apparent jab at Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said, “We have a guy in the Republican Party who says his – his favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt.” He then proceeded to skewer one of America’s most beloved presidents as a socialist.
(…)
Beck fails to mention that immediately prior to the snippet he read, TR compared successful entrepreneurs to great generals who deserve to be glorified. In his speeches, TR is very clear that while he sought equality of opportunity—“a square deal”—he abhorred any notion of trying to equalize outcomes, which he makes clear later in the speech:…

From David Horowitz’s NewsReal:

Joe Klein Needs History Lesson in Progressivism
2010 February 25
(…)
In 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party, the plank of his “Bull Moose Party” called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of monopolies, women’s suffrage, prohibition of child labor, measures to combat political corruption and the like. This was the foot in the door for increasing government control over our lives, but just one foot.

In 1924, the Conference for Progressive Political Action adopted a progressive plank that went beyond mere government regulation and called for government ownership of the nation’s railroads, timber forests, coal, ore and oil fields. It also called for massive income redistribution through sharp increases in taxes for the wealthy and “taxes upon excess profits.” Sound familiar?

Yes, by the end of the Progressive Era (1890-1920), the brand had seriously dipped into collectivism. But let’s look at TR’s progressivism. This was an age of the robber barons, of the few very rich (Rockefeller, Carnegie) and great mass of immigrants working 10-hour days in swearshop firetraps. There was no middle class. There were few, if any, laws for public health and safety.

Women vote and run for office today because progressives like Teddy Roosevelt fought for it. Does Glenn Beck think woman suffrage is a bad thing? He never mentions it, does he? Because, to him, progressivism is a cancer, and every progressive person and idea is a cancer, and you can’t have just a little cancer. It’s all bad. Doesn’t everyone think that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are assets to our Republic?

Isn’t child labor a bad thing? Does Glenn Beck want his kids to work 10 hours a day in a coal mine? After Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, there came meat inspection laws and yes, an early version of the FDA. Glenn Beck, put yourself in TR’s shoes. You’d do nothing? Or wouldn’t you establish basic industry procedures and try to make damn sure there’s no diseased meat on your plate? TR tried to break up corruption–is anyone against that? The 1912 Progressive Platform advocated good roads–horrible idea, right? The 1912 Progressive Platform called for building two battleships a year in peacetime to build a strong defense. The Progressive Era also gave us the Boy Scouts.

TR developed national parks and sought to preserve forests. However, to compare that to the global warming, tree-hugging, eco-nut crowd of today is ridiculous.

Does anyone think that TR would at all be like Barack Obama? Does anyone think that TR would go around the world apologizing for America? Does anyone think that TR would call terrorism an “overseas contingency operation”? Does anyone think TR would openly declare that he won’t invest in weapons systems and will not weaponize space? Does anyone think that TR would hire an Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano or John Brennan or Van Jones? Does anyone think that TR would establish a new position of FCC Diversity Czar? Does anyone think that TR would consult with SEIU and ACORN before he makes a move? Does anyone think that TR would bankrupt the coal industry? Does anyone think TR would go for the cap & trade hoax and massively increase costs of American business? Does anyone think that TR would say that America should defer to the UN, and that we’re just one nation, exactly the same as all others?

Glenn Beck blames the Progressives for the income tax, but 16th Amendment was basically written under the administration of William Howard Taft, a Republican. Beck also blames the Progressives for Prohibition, but I didn’t see that in the 1912 Progressive Party Platform. A lot of people of faith supported Prohibition–from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union to the Mormons. A past Beck show credited TR with this 1902 strike phrase: “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!” I have found no contemporary evidence that TR ever said it, although others have said things similar to this.

Some of the Progressive Platform is still debated today. The Seventeenth Amendment brought the direct election of senators, breaking up what had been an old man’s club. This web site, for example, argues that the 17th Amendment should be abolished. However, would Scott Brown ever have been a Massachusetts senator under the old system, with senator selection given to state legislators?

Painting Theodore Roosevelt in only black and white and projecting him into the Barack Obama progressive of today is wrong. I sure wish Glenn Beck wouldn’t do this every night and I’m saddened that he did it at CPAC.

ABOUT THAT CPAC “STATUE OF LIBERTY” FINALE
I made a comment about this and boy, did I get bashed for it. I was accused of nitpicking. Glenn Beck did this twice, and it was the grand finale at CPAC, and it’s unbelievably crazy if you know the truth, so it’s worth another look and a fuller explanation.

This is the first time Beck used these symbols:

The Message Behind Obama’s Broken Promises
Thursday, February 04, 2010
By Glenn Beck
(…)
Let me show you first — this is a picture of the Colossus of Rhodes. They didn’t have digital camera in 280 B.C. So, this is artist rendering of what it was. This was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It took 12 years to build. It stood about 107 feet high. I believe that’s the height of the Statue of Liberty.

Beck shows a 1754 painting by Mario Larrinaga. The painting shows a statue disproportionately large. Scholars now mostly agree that ships didn’t sail beneath the legs of the statue; it would be too difficult for the ancients to construct that in bronze.

You can get a sense of how huge this thing was. We’re not sure but we think that it was in somewhat of a slouched or relaxed position, because of the confidence people felt by the people of Rhodes. They have become an important economic port in the ancient world and felt invincible. I don’t even know where Rhodes is, do you?

Yes, my wife and I went to the Greek isles on our honeymoon.

There is no evidence of the stance of the statue. No one has any idea if it stood in a slouched or relaxed position. Beck is looking at a painting made 2000 years later. It’s as if I drew a picture of Jesus right now, and told you that we don’t know what Jesus looked like, but he probably looked something like what I just drew 2000 years later!

Now, let me contrast this with the Statue of Liberty. Here’s the Statue of Liberty. This was built by the French. It was a gift from the French to us, but it really was meant to wake Europeans up out of their system of liberty that was modeled after the Colossus of Rhodes. This was really a thumb in the eye of Europe.
But the difference in its stance speaks volumes and it was meant to. First of all, you’ll notice that he is holding arrows and a bow, right? What is she holding? She’s holding the tablet of law.

You’ll notice that he’s holding arrows and a bow? Yes, in a painting made 2000 years later, the Colossus is holding arrows and a bow. There is no historical evidence that the Colossus held arrows and a bow. To contrast something we don’t know (from 2000 years ago) to the Statue of Liberty is insane.

Someone should have critiqued and corrected the argument, but Beck repeated it at CPAC and actually made it worse:

If you know anything – look it up when you get home. The Colossus of Rhodes. A giant statue that stood astride by the harbor holding a lamp, like this (posing).

No. No! NOOOOOOOOOO!

The Colossus of Rhodes was the idea behind the designer of Lady Liberty, but totally different. The Colossus of Rhodes is like this (posing) and then – watch this, watch the – watch the cameras. Like this (posing) – and they all put up – this – you guys are so predictable.
(laughter)
We got him looking stupid. Quick, take it!
The Colossus of Rhodes – you know how they’re standing. And they have arrows – he had arrows, okay?

Taken from a painting made 2000 years later, now being told to misinform CPAC.

Here’s what we always get wrong. And when we come to this understanding, when we truly change in our minds this one error in history, I think we will blaze to life again.

We always read Emma Lazarus’s “The New Colossus” wrong? Did he speak with Emma for the correct version? We will “blaze to life again” by reading the poem another way?

The poem on the Statue of Liberty – it’s always read like this:
(reading) Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, the tempest tossed, to me. And I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Well if you read it like that and you really think it through, what are we? A hospital?
(laughter)
What are we? Are we – is the Statue of Liberty saying to Europe, guys, Europe, you’re never going to make it with all that refuse. Send it over to me, we’ll take care of it over here. We’ll – we’ll just – we’re just trying to set you – guys you’re never going to succeed with all that riff-raff, come on, send it over here, you guys can get busy and do some work. That’s not what it means. It was never intended to read that way. Remember, the Statue of Liberty was mocking the old system. The Statue of Liberty was used to ignite inside the French, liberty. Look at America. Look what they’re doing. It was meant to be read like this:

Beck confuses two different things–the statue (by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi) and the poem (by Emma Lazarus). Lazarus viewed the statue as ‘Mother of Exiles.” Bartholdi didn’t design his statue so people could leave France as fast as they could. The poem should be read tenderly, as a mother comforting masses yearning to breathe free.

Beck then proceeds to read the poem like Kenneth Branaugh in Henry V, leading troops into battle.

(reading) Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land – here, at our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is imprisoned lightning, and her name: Mother of Exiles. From her beacon hand glows worldwide welcome. Her mild eyes command the air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. Keep your ancient lands, your storied pomp cries she, with silent lips. Give me, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse from your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, the tempest tossed, to me. I hold – I hold my lamp beside the golden door.
(applause)

Thunderous CPAC applause.

I thought that the reading was completely wrong for the poem, and I still think so.

I urge you to judge for yourself.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer who gets most things right, often brilliantly so. He also, unfortunately, gets many things wrong–and repeats the errors.

It is most important to take him up on his frequent statement–”Read history!”–and to keep an open mind.

We’ve seen the likes of Time Magazine, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and Newsweek link the Joe Stack airplane attack to the conservative movement.  But in an interesting twist, a political blogger for The Nation has inexplicably linked Stack to several players at the recent CPAC convention - including Tim Pawlenty, Scott Brown, and most notably Glenn Beck. 

This post originally appeared at MatthewHurtt.com:

Rush Limbaugh defended Republicans today in the wake of Glenn Beck’s criticisms during his keynote address on Saturday night at CPAC. Let’s take a listen:

Read More →

 

 

What did Glenn Beck really say at CPAC?

 

This morning’s many commentaries on Glenn Beck’s CPAC speech were very confusing. Did they all hear the same speech?

What I heard was the following. An impassioned plea for the republican party to stop what they have been doing and take time to reflect and really analyze their actions in the years since the Reagan presidency.

In their speeches they all mention their admiration for President Reagan and what he stood for, yet their actions seldom show that they are in fact true to his philosophies.

Once they get elected and arrive in Washington DC, they drink the water that seems to be infected with spend and tax viruses. Glenn Beck was right in his statement at CPAC when he said, “One party says it will tax and spend. The other party says it won’t tax and will spend.”

Many comments have been made that Beck advocates a third party movement, nothing is further from the truth. What he is in fact saying is that the Republican Party must make a stand against Progressivism and make it now, before it’s too late.

He is advocating for true Conservatives to influence the party and support true Conservatives within the party.

Yes, he has on occasion said, maybe that means a third party. But that is a reflection that republicans then could join that rejuvenated Conservative version of the old Republican Party.

We can avoid such a temporary turmoil in the Republican Party by recognizing the true Conservatives such as Rubio in Florida, DeMint in South Carolina and many others that are bubbling up via the Tea Party movement and other Conservative organizations. Are all those potential Conservative candidates going to be true to their campaign speeches, probably not? We do however have plenty of evidence about many Republican Congressmen and women who have proven their inability to be real Conservatives.

Fred Speckmann

commonsenseforamericans.webs.com

It happened this weekend at CPAC.  It was the first time I’d ever attended a conservative convention and all the way up to 6:00 pm on Saturday, I thought that I had figured out what this convention would mean to me and how it would affect my outlook on the 2010 elections, the Republican Party, Libertarians and so on.  I could not have been more short-sighted in my original estimations.

The hour or so that Glenn Beck was speaking was nothing short of inspirational and could very well have been life-changing for me.  This had less to do with Mr. Beck himself although his oratory skills and presentation abilities were impressive.  (For the Fox News challenged, watch via this special interweb link.  Go. Watch. I’ll wait.

Back? Awesome.

It was the subject matter of his speech that was so compelling.  It made me wonder, “How had I gone this long without understanding what being an American meant?”  The obvious shortcomings of the educational system aside, I should know better. I’m a conservative. My dad was a pastor.  I’m a Christian. I’m a top 5% income earner. I’m self-employed. I have children.  And above all else, my brother is Caleb Howe.  Shouldn’t these things have been enough for me to get it?

Right about now, you may be asking “Get what?” Well first of all, had you followed my instructions and watched the video, the answer is obvious. Secondly, what I didn’t get was how important America is to the world. Ronald Reagan famously said that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  My grasp on history was so lacking, that I guess I just sort of assumed that was a saying and that the extinction of freedom had forever been banished from the realm of possibility.

Obama’s election and the moves by the left woke me up to the notion that freedom is still under attack; but we’ve been through so many campaign cycles and fought off the Democrats so many times, that it still just felt like the cyclical nature of our lives.  A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, wrongly sums it up this way: “Yeah, we’re probably looking at a good 20 yrs of moving to socialism followed by 20 yrs of moving back to the right.”

Only through the lens of history do you see how untrue that is.  The progressives have never stopped. Their relentless pursuit of the Utopian dream (or nightmare depending on how you look at it) has, over the long haul, been successful!  Look at how much closer we are to the Progressive ideal.  Look at how far their efforts have gotten them. They’ve infiltrated every aspect of our political system, our media, special interest groups, corporate culture, pop culture. They’re everywhere, and more importantly, they’re now in charge.  We sat on our thumbs and look what happened.  The progressives are back in the Presidency and they are poised to strike the killing blow to liberty.

As the speech continued, I could not help but look at my own life and my own decisions when listening to Beck talk about overcoming his adversities and trials.  As I did, I came to a chilling realization: I had allowed my life to get out of control.

In spite of the fact that I had known prosperity and profit, I managed to put myself in a terrible position of mountainous debt and very little in terms of a plan on how to deal with it. Rather than deal with it, I pushed it.  Pushed the debt further and further. As I pushed it it became larger, yet my income had not grown, in fact it had shrunk.  Now there was an ocean of debt and my only option had become to make more money!  Problem: I had no plan on how to do this.  I know you’re waiting for me to say that this isn’t true and it’s simply a metaphor, but everything I just typed is exactly what my situation is and it’s the same for many others. America is in the situation she is because her people are.  The progressives are ready to pounce on that fact and cause her final collapse so they can rebuild her in their image.

The situation is every bit as dire as your worst conspiracy theories.  My come to Jesus moment was the realization that if my house is not in order, I will be of little use to the defense of liberty.  I must end the excuses.  I must stop pushing my problems off into some distant, uncertain and shaded future while assuming that I’ll figure something out between now and then.  The Republican party MUST come to this same realization.  They are the same as me in many ways.  They’ve got the right idea but they’ve got stop making excuses and get their house in order. No more good enough politics. As Beck said, “not sucking as much as the other guy” isn’t going to cut it.  Accept your missteps as I have, start working towards the solution, but don’t wait until you’re done fixing yourself to start making a difference.

America is the last beacon of hope in a world who has known tyranny and oppression for far longer than it has known liberty.  I can no longer wait for my financial situation to have improved to begin rebuilding.  I can no longer wait to be an activist, to be a voice of my movement, to be a leader in my town.

It is not dusk. It is before the dawn if only we want it to be so.  Our morning in America is around the corner.

Now that I’ve had twelve hours of sleep after four days of three hour nights, I can settle in and focus on the CPAC that was and was not. There was no dominant theme at CPAC this year, which was surprising. The Ron Paul kids were out in force leading him to the straw poll, there was not a great deal of buzz on Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney was more the establishment guy than last time, etc. About the only significant buzz was at the beginning and the end — Rubio and Beck.

This morning I was greeted to close to 100 emails of mixed reviews on Glenn Beck’s speech. There seem to be a lot of people who did not like Glenn Beck equating the Republicans to the Democrats. For an example, let me refer you to Bill Bennett. Secretary Bennett and I had an encounter on CNN the other night sounding out similar themes. He did not like me batting down the establishment GOP as something less than he thought they were.

Glenn Beck’s speech gave resonance to what a lot of the tea party activists and conservatives at CPAC feel — the GOP is as bad as the Democrats. But we have to have a very careful caveat here: the GOP has not been good on spending and portions of economic policy. We cannot make it, however, a blanket statement. As Glenn Beck said last night, “One party says it will tax and spend. The other party says it won’t tax and will spend.” We have to be careful in our zeal to clean up Washington not to take that for more than what it is.

Therein lies much of the concern. There is real angst that some people are agitating for a third party because of what they see as an unrepentant GOP. And the fear is that Glenn Beck is feeding this. I hope he is not. I would have to part ways if that were the case. History shows that neither the most popular third party candidate, Teddy Roosevelt, nor the richest, Ross Perot, were ever able to get elected. All they did was get the Democrat elected.

And for those of you who think that is no big deal, let me ask you again: how many Americans are going to die because of Barack Obama’s handling of our national security? If you think the GOP would be as bad on this issue, you need a reality check.

It is the GOP that wants to cut the costs of health care through expanding the free market. It is the GOP that wants to fight the enemy instead of compromising with them. It is the GOP that wants to upend our failing public schools and make them actually teach instead of function as a retirement home for teachers union employees. It is the GOP that stands in defense of freedom against tyranny. It was, for example, the GOP that stood with Honduras against Hugo Chavez while Barack Obama gave a full throated embrace of the communist dictator and the thugs of South America.

But the GOP still does have problems. My position and that of this site is to go conservative in primaries and Republican in generals. That will not change. There are a few points worth mentioning in this regard.

Read More →

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was recently involved in a physical altercation with rapper Sky Blu aboard an Air Canada flight heading from Vancouver to Los Angeles.

While the politician’s spokesman claimed that Romney had been assaulted by a hostile passenger, the rapper (whose real name is Skyler Gordy) claimed he was actually the victim of assault.  Gordy, a member of the group LMFAO said, “He put a condor grip on me - what am I supposed to do?”  His band-mate chimed in with, “that’s like a Vulcan grip.”

While use of the phrases ‘condor grip’ and ‘Vulcan grip’ cast doubt as to the level of street cred Gordy and his cohorts will have intact after this incident, the altercation raises more serious questions: 

Are Mitt Romney’s anger issues similar to what we’re seeing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement?[i]

And

Does the Romney condor grip demonstrate that the Tea Party movement, overwhelmingly white and increasing vocal in its violent dislike of rap music, show that we have not quite attained the level of a post-racial society?[ii]

The answer to both questions is a resounding ‘yes!’

In a recent interview, Mark P. said of Romney, “His airline etiquette seems connected to at least some of the core ideas of the radical right.”

He continued, “In 2008, Kanye West was involved in an altercation at the Los Angeles International Airport.  In addition there were airline scuffles involving rapper DMX in 2004 and 2006.  So rappers are kind of a traditional target of the radical right.”[iii]

A blogger from the Daily Kos explained the Romney/Tea Party connection in the following manner, “After months of threats on the entertainment industry, the Anti-Rap forces known as the teabaggers have struck with their first attack - a really tight squeeze of the arm.”[iv]

Journalist Jonathan C. explained things rather succinctly, “The results that the Tea Party movement envisions include less rap music - and less of LMFAO.” [v]

One thing is certain, anger that propels a 62 year old former governor over a much younger man in a power struggle in the sky, can only be explained by the radical and extremely racist movement that is the teabaggers.

Writer Andrew S. explains that the attack presents a “worrying possibility - that this is populist airline terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts.”[vi]

But is Mitt Romney, as Andrew suggests, merely the trigger man in a far bigger conspiracy to take out unsuspecting rappers mid-flight?

Perhaps the Democratic Underground states things best, ultimately pointing the blame where it rightfully belongs: 

“We need to absolutely expose Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and the legion of others parroting right-wing lies for trumping up this nonsense and getting people to now commit air assault in a hideous fashion.”[vii]

Indeed, Romney and his many right-wing cohorts need to stop this senseless violence against rap.  When it comes to reclining airline seats, violence and Vulcan grips are never the answer. 

• Every quote contained within this article satirically paraphrases actual examples of the mainstream media trying to connect conservatives and Tea Party followers to heinous acts such as the Austin suicide pilot, the Kentucky census worker suicide, and the Alabama shooting case. Each of these absurd smear attempts is linked below. Note to the mainstream media: This is how absurd you sound when you attempt to smear conservatives with a total disregard for facts, heavily armed with embellishments, and completely devoid of morals.

 Photo Credit:  AP Photo/Cliff Owen

---

[i]  PostPartisan - Alienated in Austin

[ii]  Race in America: Does racism explain the ‘tenure shooting’ and Tea Party movement?

[iii]  Matthews’ Southern Poverty Guest Ties Stack To ‘Radical Right’

[iv]  Plane strikes IRS building in Austin

[v]  Race in America: Does racism explain the ‘tenure shooting’ and Tea Party movement?

[vi]  No Suicide

[vii]  Handy Guide to how Republicans and Fox News are responsible for Census worker being hanged