Oh, boy. So, did I get this right, ACORN has/is working with Larry Flynt, the king of pornography??? Holy crappydoo – I am sure so many people will be happy to know that’s to whom their hard earned dollars are going.

Thursday night, James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart were on Hannity (h/t to Bronywyn’s Harbor for this video), and they have some mighty interesting thins to say about who is being scrutinized, and who is not:

What, they expect AG Holder to go after ACORN? Why, because of the numerous tapes revealing their wrong doing? They want him to listen to the whistle blowers who are willing to come forward to expose what ACORN has done – with our tax dollars, I might add? Hey, he’s BUSY working on bringing the 9/11 Masterminds to NYC for a Civilian trial, for pete’s sake (for recent posts on this topic, go HERE and HERE). I mean, really – he’s got his hands full being schooled by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the whole military tribunal thing and all. Sheesh – what do they expect? For Holder to do his JOB???

I am sure they did not expect for Jerry Brown to go after THEM rather than the ACORN employees. Then again, given the way this Administration has been going with ACORN, maybe they should have. I mean, isn’t that why Obama brought in Bauer, to run interference for ACORN? Oh, no, wait – that was to “erase tracks between Obama and ACORN.” Well shoot, in that case, for what are Jerry Brown and Eric Holder waiting?? Ahem.

Well, I don’t think any of us are going to be holding our breath for THAT. And it is so typical that the people exposing the massive problems with ACORN are the very ones being targeted by the Powers-That-Be, rather than the organization engaging in questionable activities.

Our justice system really has lost its bearings when war criminals are extended rights given to American citizens. And American citizens who expose wrong doing by a group receiving Taxpayers money are targeted by those with connections to the justice system. I guess Obama HAS brought change to America…

Following on the heels of their macabre Afghan war protest at a White House Halloween party that targeted children of military families for psychological abuse, leftist Obama ally Code Pink issued a statement justifying the terrorist attack at Fort Hood as opposition to the war from officers and put out a Veterans Day appeal seeking to raise money off the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

Signed by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, the appeal was published at Code Pink’s website on Veterans Day and sent out the same day to the group’s e-mail list. The terrorist attack at Fort Hood is cited three times in the fundraising letter.

As appalling as cashing in on the mass murder of 14 innocents is, Code Pink tops that by invoking sympathy for the alleged terrorist as a reason to give money to Code Pink–even putting his act of terrorism on the same moral plane as the recent protest resignation of a former officer who left his diplomatic post in Afghanistan over Obama’s war policy:

“This Veteran’s Day, you can support Under the Hood and the soldiers who walk through their doors with a cash or in-kind donation…

“Click here to see how else you can support Under the Hood (in-kind donations accepted too).

“Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm’s way. Even US military officers think so–Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan.”

Think about that. Code Pink says a mass murder terrorist act against unarmed soldiers is the moral equivalance (sic) of a protest resignation.

I don’t know about you, but this is disgusting. I don’t know how else to categorize it. It is disgusting to equate one man’s respectful resignation to another man’s alleged mass murder. What the hell is WRONG with these people?? If only it stopped there:

Code Pink is even more direct in their justification for the terrorist attack allegedly by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in a statement posted to their website that they encourage opponents of America in Afghanistan to send to President Obama:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

Code Pink claims the money will be used to fund a campaign operated out of a coffee shop near Fort Hood called Under the Hood that preys on soldiers and their families. However, the donation link goes to Code Pink’s fundraising page and not to Under the Hood’s website. Note, fundraising links in this story are deliberately not active.

This is some organization with which Obama has aligned himself, isn’t it? I am just thoroughly disgusted. TO read the rest of the story, which includes more about “Under the Hood,” the relationship between Obama and Jodie Evans, and additional articles about Code Pink, please click HERE. Disturbing, just disturbing.

And it makes this Krauthammer piece that much more salient, Explaining Away Mass Murder. Indeed That is exactly what the Code Pink fudnraisers are doing with their despicable fundraising efforts:

– What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. … I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists … to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Uh huh. And why is it that someone can’t be nuts AND a terrorist? Many people would see those words as not being the least bit contradictory when used in conjunction. Oops – silly me – inserting logic into that ridiculous argument:

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

I wonder if Dr. Krauthammer would pay a visit to the entire fundraising staff, Obama’s allies, at Code Pink? Now THAT would be a visit I’d like to see, especially since Dr. Krauthammer, like me, thinks this is, well, in my word, obscene:

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital — attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I’ve been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

So many excuses, so little relevance:

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Indeed. Ahem. That organizations like Code Pink are painting this mass murderer of unarmed soldiers in such a sympathetic light, and with such moral superiority, indicates just how far from our moral base we have strayed. At a time when the fallen from that massacre are being buried, for this organization to depict Hasan as nothing more than a victim of US policy, and on the same level as a distinguished war veteran and US State Department employee who resigned with integrity is simply reprehensible.

In other words, the fundraisers at Code Pink, Obama’s ally, have lost their frikkin’ minds. I would say they should be ashamed of themselves, but they clearly, CLEARLY, have no shame at all. And that is most disturbing of all.

One last thing, to the families and friends of those fallen, it breaks my heart that in addition to such a grievous loss, you now have to deal with such outrageous fundraising attempts by a group excusing the actions of this man, Nidal Malik Hasan. I regret that you have to even deal with such additional lunacy an disrespect at this very difficult time. My heart and prayers go out to you all.

And that brings us to this article, Heroes Took Huge Risks To Save Others. Not only are we learning more about Hasan as time passes by, but we are learning more about the actions of that tragic day on Fort Hood, and others who acted selflessly. No doubt, the big hero is Sgt. Munley, and I will get to her in just a minute Here is another hero:

Pfc. Marquest Smith, on his way to Afghanistan in January, was completing routine paperwork about a bee-sting allergy when the sounds erupted.

A loud popping noise. Moans. The sudden, urgent shout of “Gun!”

Smith poked his head over the cubicle’s partition and saw an extraordinary sight: An Army officer with two guns, firing into the crowded room.

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who’d been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

After the shooter stopped to reload, Smith made a run for it. Pushing two other soldiers in front of him, he made it out of the Soldier Readiness Processing center — only to plunge into the building twice more to help the wounded.

Smith had survived the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

It could have been much worse, but for the heroics of Smith and others — including the diminutive civilian police officer who single-handedly took down Hasan.

Of course, that would be Sgt. Munley. More on her below as the picture of what happened on Fort Hood gets filled in. A big piece of that is we are getting some information on where the shooting began:

Decisive Action

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man authorities later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

Packed into cubicles with 5-foot-high dividers, the 300 unarmed soldiers were sitting ducks (emphasis mine). Those who weren’t hit by direct fire were struck by rounds ricocheting off the desks and tile floor.

Let’s just reflect on that for a minute. Hasan chose an area in which the soldiers were close together. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s pretty much what he did after he jumped up onto the desk and started firing. Just picture the logistics of that – man on desk firing on unarmed soldiers (only the MPs and contracted civilian police officers carry guns), 5 foot dividers, 300 soldiers. The potential for mass casualties was set in motion:

When he decided the shooter wasn’t close to being out of ammo, Smith made a dash for the door. He’d made it outside when he heard cries from within.

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

Smith rushed back inside and found two wounded. He grabbed them by their collars and dragged them outside.

Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of “shots fired.” The SRP isn’t on Munley’s beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop.

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley was hit at least three times in the exchange — twice through the left leg and once in her right wrist. Hasan was hit four times.

From the first shots to the last, authorities say the whole incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

Sgt. Munley’s fast response time, not waiting for backup (I wonder if she’ll get lectured about that?), and her willingness to put herself in harm’s way saved who-knows-how-many lives. Clearly, her training kicked in, and she did what she was trained to do. This article, Hero ‘Civilian Cops’ Emerge After Fort Hood Shooting: Sgt. Kimberly Munley Lost So Much Blood Doctors Feared She Wouldn’t Survive, goes into even more detail as to what Sgt. Munley did that day (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this article), as well as another police officer, Sgt, Mark Todd:

After Sgt. Kimberly Munley helped stop the Fort Hood massacre by shooting Major Nidal Malik Hasan several times, she collapsed from her wounds and doctors who treated her were afraid she wouldn’t survive.

“She was fading in and out of consciousness. She wasn’t saying much,” medic Francisco de la Serna, who began treating Munley when the shooting stopped, told ABC News.

Munley, a 34-year-old former soldier who became a civilian cop on the Fort Hood base, was shot twice in both legs during Thursday’s confrontation. Two powerful “cop killer” rounds allegedly fired by Hasan tore through her left thigh, exited and blasted through her right thigh as well. She was also struck in the wrist.

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, a retired soldier who also works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, also engaged in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute, according to The Associated Press. Todd was not wounded.

Army officials say that an investigation is under way about whose bullets brought down Hasan as there was much confusion following the shooting. Munley’s supervisor initially credited her with the shot that stopped Hasan.

Todd told The Associated Press Saturday that he was unsure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.

Todd said he approached the suspect and saw that he still had a gun in his hand, which he kicked away. Todd told the AP, “He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Munley, the mother of two girls, was sped to Metroplex Hospital several miles away where doctors say she lost so much blood that they feared she would not make it.

I suppose we will have to wait to find out exactly whose bullet brought down Hasan – Munley’s or Todd’s, but there is no dispute that had she not started firing on Hasan, he would have inflicted more damage on the soldiers.

Her wounds were clearly severe, especially after being hit by “cop killer” bullets:

Munley proved to be as tough in the operating room as she was while confronting Hasan in their close-range shootout.

Dr. Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley at the Metroplex Hospital, said her first words in recovery were concern about Hasan’s victims.

“She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said, ‘Did anybody die?’” Matlock said.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the make up and constitution of this woman. Her first thought, her first question, wasn’t about herself, but others. I am in awe.

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

Munley now knows that the man she shot is alive, and that he is accused of killing 13 unarmed people and wounding 38.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Munley in the hospital today and later described her as “understated.”

“She is a classic public servant who is not interested in anything other than getting on with her life,” Perry said.

Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at Fort Hood, said many more would have died if Munley had not leaped into action.

“If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured,” Medley told ABC News Friday. “The number of lives that this person saved … We will probably never know. But there is a lot of ammunition left, a lot of magazines,” he said referring to what Hasan was allegedly carrying.

Uh, yeah. That, along with Hasan giving away his worldly goods, screams premeditation to me. No doubt about it.

While much of this has been covered already, the way in which this is written really paints a picture:

Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s Shootout With Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Medley described a scenario worthy of a Hollywood script. He said Munley, who is a member of the base’s SWAT team and a weapons expert, ran towards the gunfire and came upon Hasan when she rounded a corner and saw him pursuing a soldier who had already been wounded once.

“She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her,” Medley said. “She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire.”

Despite getting struck three times by Hasan’s fusillade, Munley stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.

Let’s stop right there. What kind of person is capable of doing this? What kind of person puts herself in the line of fire to save someone else? What kind of intestinal fortitude must this woman have to STAY UPRIGHT after being seriously hit, firing at the gunman?

I have a close friend who was a police officer at one time before he became a minister. I asked him that question – what makes some people run into danger, be it firefighters, police officers, military personnel, when everyone else is running away as fast as they can? What kind of courage and bravery must someone have to do something like Sgt. Munley? It is hard to fathom. Sure, many of us would like to THINK we would, but honestly – WHO would rush into this situation, size it up, and intentionally put herself in the line of fire to protect others? It is simply remarkable. This breed of human being is rare indeed.

At least according to this report, if it even matters at this point, it was Munley who brought Hasan down (as mentioned above, ballistics will have the final say):

“She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down,” Medley said.

“When she rounded that corner she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley’s aggressive tactics averted even more carnage.

“She had been trained in active response,” Cone said. “They had rehearsed scenarios like this. Oftentimes, the idea is you would encircle the building and wait until you have more backup. What the belief is, if you act aggressively, to take the shooter out, you’ll have less fatalities.”

Munley acted aggressively, not waiting for backup. She went after the gunman and quickly found him. As Cone put it, Munley decided “to seek him out, to confront hm.”

Medley said he visited with Munley early Friday. “She’s doing very well. She was in good spirits. She was smiling and laughing,” he said.

Her boss said he told Munley, “The action you took saved countless peoples’ lives. People are healthy, alive and walking around today because of the action that this officer took. She’s a hero.”

Munley’s grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

“Kim doesn’t want be called a hero. She’s worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close,” Metz said.

Of course Sgt. Munley would object to being called a hero. After what we have learned about her, who would be surprised by that? Not me. That speaks even more about her remarkable character. Can anyone not be impressed by this woman? I imagine her family is extraordinarily proud of her, as they should be.

Speaking of family:

Her husband, Matthew Munley, is a soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was flown to Fort Hood. She also has two daughters, ages 15 and 2, from a previous marriage.

Needless to say, Sgt. Munley’s daring feats are already garnering tributes:

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

“At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come,” one member posted in the group “God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley.” “Thank you for being a true hero.”

And in the group “Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!,” one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

A true hero indeed – I know she’s mine.

I must warn you, this is a difficult story to read. Honestly, I had to stop a few times to compose myself. My comments will be limited as the horrific nature of this story is overwhelming. I will bold aspects of particular importance. And I know this introduction is a bit dry, but it is only because I am trying not to cry as I work on this.

Okay, here goes: Police: Gang Rape Outside School Dance Lasted Over Two Hours.

That pretty much says it all, but believe it or not, it is even worse once you see all of the facts of the case. If you choose, you can watch this video with the Police giving the basic outline of this case:

Yes, you heard that right. She had to be airlifted out:

A California high school student who police said was gang raped in a two-and-a-half-hour assault outside a homecoming dance remained hospitalized in stable condition Monday, two days after she was flown from the attack scene in critical condition.

As of late Monday, two suspects had been arrested in the case and a third was being questioned.

“There is one individual in custody who has made some spontaneous statements that have led me to believe that he is culpable for what happened,” Richmond police Lt. Johan Simon said.

Nineteen-year-old Manuel Ortega, described as a former student at the school, was arrested soon after he fled the scene and will face charges of rape, robbery and kidnapping, police said.

A 15-year-old was later arrested and charged with one count of felony sexual assault. A third teenager was being interviewed, according to Lt. Mark Gagan of the police department in Richmond, California.

“Based on witness statements and suspect statements, and also physical evidence, we know that she was raped by at least four suspects committing multiple sex acts,” Gagan said.

If you think this couldn’t get much worse, it does:

Investigators said as many as 15 people, all males, stood around watching the assault, but did not call police or help the victim, a 15-year-old student at Richmond High School in suburban San Francisco.

“As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated,” Gagan said.

Authorities had interviewed the victim, and the search for other attackers and bystanders who watched and did not report the rape was in “full-court press,” according to Gagan.

“We have checked Facebook and YouTube to try to find any revealing evidence,” he said. “We’re looking in particular to see if anyone posted any video of the incident.”

Several other individuals were detained at the scene but not arrested, Simon said.

The attack occurred on school grounds as the annual homecoming dance was under way inside the school Saturday night, authorities said.

One moment, please…Alright. Here is the conclusion:

The victim was found unconscious and “brutally assaulted” under a bench shortly before midnight Saturday, after police received a call from someone in the area who had overheard people at the assault scene “reminiscing about the incident,” Gagan said.

“She ended up with those guys under her own will because she knew one of the boys who had gone to the high school before,” Gagan said. “Right now, we’re looking at toxicology reports to determine her blood-alcohol content and to determine if she was drugged.”

According to authorities, the victim was flown to an area hospital in critical condition. She was in stable condition Monday, police said.

“This just gets worse and worse the more you dig into it,” Gagan said. “It was like a horror movie after looking at the evidence. I can’t believe not one person felt compelled to help her.” (CNN’s Sara Pratley contributed to this report.)

Neither can I.

Not one person helped this girl. No one, NO ONE, called the police for her.

Observers joined in.

There are no words for what happened to this poor young girl. There are no words to describe the actions of these young men, participants and observers alike. I pray that this girl will recover fully from her assault, though physically is the only area in which I can see full healing to take place. Of course, I hope she will heal emotionally and psychologically, in time. But it will take a lot of time, a lot of work on her part, a tremendous amount of support, and a very good therapist. Even then, it may not be enough…

I do know that this girl will never be the same. Never.

UPDATED: Alert NQ reader, “ImaLindaToo,” provided this Link provides more information about the level of security at the school, the girl who was raped, and the four perpetrators arrested so far (though they think it was up to TEN perpetrators). Additional links here and here from Catherine.

BONUS look back at Rep. Charlie Rangel. Remember when he called VP candidate Sara Palin “Disabled”? Nice, huh?

Back to the article. I am so disgusted, words fail me. “DISCLOSURE PROBLEMS”?? That’s how our Congress refers to powerful members cheating on their taxes?? Now I know how Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat, was confirmed to head up the Treasury Department, and thus the IRS. Check this out:

Many members” of Congress suffer from the same disclosure issues as Rep. Charles Rangel (D.N.Y.), one of his allies said Wednesday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) downplayed the seriousness of allegations against Rangel that he failed to disclose sources of income and pay taxes on some properties, saying that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms.

“I want to tell you, there are many members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you’re going to find that there were disclosures that were not made,” Waters said during an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning.

Republicans are seeking to force Rangel from his position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee by offering a privileged resolution from Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) to mandate Rangel step aside.

If it is truly only Republicans, that does not speak well for Democrats, in my opinion. Why wouldn’t they be concerned that the most powerful member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the very committee that set tax law, did not pay his taxes?? Is it just me? At least as far as Rep. Waters is concerned, it appears so:

Waters defended Rangel, saying the Harlem congressman is making an effort to correct the records and pay his debts.

“What happens is, unfortunately with the requirements for disclosure that we all have, mistakes are made,” she said. “And you do get a chance to correct them. And so it looks as if he is correcting those mistakes.”

Waters said that Rangel should not step down from his chairmanship, but should continue working until ethics investigations into his finances have concluded.

Only after he was CAUGHT. It isn’t like he just failed to adequately report taxes one time. No, it was under-reporting some years, and failure to report at all other years. It is behavior that, if perpetrated by someone NOT in Congress (or the Secretary of the Treasury) would land them with a ton of fines at the LEAST. But when it’s the person actually writing the tax laws, the message is clear: “These laws apply to thee, not to me.” Evidently. And, with the perk of getting backup from the very people who SHOULD be holding them accountable. All I can say is, there oughta be a law. Oh, wait…

And what is this BS about “the rules for disclosure”?? How about having a CPA do your taxes, or use TurboTax or something! It isn’t like Rangel, and most of these Congresspeople can’t afford to have someone do their taxes for them. Sheesh.

Can you imagine using that excuse with the IRS? Yeah, they’d be laughing at you all the way to your jail cell.

Have the Democrats always this corrupt, or have they ratcheted that up recently? Maybe they always were, and they are just being more blatant about it now? I don’t see how anyone could listen to Rep. Waters “everybody’s doing it!” defense as anything else but corrupt when talking about the most powerful person setting tax law repeatedly cheating on his taxes. But that could just be me…

Well, it turns out that figure of $1 million is just a little low. By $4 million dollars, that is. Holy smokes. In this article, ACORN Embezzlement Was $5 Million, LA Attorney General Says, that figure is revised way up, and not by a reporter, or a politician with an ax to grind, as ACORN would not doubt claim, but the State Attorney General:

Louisiana’s attorney general has broadened the scope of an investigation of ACORN to include a possible embezzlement of $5 million a decade ago within the community organization, five times more than previously reported.

ACORN Chief Executive Officer Bertha Lewis said the new reported amount is “completely false.”

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has been conducting an investigation of ACORN since June. He issued subpoenas in August seeking documents related to former ACORN International President Wade Rathke and his brother Dale Rathke, who kept the group’s books. Those subpoenas were focused on possible ACORN violations for non-payment of employee withholding taxes, obstructing justice and violating the Employee Retirement Security Act. No charges have been made.

The attorney general had inquired in June into an alleged embezzlement within ACORN that happened 10 years ago. The group last year dealt with an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke made nearly $1 million in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The brother and a donor repaid the money.

Did you catch that? A “donor” helped pay back the money. Dale was not formally charged, nor did he have to spend any time in prison. None. Now we know it was so much more money than previously thought:

Caldwell said last month that the statute of limitations presented obstacles to prosecutors taking action on the embezzlement, and that his investigation was not focused on that issue. The subpoena issued Monday changed the tone of the investigation and put a new emphasis on the embezzlement issue.

“Current high-ranking members of ACORN have publicly acknowledged that embezzlement did in fact occur, but the exact amount of the embezzlement was unknown until it was recently acknowledged in a board of directors meeting on Oct. 17, 2008, by Bertha Lewis and Liz Wolf that an internal review had determined that the amount embezzled was $5 million, ” the new subpoena says.

The subpoena says, “It is still unclear if some of the monies embezzled are from state, federal or private funds.”

The subpoena requests documents from Citizens Consulting Inc., a financial arm of ACORN, and from various accounting and legal consultants in New Orleans. Investigators are trying to verify the issues raised in the subpoena.

“We’re going to follow the evidence where it leads us and try to do the right thing,” said David Caldwell, head of the attorney general’s public corruption and special prosecutions divisions. “We are actively investigating the case, whatever the outcome might be. This is something we are devoting our full attention to.”

Wade Rathke, who was in Bangkok, Thailand, on Monday, referred questions to ACORN officials. Lewis said she would comment further after she and ACORN attorneys had a chance to review the subpoena.

ACORN board member Vanessa Gueringer, chairwoman of the Lower 9th Ward Chapter, said she had not seen the subpoena but that the accusation about the larger embezzlement was untrue.

“I believe it is another lie, another witch hunt, ” Gueringer said.

ACORN, which provides counseling on housing and other assistance to low and moderate income families, has been reeling from national negative publicity in recent weeks. Actions have been taken on the federal level and by many states, including Louisiana, to end public contracts with the group. (Robert Travis Scott can be reached at rscott@timespicayune.com or 225.342.4197.)

Now that’s some Major League Denial going on there, isn’t it?? The Attorney General of the State isn’t just making stuff up. He has actually been INVESTIGATING ACORN, and rightly so.

Let’s just do the math here. ACORN has received $53 Million of our taxpaying dollars. Dale Rathke embezzled $5 million from ACORN. Sure they get donations, but honestly – you don’t think some of that money was OURS???? And why is he NOT IN PRISON?? That’s what I’d like to know. Hopefully, he will be soon, thanks to the LA State Attorney General.

And that begs the question – where has everyone ELSE been on this issue? It’s not like it wasn’t public knowledge, and not like it hasn’t been reported in major newspapers across the country. I’m glad someone is doing his job.

And speaking of the Rathke Brothers, don’t forget that Wade is also the one who co-founded the SEIU, yes, the union that held California hostage. Well, you are not going to believe where their name pops up in connection to the White House. Check out this video, beginning at the 1:45 minute mark:

Holy smokes. The SEIU is working with the Wite House and the NEA to spend YOUR/OUR money on propaganda.

And we thought the Bush Administration was bad about the whole propaganda thing…

Um, yes, yes it WAS “rape-rape” – he admitted it, Whoopi. It wasn’t just “child abuse,” it was rape – pure and simple.

I cannot believe I used to have so much respect for this woman – hell, I read her book! I saw her on Broadway – TWICE, no small feat for a poor graduate student. I thought she was the cat’s meow. But now? I think those rose-colored glasses she often wears have colored her perspective. And now this woman, once a brilliant political commentator, is defending a man who drugged, got drunk, and raped repeatedly, a CHILD.

And now Sherri Shepherd is the voice of reason on “The View?” Wow.

Kate Harding has an excellent article on this very issue in Salon, Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped A Child:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

It cannot be any clearer than that. When women like Whoopi defend this man, it makes me ill. She is defending a convicted pedophile and rapist, claiming we don’t have all the facts. Hell, yes, we do, too.

How can these people defend him? How can other countries have such outrage that this man, who has been on the lam for YEARS, has finally been arrested? Beats me:

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski “as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge.” Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and “was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence,” also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: “The 13-year old model ’seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies.” Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: “The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.”

Wow, OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn’t like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn’t count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn’t 14.” Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There’s that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she’d been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story — most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on “she wanted it” grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it’s much safer to focus on the victim’s age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny “he said, she said” stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

No matter what convoluted tacks one might take to try and blame this child for her repeated rape and being sodomized, the responsibility lies SOLELY with Roman Polanski:

Second, Polanski was “demonized by the press” because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He “feared heavy sentencing” because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore’s post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum, who finds it “bizarre” that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence — albeit purely anecdotal, in this case — that only the most debased crapweasel thinks “I didn’t know she was 13!” is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she’s said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that “notoriety, lawyers’ fees and professional stigma” are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn’t allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that’s holy, hasn’t the man suffered enough?

That’s snark there by Harding, just to be clear. Again, how in the world can these women DEFEND THIS MAN??? What is wrong with them? I think Harding wonders that, too:

Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an “understandable fear of irrational punishment,” but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family — but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn’t Kafkaesque stuff.

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she’d like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn’t we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven’t named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

It works on behalf of the people, in fact — the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not — and at least in theory, does not — tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you’ve made.

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we’re seeing now has been heating up since “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” the 2008 documentary about Polanski’s fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary’s whitewashing of Polanksi’s crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he’d need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. “Fugitives don’t get to dictate the terms of their case … Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed.”

The reporting on Polanski’s arrest has been every bit as “bizarrely skewed,” if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted. (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers – a Detroit Democrat – is weighing into the controversy involving a much-maligned national community organization, asking congressional researchers whether any laws may have been broken by surreptitious recording of the group’s employees.

Just last week, the Democratic-led House followed up on a Senate vote that started cutting off federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, amid Republican-led calls for a widespread investigation into the group and its activities.

Even President Barack Obama has criticized the actions of ACORN employees in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere seen in sting videos. The employees appear to give tax advice to filmmakers pretending to be a hooker and her boyfriend. (Well, kinda – he said it wad “inappropriate. See video/transcript below.)

Conyers and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on Tuesday to provide an analysis on several aspects of ACORN. Among them:

# Any current or previous criminal investigations into the group.

# A breakdown of any funding received by the group and any violations of the terms of that funding.

# A report on alleged improprieties in collecting voter-registration forms and “the extent … that resulted in people being improperly placed on voting roles and actually attempting to vote.”

# The group’s programs to provide housing opportunities.

It also asked for a report on private sting activities “in which individuals have reportedly visited ACORN offices, misrepresented their identities and proposed activities, surreptitiously videotaped resulting conversations with ACORN workers, and widely distributed them.”

The letter went onto say, “Conflicting allegations have been made about the propriety of these activities. Please research and report on the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties.”

I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

Why the disdain dropping from my laptop? Because this isn’t the FIRST time Rep. Conyers was going to investigate ACORN. Previously, he had been pretty disturbed by the actions of ACORN, or so he claimed (this is a good article to see more of the underhanded workings of ACORN). Remember that they have been under investigation in over 14 states for voter fraud and voter registration fraud for some time now. The recent expose is just the icing on the cake. But the disdain comes for the REASON Conyers dropped it: The “Powers That Be” put an end to it. Yes, you read that right: THE POWERS THAT BE told the House Judiciary Chairman to knock it off.

Hmm. Let’s think. Just who is high enough to tell this powerful chairman to drop his investigation? It’s a pretty short list, I can tell you that much,

But, hey – better late than never, right? Yeah. Sure.

And I just KNOW once Obama has a spare moment, you know, when he’s not on The David Letterman Show, or something, maybe he will finally have a chance to follow what’s going on with ACORN, since he claimed to be out of the loop despite the millions ACORN has gotten, or the billions it stands to get. Yes, this is what he said in his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.

Or you can watch it here:

That Obama – he’s just so busy doing the talk show circuit, he couldn’t POSSIBLY know what is going on with ACORN. I mean, really, besides his having worked for them, and all of that, what possible connection could he have with them?

Oh, wait – he does. Right in the West Wing. Uh huh – his Rove, the Director of the Office of Political Affairs, is Patrick Gaspard. Mr. Gaspard, before moving into the West Wing, was the Executive Vice President of – Wait For It – SEIU. SEIU was founded by Dale Rathke, the brother who embezzled a million bucks from ACORN. Which they hid, by the way. Whatever. Just a million of your tax paying dollars, no biggie.

And Patrick has a brother, Michael, who works for the Advance Group. Which represents – like you need to wait for it – ACORN. Coincidentally (hahahahaha), the national spokesman for The Advance Group, and ACORN, is one in the same, Scott Levenson.

I gotta wonder, how long will it be before Conyers is called off of THIS investigation?

(Photo above bymusicFIRSTCoalition)

Now is when I remind you that not only does Obama have very strong ties to ACORN (he worked on their behalf as a lawyer at one point), and its sister organization, SEIU, and let’s not forget that Obama gave $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate to “get out the vote” during the Election Season. And ACORN, the alleged non-partisan organization, currently under investigation in at least 14 states for voter fraud, the organization that helped create the Fanne Mae/Freddis Mac fiasco, is receiving YOUR tax paying dollars, $53 million to date, and stands to receive $8.5 Billion in Stimulus money.

The aforementioned article? It is this: Former Leftist Activist, Turned FBI Informant, Pulls Back the Curtain On ACORN. Well, you know that caught my eye right away – this guy, Brandon Darby, was a leftie activist, like many of us were, but unlike most of us, worked with the FBI on terrorism. Here is Darby’s story:

I first experienced ACORN in post-Katrina New Orleans. I was part of a relief organization, Common Ground Relief, which had been delivering much needed aid to the 9th Ward, an area that had been hit especially hard by the flood waters and by neglect. Rumors immediately began surfacing, questioning our motives and intentions. I was very confused by these rumors. Who was behind them? How could anyone question the vital work we were doing in the community? We lived and worked in the 9th Ward. We suspended our regular lives and, in many cases, left our families to travel to New Orleans to help those affected by Katrina and poverty. We slept on dirty plywood floors and shared everything we had with the residents. Most of us were white. Was our skin color the issue? I knew from personal experience that the majority of the Black 9th ward residents didn’t care what color our skin was. It took me awhile to get over the hurt I felt at such allegations and to find out where they were coming from.

In the following weeks, I was made aware of the fact that ACORN had reopened its New Orleans office (several months after the storm). Various groups from around the city informed me that Acorn was upset with us because we were in “their” community and had not sought approval from ACORN to operate there. I was told that ACORN said that we were “privileged white people who had come to a Black community as saviors and we refused to work with local Black leadership.”

The more I pondered the matter, the more I realized what was happening. As usual in marginalized and impoverished communities, a small group of radical self-proclaimed leaders was insisting that all local aid and relief came through them—even if they were AWOL for several months. Though the majority of residents either hadn’t heard of ACORN or simply disagreed with their politics- ACORN insisted that they were THE Black leaders. This was upsetting to me. Sure, the local pastor we worked most closely with was Black; but that didn’t matter to ACORN. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t evoke the name of Elijah Mohammed or Malcolm X. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t submit to ACORN’s mandate that ACORN was the sole leadership of Black New Orleanians.

Am I reading this correctly? Only black people can work with black people as far as ACORN is concerned? Dang, I bet all of those organizations and churches who sent so many people and aid to New Orleans didn’t know the rules. I know I didn’t when I sent money, and took my niece and nephew there post-Katrina to spend tourism dollars as requested. I think we all thought we were helping our fellow Americans. This is a bit of a shock, I have to say.

Back to the article:

As then director of Common Ground Relief’s 9th Ward project, I was warned by many that ACORN would ruin me politically if I didn’t submit to their leadership. I believed in what I was doing and how I was doing it. I refused to submit. The political fallout was almost unbearable. I just kept my eyes on meeting the needs of the community. When confronted by adherents to ACORN’s brand of race analysis, I pointed out that ACORN was not there immediately after the storm, so I could not have sought their leadership even if I had wanted to.

Over the following years, that particular style of political attack was prominent in New Orleans. Anytime that ACORN was displeased, the other party was deemed a racist. If the other party disagreed with the label or with ACORN’s agenda- they were met with “of course you feel that way. You are a racist.” Though it is clearly woefully inaccurate and unethical to use such an accusation as a political attack and as a means of shutting down philosophical debate and discourse, some at ACORN didn’t let that stop them. I refused to submit to it. I believed in listening to the majority of the community, who were desperate for our help, and not only to the self-proclaimed leaders. I paid a dear price for it.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not least of which is the people there NEEDED this help. They still do. People who WANT to help, who take time to do this, are then treated shabbily, and labeled racist to boot. Wow. I can only imagine how that felt to Darby after all his work there on behalf of that community.

And where does the FBI fit into all of this? Here’s how:

I returned to Texas after a couple of years adminst the political quagmire of post-Katrina New Orleans. My experience there with various groups was educational and life-changing, though some of these groups concerned me. Eventually I began to see some of them as dangerous and deceitful about their missions. This, along with a growing appreciation of my country helped lead me to work with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

I was as proud of this new era in my life as I was of my time in New Orleans. I had the privilege of participating in efforts where lives were saved; both in the United States and in Israel. While working undercover with the FBI at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, I helped to uncover a bomb plot. Two men had made firebombs with a homemade napalm mixture of gasoline and oil. Their initial targets were Republican delegates. These bomb-makers (domestic terrorists) later decided to attack a staging area for the Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies. Fortunately, they were stopped and arrested.

I was asked, and agreed, to testify against them. As was expected, the more radical elements of the media began to attack both me as an individual and the FBI as a whole. One of the men accused plead guilty; the other hired an expensive defense attorney and concocted a story about the FBI building these bombs to “set up left-wing activists” and stop dissent. But once the facts became clear, the defense changed their story and instead tried to blame the FBI for ”influencing” the terrorists. Thankfully, after one hung jury and many months of intense media attacks against me, the other bomb-maker (domestic terrorist) decided to come clean and admitted to the judge that he had invented the whole story.

What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.

I was even more shocked as I continued reading the article. ACORN’s “founder” went on to mention that another self-proclaimed “radical” activist who had worked closely with him was also involved in my story. Her name is Lisa Fithian. I first encountered Ms. Fithian in New Orleans. She came to town after Common Ground Relief had started operations. She assumed a position of prominence and continuously challenged my work and leadership. During the RNC bombing trial, she cooperated with the defense of the bomb plotters and led media attacks on me and the FBI.

Ms. Fithian has been quoted in various mainstream news articles as saying, “Nonviolence is a strategy. Civil disobedience is a tactic,” and “Direct action is a strategy. Throwing rocks is a tactic.” She is also quoted as stating that “When people ask me, ‘What do you do?’ I say, ‘I create crisis’, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.”

ACORN receives tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to promote their agenda. Free speech is sacred, of course. However, it is clear that ACORN has made a practice of blurring the lines between free speech and tax-payer-funded activism. Fortunately, our federal government is adept at investigating and identifying the misuse of federal funds. It will be interesting in the near future to see how Mr. Rathke and his ACORN associates stand up to the same scrutiny they have focused on our military, the FBI and other governmental groups and agencies.

After the revelations exposed in the O’Keefe/Giles videos, maybe the FBI will get the hint and take a look into ACORN. If they need a reminder, they can go back and look at the testimony of ACORN Whistleblower, Anita Moncrief, who had PLENTY to say about how ACORN operates, and acknowledged the connections between ACORN and Obama. It is a shocking reminder of what the MSM let go by in order to carry water for Obama.

So, maybe it’s not too late? Maybe after all of these recent (and not so recent) revelations SOMEONE in law enforcement will do the right thing and go after ACORN? Make the connections, hold them accountable, and do it now? Heaven knows, there is enough information available, isn’t there?

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! Anita Moncrief, the ACORN whistleblower, is going to be on Paulie Abeles, Sins of Omission NQ radio show SEPTEMBER 21st at 9:00 PM (EST)!! WOW!!!! I cannot wait. I’ll be there – hope you will, too!

Holy shit, right?? YOUR TAXPAYING DOLLARS!!!!! Can you believe this? It is simply mind bogging.

In related news, eleven warrants have been issued for ACORN workers in Florida. The charges? Oh, you can guess this one: voter fraud. Yes, arrests are already being made by state authorities and the FBI. As of this writing, six have been arrested, and they are searching for the other five.

Again, your tax paying dollars hard at work, courtesy of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and the DNC.

UPDATE: This first video has the filmmaker, James O’Keefe, on it, talking about how “helpful” the ACORN people were:

And this one with Megyn Kelly and Andrew Breitbart. ACORN denounces this “gotcha” journalism, claiming that there was some convenient editing going on. Breitbart provides the FULL audio and FULL transcript at BigGovernment.com, and discusses it more fully below:

Did you catch that? How much money ACORN stands to get under the new Stimulus Plan?? Now you know how they are spending that money…

Uh, yeah. I’m kinda wondering what’s taken that Ethics Committee so long, too. That was my major field of study, and I’m pretty sure that it would not take me almost a year to come to a determination about this man’s lack of ethical behavior (hypocrisy aside, just the ethical issues alone). Sheesh. This is not the first time Rangel has had “ethical” problems while in office. You might recall that he paid his parking tickets out of his campaign funds. Tsk, tsk – that’s not allowed. You’d think he’d learn.

And speaking of not learning one’s lessons, how about Obama appointing ANOTHER czar after his Commie 9/11 Truther guy had to resign (though through no pressure from Obama, who seemed A-Okay with keeping Van Jones close in the West Wing)? Yep – he wasted no time in thumbing his nose at Congress, and us, by elevating Ron Bloom to the position of Czar of Manufacturing Policy (so he uses the term, “Senior Counselor,” but same difference). I might add, once again, it wasn’t just Republicans who thought it was inappropriate to have a Communist working in the West Wing with the ear of the President, either. That’s just a smokescreen to try to blame it on anyone else but Obama. But I digress.

You may remember Bloom from his previous job on the Task Force for the US takeover ofGM. Oops – I mean, Bloom was a member of the Auto Task Force. Again, same difference. And, Bloom was formerly with the United Steel Workers. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that Obama decided to make his announcement before the AFL-CIO at a picnic, right? Didn’t think so.

And I guess none of us should be surprised when Obama continues to thumb his nose at the process, at Congress, and more importantly, US. I suppose I should be grateful that Bloom isn’t a Marxist Name Calling Fruit Loop, but still – this defiance, no, make that insouciance, by Obama is just a tad irritating, isn’t it? I wonder what position he’ll give Charlie?

Now, why would they say that about Rep. Rangel, a long time representative from New York? Because of this:

FOR POLITICIANS with major bad news to release or to make public, there’s no time like the dead of August to do it. The thinking goes that the public won’t remember a thing come September. We hope Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) will have no such luck. His belated revelation of previously unreported income, property and bank accounts demands that he step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Rangel’s amended financial disclosure form, which exposes omissions from his 2002 through 2006 records, is a treasure trove of outrage. He neglected to report a checking account with the Congressional Federal Credit Union and one with Merrill Lynch, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000; the tens of thousands of dollars he’s earning from dividends from a number of mutual funds and stocks; and the money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse. As a result, Mr. Rangel’s reported net worth doubled, from between $516,015 and $1,316,000 to between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000.

Yeah. That’s right. When the truth came out, Rangel’s worth pretty much doubled, and he kinda, sorta forgot to pay taxes on it. Hey! Just like Timmy Geithner!! What’s their problem with that, anyway?? Sheesh, picky, picky. Oh, right, because of his position within the House:

We called on Mr. Rangel to resign his coveted post last November while the House ethics committee probed his contact with a potential donor to a pet project who also had business before the committee. Mind you, that committee already was looking into his using official stationery to raise funds for that pet project, paying below-market rents on four Harlem apartments, failing to report income from a Florida condominium sale and failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic. There’s another subcommittee investigation into lobbyist-paid trips by Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress.

Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation’s purse strings. From all that we’ve seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.

Yes, much is expected, a fact seemingly lost on many of our elected officials as the recent town halls would indicate (or lack thereof – many of our elected officials refused to hold them). But for the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee to fail so egregiously is unacceptable.

And it is made even more so by the revelation of a little tax provision Rangel slipped into the Health Care Reform Bill. How I wish I was kidding. I am not:

~ snip ~ The changes approved by the House Ways and Means Committee that Rangel chairs would strip away legal defenses and pile higher penalties on corporate and individual taxpayers facing IRS proceedings for what they claim are unintentional mistakes, experts said.

Rangel’s bill would:

* Punish those who fail to alert the IRS to potentially questionable tax exemptions.

* Bar the IRS from waiving penalties against taxpayers who clearly erred in good faith.

* Double fines in certain circumstances. (Emphasis mine.)

“The bill raises penalties and eliminates many of the reasonable defenses that taxpayers have always been able to use when honest mistakes are uncovered,” one lawyer told The Post.

In fact, the bill increases fines “in some cases even for honest mistakes,” the expert added.

I don’t know about you, but I am literally shaking my head at the arrogant, patronizing, HYPOCRISY of Rangel’s bill. Seriously – has he not looked in the mirror??

Well you know some folks had something to say about Rangel’s machinations:

Republicans yesterday ripped Rangel’s attempt to go after taxpayers, given his own failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and his extensive reporting problems with his financial-disclosure statements to Congress.

“It is highly ironic that Chairman Rangel continues to work to crack down on American taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax forms when he himself has failed to pay his own staggering tax bills,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi should force him to step aside as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee until this baffling array of allegations are resolved.”

In addition to $75,000 in rental income he failed to report to the IRS a few years ago, Rangel recently filed new papers revealing he neglected to disclose to Congress more than $1.3 million in income and $3 million in business deals between 2002 and 2006.

The Post reported last week that he also failed to pay taxes on property in New Jersey that he neglected for years to disclose he owned.

His office maintains he is now up to date on all his taxes.

The Rangel plan also would prevent the IRS from waiving punishment in cases where tax officials thought the penalty was excessive.

Under another provision, the IRS would require that taxpayers self-report areas where they may have gone over the line seeking tax advantages. If they fail to self-report and problems are found, tax penalties skyrocket.

The IRS becomes “judge, jury and executioner,” said a lobbyist.

In one provision, the measure doubles the fine against the taxpayer from 20 percent of the underpayment to 40 percent.

As with many of the complex tax provisions buried in the 1,018-page bill, the severity of the self-reporting language is a matter of debate.

Advocates argue that the provision is intended only to go after flagrant tax cheats, but that’s not clearly spelled out. (churt@nypost.com)

Unless he is willing to start with himself, Rangel needs to pull that out right now. I might add, what the hell is it doing in the Health Care bill ANYWAY????

And Charlie, I agree with WaPo, it is time to step down. It is way PAST time, in fact, especially since you seem to think you are above the laws already in the books. Never mind adding a new “Do As I Say Not As I Do,” law on top of it. If ever there was a time for the (Matthew 7:5) saying, “Take the plank out of your own eye before taking the speck out of your neighbor’s” this is it…

A “failure” that you “continue to regret”? Uh, no shit, Sherlock! And how do you think all of those people who lost their LIFE SAVINGS feel? Do you think they “regret” your incompetence?? I mean, really – no freakin’ duh. That’s putting it so mildly as to be insulting (to say the least), especially given what people went through, are going through, WILL be going through as a result of this “botch”:

The Securities and Exchange Commission botched numerous opportunities to uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, in part because of an inexperienced staff and delays in examinations, said an SEC inspector general report.

How did one of the largest financial scandals of our time go on for so long without being detected? WSJ reporters offer insight into Bernard Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme.

The report, an executive summary of which was released on Wednesday, provides the most-detailed, strongest criticism to date of the agency’s failure to uncover the multibillion-dollar scheme. The release of the findings comes as the SEC is seeking to rebuild its credibility.

According to the report, the SEC received six warnings about Mr. Madoff’s trading business over 16 years, but failure of staff to follow up adequately — including to determine whether trades were executed when Mr. Madoff said they were — and poor communication within the agency’s divisions enabled him to continue his scheme.

Mr. Madoff confessed to the scheme in December and is serving a 150-year prison sentence.

So, that’s 6 warnings over 16 years, with “poor communication” and inept staff (okay, that wasn’t their word for their staff, but really – that’s the bottom line, is it not?) allowed this man to continue stealing the life savings of numerous people. It boggles the mind, especially that they think this will help rebuild their credibility. Oh, yeah – sure thing. At least there is this one positive that came out in the report:

The investigation found no evidence that the SEC staff had been influenced by Mr. Madoff or any of his family members. A senior SEC examinations official was dating Mr. Madoff’s niece during part of that period and is currently married to her, sparking speculation that Mr. Madoff’s firm may have gotten a break.

SEC Chairman (sic)Mary Schapiro said on Wednesday that missing the fraud “is a failure that we continue to regret.” She has taken some steps to address the SEC’s problems, including recruiting a new enforcement director, who is implementing substantial changes to how the agency operates. Ms. Schapiro has also proposed rules aimed at tightening regulatory holes that Mr. Madoff had taken advantage of.

Oh, whew, that’s a relief. Between the family not being involved and Chairwoman Schapiro’s acknowledgment that this was a “failure that we continue to regret.”

Good grief, how do these people SLEEP at night?? Seriously! Sheesh.

Perhaps some oversight over those who are supposed to be overseeing is in order:

Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) called the SEC’s failures “further evidence of a culture of deference toward the Wall Street elite at the SEC.” He said, “Until that culture is transformed, the SEC will not be the tough cop on the beat that the public needs.”

Ms. Schapiro said in a letter to Sen. Grassley that she expected to have approval from the full commission to distribute the full, 450-page inspector general report on Friday. She said she wouldn’t permit redacting the substance of the findings but sought to “safeguard” the names of junior employees who didn’t play central roles in the reviews.

The warnings and tips about Mr. Madoff’s operation ran the gamut. Some were based on hunches, others on analysis of his firm’s purported trading strategy. One self-described “concerned citizen” offered specific information alleging that Mr. Madoff combined customer accounts with those of the firm and that he kept two sets of records, one real, one phony.

The 22-page executive summary said agency staff was too inexperienced or too narrowly focused, and missed opportunities to uncover the fraud. It said the SEC’s structure hampered its effectiveness, with two groups of examiners looking separately into Mr. Madoff’s business at one point without knowing about the other.

That is just pathetic. I’m sorry – it just is. I mean, c’mon – did they have to see it up in lights or something? Oh, wait – I should save some of my ire for this:

SEC Inspector General David Kotz said “perhaps the most egregious failure” was that the SEC failed to corroborate Mr. Madoff’s trading records with those held by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., the clearinghouse for stocks, even after Mr. Madoff handed them his account number.

Sputter, sputter, #*%&*&*&# – say whaaaa? Perhaps “inept” is too kind a word:

The summary described how the SEC staff at times didn’t follow through on leads, failing to seek information from a third party because reviewing such information could be too time-consuming. In another instance, an SEC examiner looked into an institution that Mr. Madoff had said he used to clear his trades. The examiner learned from the institution that there was no trading activity by Mr. Madoff during the period under review but never followed up or informed the rest of the staff, according to the executive summary.

Despite three examinations and two enforcement investigations into Madoff, “at no time did the SEC ever verify Madoff’s trading through an independent third-party, and in fact, never actually conducted a Ponzi scheme examination or investigation,” the summary said.

The SEC, during two of the examinations, caught Mr. Madoff in inconsistencies or contradictions, the report said, but the staff only questioned him and took his answers, even those that were “seemingly implausible,” at face value.

Well, golly gee – what could be problematic about that, huh? Just some glaring inconsistencies, and downright fabrications – whaddya want from them anyway??

Oh, you know there’s more:

The IG report found that Mr. Madoff attempted to intimidate SEC staff during an examination in 2005 by dropping names of senior SEC officials, but the report didn’t conclude whether he was successful. It said Mr. Madoff told prospective investors that he had been reviewed by the SEC, as a way to attract business.

The report confirmed the agency had received three tips from Harry Markopolos, a former rival to Mr. Madoff, from 2000 through October 2005, who urged the SEC to investigate Mr. Madoff’s trading operation, saying it was “too good to be true.”

The SEC received another complaint in 2003 from “a respected” hedge-fund manager who wasn’t identified in the executive summary. The report said the manager questioned whether Mr. Madoff was trading options at the volume he claimed, arguing that his strategy and returns weren’t duplicated by anyone else. He said these factors were “indicia of Ponzi scheme.”

That tip, which wasn’t pursued for seven months, was ultimately picked up by the SEC examination group focused on broker-dealers, which the report said lacked intimate knowledge of the investment-advisory business. The group only looked into allegations of potential front-running, or trading ahead of client orders, because that was the group’s expertise, the report said.

Aren’t you glad to know that Madoff’s intimidation apparently WORKED?? Good grief. And I don’t know about you, but I firmly suspect if these kinds of complaints and allegations came up against a regular ol’ person, they would have been treated pretty differently. As in, it would not have taken them SIXTEEN YEARS to figure it out!! Ahem. So how did they finally clue in? Like this:

During a review of another firm, the SEC discovered internal emails questioning the firm’s investment in Mr. Madoff’s business. One email provided a “step-by-step analysis of why Madoff must be misrepresenting his options trading,” according to the report. The email said Mr. Madoff couldn’t have been trading over an options exchange since the volume of trades he would need to execute to match his strategy couldn’t be supported in the market.

The SEC exam staff in New York said the emails indicated “some suspicion as to whether Madoff is trading at all.” It was eight months before a team was in place to look into the issue.

One SEC examiner said of Mr. Madoff during the examination that “veins were popping out of his neck.” When examiners reported Mr. Madoff’s aggressively pushback tactics to higher-ups, they didn’t get any support and were “actively discouraged from forcing the issue,” the report said (emphasis mine). (Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannell@wsj.com )

Well, thank heavens for email, huh? Though it STILL took them 8 months to get off their duffs and do something about it. So many complaints, over so long, and only when they basically get it all spelled out for them are they able to make a move. When they got around to it, that is.

And what is the deal with the lack of support, no, check that, the discouragement from “forcing the issue”?? From where did that come, I wonder? Hmmm. Curious.

Isn’t it so big of the SEC to admit it completely botched the inquiries into Madoff’s shenanigans? After sixteen years? At the expense of BILLIONS of dollars of other people’s money? I reckon we can all rest easy now that the SEC has admitted its failures, make that numerous failures, over a number of years, right? I mean, really – lightning can’t strike twice in the same place, can it? Can it?

White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

See?? Doesn’t that make everything make more sense? It sure does for me…

But what isn’t a joke is this recent revelation: “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control Of Internet” (h/t to Mary Ellen, aka, Nunly, for this). Yep, you read that right – Obama wants to be able to control the “internets” when he deems it necessary. Oh, I WISH this was an Onion piece too, but no:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Isn’t this just such a comfort to you? Yeah, me, too:

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (”Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity (sic) perspective.”

Uh huh. Um, does it bother anyone else – besides us, that is – that Obama is the biggest micromanager on the face of the planet, especially since he is the most inexperienced leader on the face of the planet? Hey, I’m just asking here…

One last thing:

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.

Oh, yippee!! Doesn’t the thought of Obama taking over the internet make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? I know it does me. I just hope it doesn’t happen when he has one of his mood swings…

As she has done for so many years, Hillary Clinton speaks out for, and stands with, women and children, calling out those who have treated them with such brutality, with such inhumanity. She calls out for justice for these women and children, and for their torturers to receive their comeuppance.

Sadly, inhumanity is not limited to how people treat other people, but the inhumane ways we treat animals, as well. In this particular case, I am referring to horses. And you know I am nuts about horses, have been my entire life. I simply cannot begin to fathom how anyone could do this, and I am thankful that I cannot fathom it.

And that is your warning. The next video is very, very difficult to watch. If you have a weak stomach, you may think twice about watching it:

These two may not seem related, but I think they are. They both speak to how capable people are of despicable acts. In terms of the horses, it is about greed, plain and simple. In terms of the brutal rapes of women and children in DRC by people in the military, no less, it is to control and terrorize civilians, as well as for greed and power.

And in both cases, women and children, as well as the horses, are pawns in someone’s game, used and abused to suit someone’s needs other than their own, with no one to help them. Both the women and children, as well as the horses, are innocent victims of someone’s brutality, of their inhumanity.

Thank HEAVENS we have Secretary Clinton to speak up for women here and abroad, to work to end rape as a tool by those in power. How lucky we are to have someone like HER on our side, who is dedicated to eradicating violence against women. This is her lifelong quest thus far, and goddess knows, I pray she is successful.

As to the horses, I am not a violent person. I have never owned a gun in my life. Frankly, I am scared to death of them though I did have my brother teach me how to handle one properly simply because I think it is important to know how to handle one safely. You just never know when you might come across one these days.
ike I said, I am scared of them.

That being said, I certainly can relate to thinking of horses as beloved family members. Heck, I’d rather hang out with my horse any day than some members of my blood family (three of whom are certified Obots). And I can certainly understand wanting to take action to protect these creatures who cannot protect themselves. Think of it – these horses see people as their caregivers, so naturally, if a person is coming to them, they aren’t going to know the person bears ill intent toward them. How could they know? And that innocence, that trust, literally leads them to slaughter.

I’m sorry – hang on – talk amongst yourselves – okay. Whew.

I know this is nothing new, the manner by which people can treat other people, and animals (Michael Vick is certainly a case in point for the latter after his rampant dog abuse – and he is already out of prison, of course). But it doesn’t mean that I have to accept that this is just how it is. No, not at all.

I hope you won’t either. Thank Secretary Clinton for her work (heck, you can even text or Twitter her). Join an organization like People Helping Horses, which takes in abused and rescued horses, restoring them to health, then allowing them to be adopted by responsible horse owners. Speak up, speak out. We CAN make a difference. We have to make a difference…