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!

Remember those Black Panthers who were arrested in Philly for voter intimidation? Well, guess who’s got a friend in the White House? That would be the three men charged – amazingly, the charges have been DROPPED by the Justice Department! Oh, you know I’m not making this up:

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.

Click to watch the incident on YouTube.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960′s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. (Emphasis mine.)

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”

Golly, I am just SO surprised, aren’t you? I just never expected that Obama’s Justice Department would let these three men who were engaging in extreme voter intimidation off!! Ahem. Who am I kidding? Of course I did. I’m just surprised it didn’t happen sooner…

One last note – as a follow-up to all of the GM news, including the closing of plants about which I just wrote, I recommend this post by Uppity Woman, “Congratulations, Comrades and Comradesses! You Are Proud Owners Of Government Motors“! That pretty much says it all! What’s next? California?

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country’s 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN] signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States — currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census “sell sheet,” an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN “play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful,” including by “help[ing] recruit census workers.”

Given ACORN’s long experience in registering felonious and phony voters, what could possibly go wrong with them interviewing and counting citizens??? [My keyboard monkey is typing lots of things I didn't ... huh. .... ]

The bureau is currently employing help from more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring effort.

[...]

“It’s a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it’s not just the lawmakers’ concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country,” Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. “We want an enumeration. We don’t want to have any false numbers.”

ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group’s activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.

Well gosh, people. Rep. Westmoreland, you worry wart, you!!! I’m sure the ACORN people — who give so much of themselves to help our nation’s poor and pay them with pre-set credit cards to donate money to Barack Obama, and make up names, or randomly select names out of the phone book — will ensure that the census results and numbers they make up provide will be 99.99% at best 33% correct.

Read all here at FoxNews.com.

“It comes as uh, as uh, something of a surprise. Because the truth is uh, uh, ya know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic,” Obama told State Journal-Register in Springfield, Illinois. “But ultimately, I think, we’re going to just keep on making efforts to build the kind of bipartisan consensus around important issues that I think the American people are looking for.”

Is it possible Gregg believed Obama in his promises of a non-partisanship Presidency? Could that be why he reached out to Obama *with interest and enthusiasm*?

Or did Judd Gregg have hopes of running the census, thus manufacturing an outcome that benefits Republicans?

That sure seems to be the consensus of the Black Caucus. Why else would they complain to Obama about Gregg’s nomination? Bottom line, they were worried that Gregg would not accurately count minorities.

I can understand why Gregg was mad that Obama, pressured by the Black Caucus, pulled the census out from under him. Isn’t he basically saying that Gregg would not be fair, and non-partisan, and not accurately count minorities?

Gregg reached out to Obama, offering to work with him, believing his promises of non-partisanship.

Obama rewarded him with a slap in the face, basically saying that Gregg was incapable of handling the census in a fair and non-partisan way. I see no other way to look at it. Obama was pressured by the Black caucus, and folded, which resulted in an insult to Gregg. This, in my opinion, is why Gregg stepped down.

“We’re going to just keep on making efforts to build the kind of bipartisan consensus around important issues.” Well, Obama had a willing non-partisan member of his cabinet, and Obama made it partisan, by pulling it from him, pressured by the Black Caucus. And now Obama is surprised?

How can Gregg be enthused to work for a President who finds him incapable of non-politicizing the census? (Not to mention a President that shoves that pork-laden stimulus bill through congress, breaking his promises of transparency, which Gregg didn’t support…)

“Under Obama’s census plan, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who has yet to be named, would report to White House senior management in addition to the Commerce Department, which oversees the bureau.

The outcome of the census has deep political implications, since congressional districts are drawn based on population. Many federal funds are distributed on the basis of population, as well.

The first whiff of greater White House interest in shaping the census came when members of the Congressional Black Caucus complained to the Obama administration about Gregg’s nomination.”

Here is a great debate on Gregg’s appointment, and withdrawal, from the McLaughlin Group. They seem to agree that the census was a major trigger in Gregg’s withdrawal.

“I think Gregg took a stand and refused to be a patsy in the politicalization of the census bureau.” ~John McLaughlin

(Why does Obama feel necessary to blame everyone else for his mistakes. So what if Gregg reached out to him with interest in the job? Obama hired him. I thought the buck stopped with Obama? What does this say about Obama’s judgment, and character? If I reach out to Obama for a job, do I get one, too?)

On February 6th, NQ featured two posts on this “backpage” issue: (1) SusanUnPC talked about the census and how Rahm Emanuel’s and the White House’s takeover of the process; and (2) I did an earlier piece on the politicization and what it meant for the Dept. of Commerce and its new head.

Bruce Chapman at discovery.org, has a brief run-down of how the BO administration has played this potential move. First, it appeared (at least to MSNBO) that PBO only intended to create some kind of an independent agency for Census. But later [according to newsbusters], Fox news picked up the story that having the Census Director report directly to the West Wing staff is the plan.

Here’s how Fox News covered it on the 9th.

discovery.org”>Chapman describes the move on census this way:

If so, the Obama Administration is threatening a reckless politicization of the Census Bureau and that, in turn, threatens to pull into unnecessary dispute the fundamental data that sustain almost the entire statistical system of the United States. It has the image of a Chicago-style partisan power play.
————-
Mentioned only by inference in discussions so far is the plain hope that a Census Bureau under the thumb of White House staffers might be prevailed upon to adopt a policy to “adjust” the Census numbers in 20101, using sampling and computer modeling–with all the profound implications that would have for political reapportionment and redistricting that will follow the Census count.
————-
First of all, the White House and its Congressional allies are wrong in asserting that the Census in the past has reported directly to the president through his staff. Directors of the Bureau often brief presidents and their staffs, but, as a former director (under President Reagan), I don’t know of any cases where the conduct of the Bureau was directly under White House supervision. That includes Clinton in 2000, Bush 41 in 1990 and Carter in 1980.

They also are dead wrong about the feasibility of using sampling and computer models to make adjustment a credible way to improve the accuracy of the population count for purposes of reapportionment and redistricting.

The WSJ had a piece about this today, quoting Chapman as well.

President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to “restore science to its rightful place” in government. That’s a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn’t think it would mean having the director of next year’s Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. “There’s only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement,” a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. “And it’s called politics, not science.”
————–
Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. “If the original numbers aren’t as hard as possible, the uses they’re put to get fuzzier and fuzzier,” says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.

The issue is sampling. Some people think coming up with hard census numbers based on sampling is efficient and accurate. But other people think sampling produces the wrong data and a “hard count” is the only way to get accurate numbers.

Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.

Such a move would prove controversial. “Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has,” says Mr. Chapman.

Starting in 2000, the Census Bureau conducted three years of studies with the help of many outside statistical experts. According to then Census director Louis Kincannon, the Bureau concluded that “adjustment based on sampling didn’t produce improved figures” and could damage Census credibility.

The reason? In theory, statisticians can identify general numbers of people missed in a head count. But it cannot then place those abstract “missing people” into specific neighborhoods, let alone blocks. And anyone could go door to door and find out such people don’t exist. There can be other anomalies. “The adjusted numbers told us the head count had overcounted the number of Indians on reservations,” Mr. Kincannon told me. “That made no sense.”

I would think a better effort at a hard count would be more valuable than sampling. However, the WSJ article ends with a return to Senator Gregg.

The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is “historical precedent” for the Census director to be “working closely with the White House.”

It would be nice to know what Sen. Gregg thinks about all this, but he’s refusing comment. And that, says Mr. Chapman, the former Census director, is damaging his credibility. “He will look neutered with oversight of the most important function of his department over the next two years shipped over to the West Wing,” he says. “If I were him, I wouldn’t take the job unless I had that changed.”

Does Gregg want to be a token? It certainly looks as if he is being set up. Nominated for head of a department he once said should be abolished, Gregg would also find an important part of his job sucked up into the White House. Personally, I don’t understand why Gregg would take that job at all. Aside from the obvious issues, it smacks of condescension and disrespect. Now, while politicians don’t often deserve respect, this seems more than usually emasculating.

(Speaking of which, anyone seen Howard Dean lately?)

Newsbusters again touched on this story as well and noted not a single question was asked at last night’s presser.

The Obama administration’s decision to have the White House supervise the 2010 Census — a response to left-wing complaints that the Census was too important to leave under the authority of Republican Judd Gregg, the nominee for Commerce Secretary — has thus far (as of Tuesday morning) drawn absolutely no attention from the three broadcast networks, with not a single mention on the ABC, CBS or NBC morning or evening newscasts.

Everyone knows the mantra “follow the money.” Well, Census creates the formulas by which that money is sent. You can only follow the money after Census lays down the tracks for it to flow to municipalities and organizations. If an administration can influence how Census determines the count, it can determine where the money goes without having to engage in earmarking or questionable allocations.

They’ll just say, “hey, we’re just following the numbers and getting the money to where it is needed.” But will we be able to trust THOSE numbers?

Now, why would Rahm Emanuel want the Census under his control in the White House? Huh? Why might that be? “The census is used to allocate federal aid to states and draw electoral districts,” the New York Times editorial board wrote in order to REMIND PRESIDENT OBAMA that he might not want a REPUBLICAN in charge of drawing “electoral districts.” Good god almighty. So now Obama’s administration has decided that they’ll do the census themselves. Here is the Fox panel on the census, and we’ll talk about it a bit more below:

P.S. You get extra credit for counting the number of times that Robert Gibbs says “Uh.”

I’m still shaking my head that the New York Times editorial board — like a stern schoolmaster — had to remind the President WHERE the Census is done, and who is in charge. It was after that editorial that the Obama administration woke up (!), and moved the Census operation to the White House.

Below is the editorial. It’s sad, isn’t it. And it’s also sad that NONE of Obama’s aides — not one of them — knew this before they all got the “genius” idea of nominating Judd Gregg to be Secretary of Commerce, a plan that is wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to start.

(1) He’s a Republican. A conservative Republican. He does not SHARE the values and platform of the Democratic party.

(2) He voted in 1995 to kill the Department of Commerce.

(3) He is a conservative Republican who does not share the values of the Democratic party and its membership.

(4) There are hints of associations with Jack Abramoff.

(5) He’s the Democratic base’s worst nightmare.

(6) OF WHAT POSSIBLE USE IS HE? Can anyone tell me?

Now, the editorial:

There’s been a lot of speculation about what President Obama was thinking when he decided to nominate Senator Judd Gregg, a prominent Republican, as secretary of commerce. Is he looking for the dissenting voice that will sharpen his views? Or, as The Wall Street Journal put it, is he trying to psych out Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, by availing himself of Mr. Gregg’s advice on how to pick off Republican votes in the Senate?

Time will tell. An easier question to answer is what Mr. Obama wasn’t thinking about when he chose Mr. Gregg. It seems safe to say that the 2010 census was not weighing on the president’s mind, though it should have been.

The Census Bureau is a major agency within the Commerce Department, and the decennial census — the next one is in 2010 — is a mammoth undertaking. After years of mismanagement and underfinancing by the Bush administration, the bureau is so ill prepared to conduct next year’s count that Congressional investigators have warned that it is at high risk of failure unless corrective action is taken immediately.

Mr. Gregg was never a friend of the census. As chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Commerce Department’s budget, he frequently tried to cut the bureau’s financing. In 1999, he opposed emergency funds for the 2000 census requested by President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled House.

The census is used to allocate federal aid to states and draw electoral districts. Given all that, one would think that the White House would be paying more attention. It isn’t. A director of the census, who must be confirmed by the Senate, has yet to be named.

In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gregg must explain what he would do to get the 2010 census back on track. Before that, Mr. Obama must choose a competent director and pledge his administration’s full support to spend whatever is necessary to salvage the count.

This is pathetic. This is White House 101 stuff. How did ALL of Obama’s aides and advisers MISS THIS?