(Yeah, the liberal lamestream media can cover this story and Tiger Woods' foibles all day long -- after all, tabloidism does sell -- but the Fort Hood massacre or the fraud perpetrated by climate warming "science" and its proponents, not so much.)

But, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. A House committee is holding hearings on the presidential state dinner gate crashers who the committee asked to come testify and is considering now subpoenaing for failure to appear; the head of the Secret Service is testifying before the committee and admitting Secret Service failures (probably after being told by some powerful part-timer in the current Obama administration that he, as a dedicated and loyal career federal employee, had to "fall on the sword" for this); at least three Secret Service agents have already been suspended, may be still further disciplined and their careers are probably already ruined; yet the Obama White House is claiming Executive Privilege to prevent its Social Secretary from even appearing and being questioned? The WH Social Secretary? Really?

Well, exactly what, or whom, is the WH really trying to protect here? Funny, but I would think the WH Social Secretary would NOT, in the normal course of her official duties, be privy to ANY national security or other classified information which might be inadvertently revealed if she testified before a Congressional committee.

Now, on the other hand, she might just know why she didn't have anyone from her office, or was not herself, helping the Secret Service agents identify properly invited arriving guests, which has been the norm in the past. And that would seem to be an important thing to learn about this whole fiasco. Maybe she and the other Social Secretary Office people just wanted to enjoy the dinner party instead and were therefore "too busy partying" to do their jobs. Or, to give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she was personally too busy checking flower arrangements, seating charts, table settings, or something else that social secretaries do, instead.

It's just a theory, mind you, but especially after all the incessant liberal carping about George Bush sometimes invoking Executive Privilege to prevent disclosure of real national defense and/or homeland security information in open Congressional committee hearings, it would seem Executive Privilege is not warranted simply to protect the WH Social Secretary from possibly being forced to admit she was at least complicit by omission in a social, as well as a security, faux pas and at least be subject to the embarrassment, if not the dismissal, which should rightfully accompany such an occurence.

Mr. Jones sure seems full of himself -- as well as some pretty wild ideas and accusations.

There's a painting at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, CA, which appears in a video interview of President Obama’s so-called Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Mr. Jones, an unrepentant rioter, race baiter and professional victim monger, started the Ella Baker Center. The painting shows a Jimmy Carter looking white man on the left pointing a gun into the back of the head of what appears to be a Hispanic woman. On the right is an Orin Hatch looking white man holding a piece of paper that says “War on Youth” as he handcuffs a young black male. In the middle are young minority youths just trying to have a good time if only the evil white men would let them.

So, who was Ella Baker? Well, she was a peaceful but persistent activist in the early days of the civil rights movement in this country and, one might say, a modern day American heroine for her work for equal rights for all. Born December 13, 1903, in Norfolk, Virginia, she developed a sense for social justice early in her life. As a student at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, she challenged school policies that she thought were unfair. After graduating in 1927 as class valedictorian, she moved to New York City and began joining social activist organizations.

She began her involvement with the NAACP in 1940. In 1957, Baker moved to Atlanta to help organize Martin Luther King's new organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In February 1960, a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, where they had been denied service. Baker left the SCLC after the Greensboro sit-ins because she wanted to assist the new student activists. She organized a meeting at Shaw University for the student leaders of the sit-ins in April 1960, and from that meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was born.

Adopting MLK's Gandhian theory of nonviolent direct action, SNCC members joined with activists from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to organize the 1961 Freedom Rides. With Ella Baker’s guidance and encouragement, SNCC became one of the foremost advocates for human rights in the country. She continued to be a respected and influential leader in the fight for human and civil rights until her death on December 13, 1986, her 83rd birthday.

And who is Anthony "Van" Jones? Born September 20, 1968, he attended the University of Tennessee at Martin and subsequently obtained his JD degree from Yale Law School. He is a lawyer, a civil rights, human rights and environmental activist, a self-proclaimed communist, a former street rioter and jailbird, and the author of one book, The Green Collar Economy (2008).

His current employer is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he is listed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, which means he's Obama's green jobs "czar," which means he works for and is accountable only to Obama but is paid by you, the American taxpayer. How much he's paid or the size and pay of his staff, we don't know -- just as with the approximately three dozen "other" extra-constitutional "czars" which Obama has appointed.
 
By virtue of being Obama's green jobs czar, Jones needs no Congressional approval -- approval he would not get either following an FBI SBI (Standard Background Investigation) or from Congress based on his record as a die-hard communist and self-described Marxist revolutionary. He also has some, ahem, other "interesting" beliefs, as well. He believes that "white polluters" intentionally steered poison into black neighborhoods. He also, just this year, attended a forum to promote Barack Obama’s agenda and, when asked how Republicans were able to block Obama’s agenda, repeatedly called them a-holes. He then said people around Barack Obama would need to get “uppity” to deal with the Republicans. (This is a guy with an advanced degree from Yale?! Well, that just made me much less impressed with Yale, and maybe with affirmative action, that's for sure.)

Oh, and Van Jones was also co-founder in 2005, along with James Rucker, previously Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action (2003 - 2005), of Color of Change, the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" "Van the Man" Jones as a former jailbird, self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist." 

Jones later moved on to other pursuits, but, coincidentally (I'm sure), it was Color of Change which recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only recently acknowledged but actually bragged that it literally dictated parts of the legislative language in the February stimulus bill to Congress. (Hmmm, still more radical left associations with, and within, the Obama White House. Oh my! Who would've guessed?)

So, Jones said “people around Barack Obama would need to get ‘uppity’ to deal with the Republicans,” eh? Well, that's okay. I'm from the South, where Ella Baker did most of her good work, and we don't tolerate uppity folks too well. In fact, not much better than we tolerate fools or liars, or communists, or radicals or so-called "revolutionaries," for that matter. And we know how to deal with uppity folks, too, blacks as well as whites. We prefer to treat people as equals but if you're going to act uppity, then get ready for a plain old Southern slapdown. You know, like maybe yo' momma should have given you more of when you were a little, too-big-mouthed boy and before you grew up to be a big ole too-big-mouthed man.

Jones has since, just recently, apologized for his "Republicans are a-holes" comments, saying something like since he started working in the White House, he's realized such comments are counter-productive and yadda, yadda. Well, duh! Looks like someone as smart as Jones seems to think he is, and with a law degree from Yale and all, would already have known that, wouldn't you think? Or were his "a-hole" comments just another example of "uppity" liberal-speak, when the mouth often just runs away with, or is that from, the brain?

Well, Van baby, "apology" NOT accepted! Your history and past comments and actions show who you really are, more than some "make nice" words of apology now. You're basically just another Saul Alinsky style, radical leftist (no wonder you and Obama "bond") who has most recently now taken on the mantle of White House enviro-terrorist and thug-in-chief. I don't think Miz Ella, who was not "uppity" herself, would be very proud of your methods or your mouth. In fact, if she were still alive, she might give you that good old Southern slapdown herself -- you know, the one yo' momma shoulda given you more of as a boy?

You recently said we need to completely overhaul the entire agricultural system in this country, and I simply ask you: Who the hell do you think you are? As we say in the South, "Don't get all carried away with yourself." What, besides your own ignorant arrogance, qualifies you to do anything with our agricultural system? I don't think a law degree even from Yale or the writing of one book or a background of radical victim activism qualifies you to even seriously talk about our overall agricultural system. So, as long as you last as Obama's "green jobs czar," why don't you just stick to seeing if you can create some overly expensive "green jobs" with all that "green jobs" money your Appollo Alliance aiders and abettors dictated into the so-called "stimulus plan" which so far, now even seven months later, hasn't stimulated much of anything?
 
Besides, I think you're already one of those "uppity" guys who needs to learn more about that old saying, "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird as-."

But that's just me -- just askin' - just sayin'.

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        

WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama

WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, and it announced Thursday, May 28, that it had finally obtained U.S. Census Bureau documents detailing substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census Bureau on March 23, 2009, but after the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled releasing the information, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch the next day, on May 15, 2009. I guess sometimes Team Obama's so-called and much touted "transparency" only happens after they're sued for it. 

In an official statement, the Obama Commerce Department discounted ACORN's participation in the Census, labeling the idea that ACORN would be involved in any Census count as "baseless." However, the Census Bureau had offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Oh, so I guess one step removed makes it all okey-dokey. Not likely any influence peddling there, I'm sure!

Moreover, as an "executive level partner," ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns." Well, we already know that ACORN is all about "locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns," even alleged illegal ones.

Included among the documents is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud. It's also strange that the documents show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. One can only surmise, then, that ACORN was given the "favor" of an exception, or extension, by someone.....in the Census Bureau.....or the Commerce Department.....or the White House.

Other conclusions from the documents:

a. The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences." In what, fraudulent voter registration practices? Employing previously convicted felons to coerce people into signing multiple and therefore fraudulent voter registration applications? Intimidating banks into making risky loans by physically interrupting their board meetings, or by staging protests outside their places of business, or by following employees to their homes? 

b. Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were evidently unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid. Oh, well, if the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce staffs didn't know when ACORN was brought on board as an "executive level partner," then I guess that answers the question of where that "favorable" application exception or extension must have come from, because only the White House is left in the decision chain.

And if the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staffs didn't know how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid, then I guess that means they just don't know what they're doing. Let's see, neither staff knows what it's doing but good old ACORN is going to be right there, as an "executive level partner," to help them. So, I guess that means the 2010 Census is off to a really good start.

c. Unless a preliminary name check provided a match, the Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census. Overall, 8 percent of the applicants, or over 300,000 of the people who assisted in conducting the 2000 Census, were considered "risks for hire." I wonder how many (more) that will be with ACORN's involvement this time?

The Census is more important than many citizens realize. One, it's only conducted once every ten years, so whatever it concludes and publishes has pretty lasting effects. Two, among other things, Census data are used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds to the states. Three, and possibly the most important and far-reaching, the Census "determines how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts." Read that underlined part again. That means Census data affect our governments at all levels, from the federal right down to the district and city or town in which you live and the place where you go to vote.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census." He also said, "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

Politicizing the 2010 Census? Why, Team Obama would never politicize anything, would they? Much less something as important, impactful and far-reaching as the once-in-ten-years Census, right? The involvement of the federally investigated ACORN; Team Obama previously stating it would run the 2010 Census out of the White House, at least when a Republican was up for Secretary of Commerce; Obama's appointment of Robert Groves, a survey researcher at the University of Michigan who supports controversial methods of counting heads where workers estimate the number of individuals in a given area using statistical sampling and who thinks this is a better method of counting illegals who may confuse census workers with law enforcement officials and avoid them -- do you really think any or all of this means Team Obama may be politicizing (read: trying to manipulate and control) the 2010 Census?

And nowhere in the Constitution is the word "Census" used, anyway. It says, in Article I, Section 2, dealing with the legislative branch and the basis upon which the number of U.S. Representatives will be determined, that: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (the three fifths reference to slaves was later changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment). The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So, in the Constitution, the Census of today is called an "actual enumeration," or, as defined by the dictionary, a counting -- not a statistical estimation, but a counting.    

So, in view of all of this, conservatives who claim Groves' method of estimating instead of counting is politically motivated and will result in over-counting the number of Democrats in the U.S. (legal and illegal -- or "documented" and "undocumented"), or that Team Obama is politicizing the Census -- why, they must just be looking for something to complain about, right? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

And if you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.