The True Story Behind ACORN's Pimp Daddy O'Keefe's Arrest

Since the story broke of James O'Keefe's arrest, I have been thinking of what I thought of it, and I didn't want to jump to any conclusions as the mainstream media did. So, I waited until I received all of the facts before I posted anything. Now, we know what went on in New Orleans last tuesday and why he did what he did.

Briefly, here is what happened:

An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator's offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street on Monday about 11 a.m., dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th-floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.

When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affidavit, observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O'Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.

After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn't working. Flanagan did the same.

They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and Flanagan and Basel went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials. They said they left them in their vehicle.

The U.S. Marshal's Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.

This left everyone wondering just what the hell was O'Keefe, the man who went into ACORN offices around the country posing as a pimp in order to secretly videotape employees attempting to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the US and get away with it, and cohorts doing. Of course, liberals and most of the mainstream media jumped to the conclusion that he was trying to tape Senator Mary Landrieu's own phone conversations. However, as the story unfolded and the FBI affidavit was released, it turned out that the intent wasn't so nefarious but just as illegal:

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views. 

That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt -- to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn't get through?

Yesterday, O'Keefe released a statement discussing what happened in Landrieu's New Orleans office. Here is what he was doing in his own words:

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

He admitted that he probably should have taken a different approach in investigating Landrieu, but he wasn't

He went on to lambaste the media for jumping to conclusions and blowing the story up in order to demonize him:

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Obviously, this was way out of line and a serious felony. He should be greatly chastised for it. On the other hand, since this story broke, liberals are already trying to use this to get ACORN out of the doghouse by implying that O'Keefe must have used similar tactics to twist what really happened in the various ACORN offices, but it shouldn't be used, as it most definitely has been, to minimize his accomplishments and absolve ACORN more all of its illegal activities.

Is Michael Steele Asking Conservative Commentators to Committ Media Malpractice When Discussing Sotomayor?

The GOP chairman raised some eyebrows this morning while substituting for radio host Bill Bennett by chastising fellow Republicans for criticizing Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

He also said that conservatives should refrain from speaking against Sotomayor because of how the overly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would react.

I personally like Steele, but he seems to have a Biden-like knack for putting his foot in his mouth. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just name call and make up stories to discredit her, but there should be a honest vetting process of his nominee by the press. We cannot be afraid to criticize her because the left will call us bigots. If we failed to vet her, we would committing media malpractice just as the media did when they failed to vet Obama properly.

Many people were "afraid" to vet Obama because he was the first black that had a legitimate chance at the White House. It wasn't right then, and it wouldn't be right if we didn't vet Sotomayor because she was the first latina nominated to the Court.

The "Affirmative Action" label probably should be avoided because there is no real proof that a reason why Obama picked her was her race or gender, but her quotes, legal rulings, and stances on legal issues are fair game.

As long as her race and gender are not used as reason why she shouldn't be confirmed and critics make a well-thought out and relevant case against her, it shouldn't hurt them with Hispanics. They must take the case to them, though. Maybe go on Spanish tv and radio to make their case why Sotomayor is outside of the mainstream and isn't right for the Supreme Court. Perhaps, they should also give a couple of alternatives of other Hispanic women that would be better suited for the highest court in the land.

Does CBS Still Have a Editor With Ethics? CBS Chief Legal Analyst Calls Cheney a "D**k"

CBS is keeping it classy as always:

It appears CBS News's Chief Legal Analyst doesn't agree with his colleague Bob Schieffer that former Vice President Dick Cheney is winning the national security debate with Barack Obama.

Quite the contrary, Andrew Cohen thinks Cheney is still living in "the world of September 11, 2001, a world where hijacked planes are screaming toward their targets, chaos reigns, and anything goes."

As a result, Cohen wondered in a Friday posting at his CBSNews.com blog "Court Watch" if Cheney is, "as many people say, just a d**k".

Did you wash your mouth out with soap before you kissed your mom last? This is just inexcusable for someone in the mainstream media being blatantly disrespectful to the former Vice President. Of course, after they defended Dan Rather for knowingly falsifying memos about Bush's military record, their occupational integrity left them years ago.

More Superb Reporting From AP Covering Obama

Another Pulitzer-caliber investigative report from the Associated Press:

It's a busy Saturday for Barack Obama. First he named a new ambassador to China and then he switched from being president to being a soccer dad.

Obama traded a business suit for jeans and a Chicago White Sox jacket before shuttling around Washington to see daughters Malia and Sasha play in separate soccer games.

Obama cheered and clapped along the sidelines at 7-year-old Sasha's game with two Chicago friends. At one point, after Sasha's team scored, the president excitedly shouted "go ... go ... go ... goal."

Tom Shales Needs The Obama Drool Cup STAT-300th Post

His Obama love letter was gushing with praise for The One in today's Washington Post:

The questions put to Barack Obama at his news conference last night covered nearly every topic but the Craigslist Killer, and if that had come up, Obama probably would have answered it in stride. You ask, he'll answer -- earnestly, disarmingly, enchantingly, even -- and most of the time convincingly, which is no small accomplishment for a politician.

He goes on to declare Obama to be the best comedian evah:

"Now let me write this down," the president said with perfect comic timing. And he did appear to be jotting down the four terms so he could answer them in order -- no hint of talking down to the questioner or making light of the question.

Of course, he couldn't resist taking a shot at Bush:

Barack Obama is a truly flabbergasting president. And in a good way -- not the way some of his predecessors were. He's not flabberghastly.

"Flabberghastly"! Oh, that is just hilarious.

When Obama answers a question, you don't slap your forehead and moan, "Oh, brother!" He is, as guest expert David Gergen noted on CNN after the news conference, not only "up to speed" on the pressing issues of our time but also articulate about addressing them in a friendly, accessible way. He's not the student who wears a button that says, "Smartest kid in class," but clearly he is, at least when surrounded by the White House press corps.

Oh, brother! Ow! I hurt my head from slapping it.

Obama has misspoke many times resulting from his teleprompter malfunctions and just because he doesn't really know about many times. If you catch Ed Morrisey on Hotair.com everyday, like I do, you'd be able to keep track of various "Obamateurisms" where Obama says something that many people would wonder what was wrong with him, if the people in the media, like Mr. Shales, covered his mistakes like they covered Bush's mistakes, but they won't. So, the public is left unaware of his sometimes questionable statements.

Obama can use a five-dollar word such as "overarching" in one sentence and a few sentences later utter a folksy "doggone it." His verbiage is a melting pot that's always bubbling. A few times, he did stumble over words, and once or twice appeared semantically stranded, unable to find the precise language he wanted to use. But compare him with his predecessor and such moments seem trifling.

So, not only is he a Harvard elitist, but he's also a down-home Joe. Wow! Obama is just like everyone of us.

Geez! What happened to media integrity at the Post?

AP: 38 Days Late, $787 Billion Short

Bold claims of stimulus jobs can't be measured

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press
Thu Mar 26, 5:08 am ET

WASHINGTON – If space exploration were conducted like the job forecasts under the government's new stimulus law, man surely would have missed the moon. But this isn't rocket science.

No promise from President Barack Obama is more important to the wounded economy than his vow to save or create some 3.5 million jobs in two years. In support of that bottom line, the government even tells states how many jobs they can expect to see from the spending and tax cuts.

But precise trajectories are impossible to plot and even approximations can be wildly off, as the authors of these forecasts acknowledge, usually more readily than the policymakers who use them to promote the plan.

Flip through the stacks of economic analyses underpinning the stimulus plan and you find a lot of throat-clearing qualifications and angst:

_"Very uncertain."
_"Difficult to distinguish among alternative estimates."
_"We confess to considerable uncertainty."
_"Subject to substantial margins of error."

In other words, who really knows?

Economic modeling may prove to be a haywire navigational device in this crisis.

"Large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers. "For those reasons, some economists remain skeptical that there will be any significant effects, while others expect very large ones."

Zero to nirvana? Even for economists, who routinely differ among themselves, that's a range beyond the norm.

The disconnect between theory and real life became evident when Obama pitched his plan at a Caterpillar factory before its passage and held out hope the federal stimulus money would let the heavy equipment maker rehire some of the thousands being let go.

Although that might be the eventual result when money courses through the pipeline, Caterpillar last week announced 2,400 more layoffs.

By necessity, stimulus projections were put together in ways that bear little resemblance to a family's budget.

Assumptions are piled atop assumptions, rules of thumb, historical experience, theory and more than a little hope.

A family budget is a set of building blocks of income and expenses, simple addition from the bottom up.

The stimulus projections are top down, a matter of economic multipliers and complex division infused with things that may or may not happen.

The government estimated how much the spending and tax cuts might grow the economy. Then that effect was translated into projected job growth overall. Then that theoretical pie was divided into chunks to show what each state and sector of the economy might get out of it.

All of this without knowing, for example, how exactly states will spend money they get from Washington. Or how money going directly to a bridge or manufacturer will support other jobs in the communities.

Among the assumptions used in White House and congressional forecasting:

_Every one-point gain in the gross domestic product will translate into 1 million jobs.

_For every two jobs directly created by the stimulus spending, a third job will be indirectly created. The 2-to-1 ratio is rough and varies considerably by sector.

_For each dollar states receive from Washington, they will decide to use 60 cents to avoid spending cuts, 30 cents to avoid tax increases and 10 cents to reduce drawdowns of their rainy day funds.

_A tax cut has only one-quarter of the value of a spending increase of the same size, in terms of expanding the economy.

_Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits is worth $1.63 of quick economic expansion. Food stamps boost the economy even more.

The overarching goal — and promise — of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs is built on vagaries such as these.

Job creation is counted in different ways, but none that can isolate the stimulus package from the multitude of forces shaping the economy.

And there's no reliable way to measure how many jobs the stimulus will stop from disappearing. Companies don't report layoffs avoided by federal aid.

Instead, forecasters estimated how low the economy might have sunk without the stimulus, and how high that would drive unemployment up. The idea is to have about 3.5 million more people working than might have been the case if the government had done nothing.

Economists on Obama's team projected that the stimulus will mean an unemployment rate nearly two points lower at the end of next year than it would have been absent the plan.

Far below the theoretical, in the grounded world of road repairs, health technology projects and all the other contracts made possible by the federal spending, actual jobs will be created. Those building blocks of employment will be tracked. But under White House guidance to federal departments, they are not to be reported. The reasoning: They are "likely to be inconsistent with macroeconomic estimates."

"Uniform reporting requirements for estimates of job creation will be specified at a later time," said a February memo from the White House Office Management and Budget.

By the end of Obama's term, the true effects of the stimulus might best be measured family by family, in the way famously posed by Ronald Reagan days before the election that brought him to office:

"It might be well if you ask yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stimulus_jobs_numbers
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Good article with good analysis. Too bad it is way too late. The fact that Obama and his administration were likely making up numbers as they went along would have been useful two months ago. Now, it just proves that the Mainstream Media often buries stories like this until legislation that promotes their liberal agenda is already law and is too late to stop. This another case of media malpractice.

MSM Media Reporter Fired After Fabricating Racism Story About FNC Host

Baltimore Reporter Out of a Job After Posting Doctored Video Clip
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller

A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed by the station, FOXNews.com has learned.

The offensive video clip was doctored so that the viewer heard Gibson using the words "bright blue scrotum" in reference to Attorney General Eric Holder, rather than to a defining characteristic of a monkey on the loose in Seattle.

The video circulated rapidly on blogs and news Web sites Thursday and was not corrected for hours.

John Sanders, the technology reporter for WBAL-TV, admitted in a Breitbart.tv report that he was the person responsible for the clip. The station confirmed Sanders' actions on Tuesday and, in a statement, referred to him as a "former" employee.

"WBAL-TV management has learned that a former WBAL-TV employee posted a video regarding Fox News' John Gibson and Attorney General Eric Holder on his personal YouTube page without the prior knowledge or consent of anyone at WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television," the station said in its statement.

"This video was not approved by, used, or sanctioned in any way by WBAL-TV or Hearst-Argyle Television and we do not condone such behavior."

The station refused to say in the statement if Sanders was fired or had resigned. Sanders' profile was removed from WBAL's Web site.

Gibson, who is considering legal action, said he was "outraged" by the clip.

"I've had to endure people misinterpreting things I have actually said and mischaracterizing things I've actually said," Gibson told FOXNews.com. "But this was going the extra step ..."

"I feel like I've been harmed, but I don't know if it meets the legal standard. But we'll see."

The fake video produced hundreds of angry comments directed at Gibson, many demanding disciplinary action. Gibson said he is also concerned that some blogs and other news aggregating sites may not have posted corrections or his actual video.

"I worry about these things because they go viral, and all of a sudden, you're getting buried in e-mails and there's no way of backing out of it," Gibson said. "The volume gets to be so incredible and it's hard to scrub this out of people's memories."

Media critic Howard Kurtz, a columnist for the Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," likened the clip's doctoring to a "journalistic felony" and said it wasn't funny under any circumstances.

"Well, I'm outraged," Kurtz said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I think the reaction has been muted because most people don't know about it. If someone doctored a video and put it on the air or online, that's a journalistic felony. If it was a private joke picked up by others — well, it's still a pretty bad and hurtful joke."

Attempts to reach Sanders were unsuccessful Tuesday. During an interview with Breitbart.tv's Scott Baker last week, Sanders said: "I heard the very end of it and thought, 'Wow, that little bit could go there and it would sound funny as long I disclosed that he had not actually said it that way.'"

Baker told FOXNews.com on Tuesday he thought the video clip wasn't maliciously trying to harm Gibson's reputation.

"I think he was just trying to do something funny and wasn't thinking through the consequences of it," Baker said. "It's a great question of ethics in the new digital age."

--------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499525,00.html----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I still can’t believe the audacity of many in the liberal MSM. Like Dan Rather, many don’t care if it is actually the truth or not as long as it embarrasses, minimizing, and takes down conservatives.