ACORN

• Think Progress: Rep. Steve King Says Same-Sex Marriage Is "A Purely Socialist Concept."
• Sarah Posner: Judging by this past weekend’s marquee event on the conservative calendar, the center of gravity is moving from religious right to Tea Partiers, from homosexuality to taxes. A closer look, however, reveals the growing symbiosis between the two.
• Wonk Room: Anti-Immigrant Group Bashes ‘Out Of Touch’ Judeo-Christian Movement For Immigration Reform.
• Good As You: There is a major Catholic push against your equality that is starting to make the Mormon's 2008 efforts look like child's play by comparison.
• Pam's House Blend: The federal government must investigate NOM's finances.
• RH Reality Check: Forty Days of Protesting Birth Control.
• Some eye-opening info about the right-wing folks behind the ACORN videos.
• Finally, why does Chuck Norris hate America ... or at least our flag?

• Media Matters calls for accountability following omissions during Fox News' ACORN reports.
• Salon: Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life.
• RH Reality Check: Egg-as-Person State Law Campaigns Attract New Faces, Old Radicals.
• David Weigel reports on the Federation for American Immigration Reform's "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" event.
• Good As You has the audio of Tony Perkins speaking at Bangor Baptist Church in Maine following the right wing anti-marriage rally in the state last weekend.
• Rep. Steve King is defending his colleague Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), by claiming that  "the President threw the first punch."
• Finally, Orly Taitz gets laughed out of court, which only proves, of course, that the judge is a tool of Obama. Also, someone even crazier than Taitz is accusing her of trying to get him to give false testimony for one of her Birther lawsuits.

On September 9th, President Obama delivered his healthcare address to a joint session of Congress. Not surprisingly, security around the Capitol was pretty tight ... but to Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, this sizable security presence wasn't there to protect the President or members of Congress; it was really an effort by "the Left" to intimidate conservatives:

Everything was on hand in preparation for an assault. But by whom?

Were they mobilizing for an attack by jihadists bent on acts of terrorism? No, the State Department has decreed that the bad old days of the Bush Administration’s preoccupation with the Axis of Evil and the War on Terror are over.

Then it came to me.

They are there to ensure that those evil right-wing terrorists who have been running amuck at TEA Parties and town halls all over the country don’t get the idea that they can weaken the grip of Pelosi and company by mounting a disruptive demonstration prior to, during, or after Obama’s health care reform address to Congress. Can’t allow those wicked conservatives to take a page out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals! Can’t allow those wicked conservatives to behave like ACORN or the Black Panthers! It just wouldn’t do.

...

If the left — with its majorities in both the House and the Senate — has everything nailed down as solidly as “I’ve-got-the-votes” Pelosi claims, why all the frustration, anger, fear, and hysteria that we’re seeing? That much is not merely theatre. Those emotions are real and very hard to hide. You can see them in the eyes and body language and hear them in the tone of voice.

No. What we are seeing is something very real. And it certainly isn’t pretty.

That is what Jordan Sekulow, Director of International Operations at the American Center for Law and Justice, says: 

I understand why Congressman Wilson shouted at President Obama and if I had the guts he did, I'd hope I would have done the same thing. Was it a distraction that hurt the fight against government run health care? We'll see. Was it the "right" thing to do? Probably not. But, do I like the fact that he stood up to the President just like thousands of Americans who stood up to their representatives during the August recess? You bet I did. Why? I was enraged when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called President Bush a "loser" and when Democrats booed President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address. President Obama is getting a taste of the tactics used by the DNC, Organizing for America, and ACORN. The gloves have come off and the fight is real. Conservatives can beat this regime at its own game and the President is sweating.

President Obama, you should apologize to the American people for the lies and deceptions you and your party continue to preach.

• Steve Benen congratulates one of the few conservatives who have the courage to at least suggest that perhaps Rush Limbaugh is not the face the Republican Party needs if it ever hopes to regain its relevance.
• Sarah Posner smartly points out that "only 33 percent of white evangelicals thought it was proper for Obama to speak at [Notre Dame] -- that's about half of those who think torture can be justified."
• Good As You got Focus on the Family to admit that the claims in the Cornerstone poll are "not accurate."
• Finally, several things from Media Matters: Glen Beck suggesting that ACORN may kill him for his coverage of them; a good collection of conservative media figures saying that marriage equality will lead to "triads," interspecies marriage, and pedophilia; and Pat Robertson saying he'll support marriage equality "when two men get together and make a baby"

Sen. Orrin Hatch says he spoke with President Obama, who "assured me that he would not be picking a radical or an extremist for the court that he was very pragmatic in his approach and that he would pick somebody who would abide by the rule of law.” Hatch also speculates that the White House could announce its nominee as soon as this week.

Following Arlen Specter's defection, Sen. Jeff Session has been chosen to take over his position as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committe in a move that is being welcomed by right-wing groups:

“He is someone who has a tremendous amount of experience with legal policy issues that the committee has to involve itself in,” said Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers ... Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, expects changes under Sessions.

“I assume he will bring in some conservative staff,” said Sekulow. He called Sessions’ elevation on the committee “good for Republicans.”

Phyllis Schlafly has now gotten around to weighing in with her latest column, accusing Souter of flipping "from presumed conservative to liberal as soon as the media began ridiculing him" and attacking President Obama and several of his nominees, including David Hamilton:

We would also like to know if Obama's Supreme Court nominee is cut from the same cloth as his first judicial nomination, David F. Hamilton. He's a former fundraiser for ACORN and a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU.

Ed Whelan starts the opposition research, announcing "one [possible nominee] whose candidacy I take seriously and whom I have previously written very little about is Seventh Circuit judge Diane P. Wood. I will address her record in this and subsequent posts" and concludes that "her course of conduct signals the dangers of judicial lawlessness that inhere in Obama’s badly misguided standard for judging."

Back in February and March, we wrote a series of posts about how the Religious Right was trying to get a supposedly "anti-Christian" provision stripped from the stimulus legislation, screaming and yelling about discrimination and threatening lawsuits only to utterly fall silent about it after the legislation containing the provision at issue was signed into law.

The over-arching theme of those posts was a sense of amazement that the Right fully knew that everything they were saying about this provision was blatantly untrue yet they continued to repeat it regardless.  In fact, it seemed as if most of those screeching about it didn't even bother to read the provision itself or do any basic research ... presumably because doing so would have only undermined their ability to keep lying about it.

I am getting the same impression regarding the Department of Homeland Security report that has become the focus of the Right's outrage over the last few days. The fact that DHS has issued a statement explaining that the report is part of "an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States" doesn't matter. The fact that it was commissioned under the Bush administration and overseen by a Bush appointee does not matter either.  Nor does the fact that the report obviously is not an attack on conservatives, veterans, or Christians, as they are claiming, which is something they would know if they bothered to actually read it [PDF].

But they don't care:

Call Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to demand an apology for the outrageous DHS memo disparaging America's veterans and pro-lifers

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is stubbornly refusing to apologize to our nation's veterans for issuing a DHS intelligence assessment which disparages veterans as possible terrorist threats. The report also defamed peaceful pro-lifers.

Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America said: "I agree with the Democrat chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, when he said he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued. Veterans and pro-lifers should not be targeted as terrorist threats by the Obama administration. This partisanship must stop."

And, just as with the stimulus provision," the ACLJ is among those taking the lead in generating faux outrage once again, sending out an email to supporters blasting this "unconstitutional report":

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has labeled you, a member of the pro-life community, THE MOST DANGEROUS DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

The DHS warning entitled: ''Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment'' is so troubling that at first, I actually didn't believe that Homeland Security could issue such a document.

But it's true. We've verified it. And make no mistake, this unconstitutional report raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of the agency charged with protecting Americans in the ongoing battle against terrorism.

And why don't they care?  Because they can use as part of their fundraising efforts:

Today, federal employees whose salaries we pay are issuing reports from the Department of Homeland Security that say some conservatives are a grave threat to America. Why? Because we oppose abortion and the massive growth of the federal government. Do they no longer see Al Qaeda or the Taliban as the greatest threat to Americans' liberty? Apparently they are now targeting us. I remind DHS and all who read this that we oppose all violence or lawbreaking. But speaking out is an American right we will not give up!

Parents with children are bearing the brunt of this administration's drive for ever greater control--control of our checkbooks, control of the schools, control of our communities, control of our churches, population control, gun control, environmental control. Control is the common thread.

...

Will you help Family Research Council (FRC) fight excessive government and defend your rights with a donation today?

...

What's their strategy in this new campaign to undermine America 's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation?

* Money to silence your voice. Billions set aside for ACORN and other radical coalitions committed to creating a permanently left-wing government by whatever means necessary--including voter fraud which ACORN has committed.

* Money to teach immoral behavior in schools. New spending means more federal interference in local schools, loss of parental rights, and forcing our children to learn about immoral behavior.

* Money for abortion and a culture of death. Top abortion advocates get hundreds of millions of new federal subsidies from their liberal allies in Washington.

The one common thread to all of this "outrage" from the Christian Coalition, the Family Reserach Council, and others (aside from the lying) is that they don't provide a link to the actual DHS report itself, despite the fact that it is widely available.

If this report is so outrageous and offensive, why aren't these right-wing groups providing links to it so that their activists can read it for themselves?

Maybe because a) they haven't read it themselves or b) they have read it and know that it doesn't say what they are claiming it says and are hoping that their activists will just take their word for it and start sending in the checks.

Last month, when I wrote a post about the Right's opposition to President Bush's first judicial nominee, David Hamilton, I took issue with their attempt to tie him to ACORN by pointing out that his "ties" to the organization consisted entirely of a one-month stint as a canvasser some thirty years ago.

I didn't bother explaining at the time the back story about the Right's hatred of ACORN because a) it is already well-known and b) it would have been a time consuming project to compile all the smears against the organization.

Fortunately, Media Matter has now released a report chronicling the countless examples where right-wing commentators and members of the media have used ACORN as a whipping boy and debunking the various lies about their work which includes, among other things, this list of the the various times Hamilton's "ties" to ACORN were mentioned: 

• NBC deputy political director Mark Murray, in a March 17 post to the MSNBC.com blog First Read

• The Chicago Tribune's David G. Savage, in a March 17 post to its blog The Swamp

• USA Today's Mark Memmott, in a March 17 post to its blog The Oval

• The American Spectator's Matthew Vadum, in a March 17 blog post

• Wendy Long, in a March 17 post to the National Review Online blog bench memos

• Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream, during the March 18 edition of Special Report

• Co-host Pat Robertson on the March 18 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club

Media Matters has done a great job of showing how ACORN has been blamed or otherwise mentioned in connection with a wide range of issues including the financial crisis, voter fraud, the Minnesota Senate recount, the economic recovery legislation, SCHIP legislation, the 2010 census, and the election of Barack Obama and setting the record straight on right-wing attempts to smear the organization. 

Be sure to check it out.

Last week we noted how, right out of the gate, one of the Right’s primary talking points in justifying its immediate opposition top President Obama’s first judicial nominee, was that he was a fundraiser for ACORN and that his nomination was “payback” to the organization.

Of course, as it turned out, Hamilton’s “ties” to ACORN consisted entirely of a one-month stint as a canvasser for the organization thirty years ago.

But that hasn’t stopped Hamilton’s supposed ties to ACORN from becoming a central focus on the Right’s mounting opposition, as it is working its way into Fox News’ coverage of his nomination and continues to be cited, with Robert Stacy McCain predicting that it is only a matter of time before the ACORN-obsessed Michelle Malkin learns about it, saying we’re in “gasket-blowing countdown mode [before] Mt. Malkin erupts.”

To her credit, Malkin has yet to take that bait, as far as we can tell, but the same cannot be said for Ed Messe, Tony Perkins, David McIntosh, TK Cribb, and Alfred Regnery, who issued a joint statement opposing Hamilton’s nomination which placed his “ties” to ACORN at top of their list of objections:

Judge Hamilton is committed to an extreme political agenda.

• Hamilton is a former ACLU leader who lent his legal skills to the far-left special interest group.

• He was a fundraiser for the liberal activist group ACORN, the sponsor of the most comprehensive criminal voter fraud campaign in American history.

It seems pretty clear that Hamilton’s short-lived, age-old ties are going to remain a centerpiece of the Right’s opposition to his nomination – opposition that is becoming nearly universal among right-wing groups who work on the issue, judging by this article on Focus on the Family’s website:

Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, called that a bad sign.

"If this was just one extreme liberal among a bunch of moderate picks that would be OK," he said. "The problem is that the administration is touting this as an example of how moderate their picks will be. If this is what the Obama administration considers 'moderate' then I think the nation is in trouble."

Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, agreed Hamilton is no moderate.

"Hamilton appears, from our initial study, to have made rulings that show his willingness to bend the law to reach outcomes that would be favored by the ACLU, which are inconsistent with the proper role of a judge," she said. "If this is an example of what the White House thinks is a 'moderate judge,' I would shudder to think of what they think a 'liberal' judge looks like.

"If (Obama) continues in this vein, I think there will be a political price to pay in 2010."

Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said that people need to understand Obama's agenda.

"It's a radical agenda that would dramatically restrict American citizens' power to self government," he said. "What people need to do is wake up … because if not the courts are going to be transformed in the direction of liberal judicial activism, and the courts will be governing everything in this country."

Hamilton has the support of both of his home-state senators, including Republican Richard Lugar, as well as the support of the president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society, but that apparently doesn’t matter as right-wing judicial activists are committed to waging a battle over judicial nominations, beginning with the very first nominee.