ACORN's Lost Plunder Leads To Another Blunder

Angry that two young novice filmmakers have exposed the seedy side of their business, ACORN has now decided to exact a pound of flesh from those two and an internet reporter, Andrew Breitbart, in a court of law. After all, it is only logical for ACORN to fight back since they have been hurt tremendously by these two by losing millions of dollars in funding from our Federal government.

But, once again, ACORN could wind up being on the short end of the stick with this particular legal maneuver.

First, this legal action, against these two young people, will only add to the bad publicity that ACORN already has accumulated. I am quite sure that the majority of the public will side with the filmmakers. Only those on the far-left, politically, are likely to side with ACORN. ACORN already has quite a bad rap in the area of voter fraud. And, their voter fraud rap sheet goes back for more than 3 national election cycles. Now, this aiding and abetting in the illegal trafficking of underage prostitutes and tax evasion in more than three cities in three different states doesn't hardly improve their already tarnished image.

Secondly, and most importantly, ACORN has stupidly unleashed the dogs on themselves. Every aspect of their operations will be under scrutiny by a legal defense team for the filmmakers because of the legal discovery process in preparing for this case. The investigation that ACORN sidestepped in Congress (primarily due to their protection by the Democrats) will actually occur in the public legal arena and the results are sure to become available to all. My guess is that a lot of concerned Americans will contribute to the legal defense of the filmmakers -- just because ACORN will be under legal scrutiny.

I personally believe that ACORN has a lot more to hide than what has already been learned about them. If that is true, I suspect that their lawsuit will be eventually dropped because they can't afford to go under the extreme exposure that it will afford their enemies.

Once again, this lawsuit only shows what kind of thugs are running ACORN. The intent of that lawsuit is to keep people from looking into their operations or they will be punished by having to spend their own time and money on a legal defense. Any legitimate organization would not have done the same. The list of states that are investigating ACORN for voter fraud and other violations of the law just grows by the day with California and Minnesota added just in the last week. That hardly makes ACORN the equivalent of Mother Theresa in the world of community organizing.

While a legal defense fund from a conservative legal group has already been established for Hannah Giles (one of the filmmakers), I would expect that some larger conservative legal group, like the Alliance Defense Fund, will eventually pro-bono their services in defending all of those who are targeted by this lawsuit. I believe this to be more powerful than having three separate lawyers defending the three being sued. It would also provide the national basis that would be needed to do a complete investigation of ACORN.

Snippets Were Bad, Then. Now, They're Ok!

During the campaign, Obama complained that comments made by Reverend Wright and his wife were just "snippets" being taken out of context to hurt him.

In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Barack Obama said that using those "snippets" of his wife's statements were both "low class" and "detestable." (See Full Story)

This snippet defense was used so often by Barack, that Ken Eliasberg, a noted writer and lecturer, wrote an opinion piece about it in October 2008: "Snippets? Associations? Who is Barack Obama?".

Now, zoom forward to this week when Obama was willing to release an extremely select group of memos regarding the Bush Administration interrogation techniques. You might say that they, too, were the same kind of "snippets" that Barack complained of during the campaign; but, now, when Barack is the "snippetee" he seems to think that tactic is just fine. Of course, using his own words against him, it appears that he, now, is one of those who could be considered "low class" and "detestable."

When former Vice President Cheney asked that all the pertinent data/memos be released so those "snippets" could be put into full context, the Obama henchman, Eric Holder, said that the Administration wasn't going to "play hide and seek" with documents for political purpose. But, in the same breath, said he wasn't sure what documents Cheney was talking about. I think the original release of those memos were "hide and seek" for political reasons. Those memos whipped up the left so that now they have just enough information, those out-of-context "snippets," to pursue full Congressional and/or independent investigations and hearings.

The B.S. in all of this is that now, Obama, the "low class" and "detestable," has said, as of Thursday, that he doesn't support any independent panel to investigate the Bush Administration (See Full Story). But, this is just an Obama ploy. He's already seeded Congress and his base on the political left with the release of those memos. Now, by saying he doesn't support any investigations, he can just sit back and let them happen in Congress without making it seem like he was really responsible. Remember: Obama said he was against any independent investigation. He didn't say he objected to Congress conducting one.

That's so Obama...always trying to have it both ways!