TEA PARTY CRASHER BUSTED!

A group that identifies itself as the Tea Party Crashers had been registered to the name "Ben Franklin". However, thanks to the efforts of a blogger on the Free Republic site, the original registry for the Crashers' website was discovered to belong to a man named Jason Levin (pictured).

Disturbingly but increasingly common, the tactics to be used by this group involve infiltrating Tea Parties across the country while posing as legitimate participants. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. In typical leftwing fashion, the plan is to deceptively appear as a Tea Party member while actively playing to the negative stereotypes attributed to them.

For more on how Jason Levin was identified as the leader of this group, check out this thread at Free Republic. A tactic otherwise known as "Bearing False Witness", which just so happens to be in violation of one of the Ten Commandments the left has a problem with.

Notice the verbiage on the website. It's a very telling indicator as to the warped psyche of these people, who are part of the leftwing which has a long and sordid history of decrying racism, stereotyping, and generalizations. Yet, in this case, if you're a member of the Tea Party, you're a racist, homophobe, or moron - I like how he blatantly misused a semi-colon while putting it next to a word he used to insult others' intelligence.

WHO WE ARE: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself "The Tea Party."

This excerpt from the website, however, has got to be my personal favorite:

HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.

Perfect. What better way to prove your point than by intentionally proving your opponent's concerns are justified?

This is nothing more than an ends-justifies-the-means mentality, which is what the founder of Community Organizing, Saul Alinsky taught. Bearing false witness is something Lucifer endorses and, go figure, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer, who is no doubt quite proud (pun intended) of these tactics. Fighting fair is of no interest. It should be obvious that this behavior is being tacitly sanctioned by the White House and overtly sanctioned by the Mainstream Media; there have been countless examples over the last year (note proper use of semi-colon). The MSM has routinely played into these tactics when it benefits those who use them and has avoided reporting on incidents when such tactics are exposed.

Ironically, as the White House continues to reject transparency, those who wish to demagogue the Tea Party movement and the Constitution are making themselves transparent, even if unwittingly.

More at Michelle Malkin

JOE SESTAK VS. RICK SANTORUM?

This one could get interesting. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) took conservative heat in 2004 when he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. Now he seems to be taking heat from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who is actually running against Specter in this year's Democratic primary. Sestak appears eager to find in others that which has been dogging him - a scandal involving trades for political favor.

This tack Sestak is taking really couldn't be more transparent and odds are the White House isn't the least bit happy about his latest comments. They could - and should - spur the White House press corps. to question Robert Gibbs about the whole "Jobsgate" scandal.

Sestak has found himself mired in a percolating scandal after admitting to a talk show host in February that the Obama administration offered him a job if he dropped out of the primary against Specter. Whether demonstrating hyper-sensitivity or having a valid point, Sestak has apparently decided to go after Santorum for comments he made in reference to the latter's endorsement of Specter in 2004.

POLITICO quotes Santorum, who responded to a question about why he supported Specter over Toomey in 2004:

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up," said Santorum, responding to a question at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. "I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee," he added.

This has the ring of misery wanting company. If this is a battle Sestak is going to pick, he's going to lose. Offering one's endorsement to the head of the Senate Judiciary committee in return for fast tracking the president's judicial nominees doesn't quite rise to the level of being offered a cushy job by the White House in return for dropping out of a Senate primary race.

After all, the senate's job is to offer advice and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. Specter understandably denied Santorum's claim but Sestak, in making this an issue, comes across as being overly concerned about being alienated by attempting to get others to join him in the frying pan. He's comparing what the White House offered him with what Santorum alleges was agreed on between he and Specter. It doesn't measure up and this speaks to how much this scandal is inside Sestak's head.

Santorum was wrong in endorsing Specter in 2004. He obviously did so because Specter would yield more power than would a freshman Senator in Toomey. Now Specter is no longer a RINO - he's a Democrat.

This may be a sign that Sestak is really getting uncomfortable with Jobsgate. Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has been following this story quite closely and his most recent article goes right for the jugular - Sestak's honor relative to the oath he took as a Midshipman. Could it be that Sestak's conscience is beginning to hound him a bit more loudly lately?

More on Lord's work here.

RACIAL BOMB-THROWING IN THE FLESH

The Ombudsman at the Washington Post, Andrew Alexander actually does a decent job of encapsulating the controversy over the alleged racial slurs and spit hurled at members of the Congressional Black Congress who intentionally did NOT use the tunnel on their trips to and from the Capitol on March 20th. It was the day prior to the health care vote on Sunday, March 21st.

Alexander references the alleged spitting incident, which took place as the congressmen walked up the steps not of the Capitol as Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's (D-MO) statement claims but the Cannon House Office Building.

YouTube videos show the spitting incident took place as Cleaver and other black lawmakers passed through a gantlet of rowdy protesters on the steps outside the Cannon House Office Building.

I noted the discrepancy between that video and Cleaver's claim here.

Also very much to Alexander's credit, he assumes responsibility for the Post not doing its due diligence.

With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conservative Web sites, and with the question being so widely raised in the blogosphere and on cable channels, The Post was remiss in not providing clarity by quickly dissecting what happened. (Cleaver's office did not return repeated calls seeking comment for this column.)

This is HUGE. I am absolutely willing to put down the gloves - not throw them down - when someone like Alexander admits to this kind of error. Playing "gotcha" only serves to help the opposition build a thicker wall next time. Hats off to Alexander for going this route.

As for the slurs, Alexander doesn't take a side - that's what ombudsmen do, right - but instead paints a "he said, she said" picture of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart pitting his $100,000 reward for anyone producing video evidence of the "N" word being hurled against a gaggle of Congressional BlacK Caucus members who gave passionate and believable accounts that no one should doubt.

Through spokesman Justin Ohlemiller, Carson stands by his assertion. The spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, insists he and his chief of staff heard repeated uses of the N-word. They are declining interviews, she said, because they don't want to "fan the flames of destructive language."

Breitbart's $100,000 challenge may be publicity-seeking theater. But it's part of widespread conservative claims that mainstream media, including The Post, swallowed a huge fabrication. The incidents are weeks old, but it's worth assigning Post reporters to find the truth. After all, a civil rights legend is being called a liar. That aside, there's serious money at stake.

I find it incredibly interesting that the reason given by these CBC members who intentionally didn't use the tunnel but instead walked through angry crowds - presumably to capture a reaction on video - are now claiming they don't want to speak further on the issue out of concern for "fanning the flames". If a video magically surfaces and Breitbart has to pay up, what are the odds Carson fans the flames with all that money?

h/t to Gateway Pundit