Coby Dillard: “As a Navy veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, no one is prouder than I to see our troops return from combat. However, President Obama made his speech tonight more about the fulfillment of a campaign promise than about the brave, honorable and victorious service of our fighting men and women. It is unfortunate to see him attempt to lay claim to a victory that his brief voting record in the Senate and remarks as a presidential candidate shows he didn’t support and whose end was negotiated by President George W. Bush — the same Bush whose policies and actions Obama routinely speaks of as ‘failed.’

“Instead, the victory belongs to the legacy of the 4,416 service members killed in Iraq and the millions more who served and returned safely home.

“Having secured a military victory in Iraq, our efforts there now turn to ensuring that a lasting peace is won. As the Iraqi government and people continue to take the lead on the road to prosperity and freedom, we as Americans should restate our commitment to this young democracy that many of our countrymen gave their lives to establish.” (Coby Dillard is a member of the Project 21 black leadership network, a tea party organizer in Hampton Roads, Virginia and a Navy veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

Kevin Martin: “While President Obama says combat operation are officially ended in Iraq, this turn of phrase will not change the fact that the remaining American troops will continue to battle remaining rouge elements as Iraqi forces work to get a handle on things.

“At the time, Senator Obama — along with many of his liberal allies — claimed the surge of troops into Iraq would fail before it even started. Now that he commands these same troops, will he have the courage to admit he was wrong and apologize to those who have given their all to bring forth a mostly stable Iraq?

“President Obama needs to give credit where credit is due, and that goes to the fine men and women who put on the uniform and carry out their duty no matter the odds and no matter what burden they may face as politicians simply seek to score points with voters.” (Kevin Martin is a member of the Project 21 black leadership network, has participated in many pro-troop rallies in the Washington, DC area and is a Navy veteran formerly detailed to Bosnia.)

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network question the sincerity of establishment civil rights leaders opposing talk show host Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial August 28.

That date is the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

“If this place and time is so sacred, why didn’t Al Sharpton or the NAACP already have a permit to use the Lincoln Memorial that day before Beck ever sought one?” asked Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch. “Beck’s critics will surely fail if their goal is simply to criticize him for celebrating spirituality and love of country. They may be envious of Beck and scratching their heads that they didn’t think of it first, and that’s something they’ll have to look into their own hearts to figure out.”

According its web site, Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is intended to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future” and “pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Political signs are discouraged from the event. Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell are among the scheduled speakers.

While Beck stresses a positive and apolitical message, the civil rights lobby apparently refuses to exhibit the tolerance it demands of others when it comes to the “Restore Honor” rally. This concerns many Project 21 members, who see these special interests as actually harming race relations in the long term.

“Liberals are quick to ask for tolerance when it comes to putting a permanent mosque next to Ground Zero, but they were quick to oppose Beck using the Lincoln Memorial on the King anniversary or possibly ever. It’s a double-standard,” said Project 21 member Jimmie Hollis, who plans to attend the August 28 event.

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli, who is also planning to be at the Beck event, added: “During these trying times of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, Americas need to rally behind core principles of truth and honor. We need to break away from the race-baiting antics and grand standing from Al Sharpton. Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ rally is a great way to bring freedom-loving Americans together to instill hope and promote our core values that made America great.”

Washington, D.C. – Black activists with the Project 21 leadership network support the right of talk show host Glenn Beck to hold his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Because Beck’s event takes place on the anniversary and at the location of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1964 “March on Washington” rally, leaders of the establishment civil rights groups oppose the event.

“It’s my understanding from reading the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all. And nothing better exemplified that than when Dr. King exercised his First Amendment rights nearly 50 years ago,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “This isn’t about Dr. King or the day and venue itself. It is about a contempt for the message. It is about those who trade on race as a means of notoriety and income fomenting discord for the sake of keeping those who are loathe to realize they are free imprisoned on a plantation of resentment and bitterness.”

Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is described on its web site as a way to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.” It also states that it is a “non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Speakers include Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell.

Among the restrictions on the event, Beck wants no political signs because “they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.”

Marc Morial of the National Urban League, a fierce critic of the Beck event, calls it “insulting” and a “hijacking of the imagery and symbolism of August 28 and the Lincoln Memorial.” Reverend Al Sharpton is planning a “Reclaim the Dream” rally and march that is supported by the NAACP and NUL that will end at the site of the under-construction King Memorial within several hundred feet of the Lincoln Memorial.

Project 21 members question the goals and wisdom of the Sharpton-led event.

“So, Al Sharpton essentially wants to crash Beck’s event. Has anyone noticed how the left loves to invite themselves to things for the sole purpose of smearing them? Just because the good reverend says he doesn’t plan on confrontation, would he explain the provocation of having his marchers be turned loose within yards of Beck’s rally?” asks Project 21 member Bob Parks. “You might want to ask the families of those who suffered — and died — in the 1991 Crown Heights riot or the Freddy’s Fashion Mart firebombing in Harlem in 1995 about how Sharpton’s brand of non-confrontation is working for them. The only reason for bringing marchers that close to the Glenn Beck rally is to start something.”

“Groups such as the National Urban League must realize that Martin Luther King had no monopoly on the public square — or the Lincoln Memorial. Holidays and special events are shared at various sites and on the same day,” said Project 21 member Emery McClendon. “Check the record. Find out that Glenn Beck is holding his event on this day to honor Dr. King as well as to remind all Americans that God alone can heal our Republic. It is an event aimed at restoring honor.”

Big Business Played a Major Role In Passing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Legislation, says the Free Enterprise Project

Washington, D.C. – The Free Enterprise Project is charging President Obama with having a double standard on corporate money and influence.

“After using big business to advance his political agenda, suddenly President Obama is expressing concerns about corporate money in the political process. The fact is corporations played a crucial role in making ObamaCare law and getting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in the House of Representatives,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project.

During his radio address Saturday, President Obama expressed fear that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case would allow corporate special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections. The president warned that companies could “hide behind a phony name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future,’” since a business entity paying for TV advertising is not required to disclose its name. The president added that the business could be a foreign corporation: “You don’t know if it’s BP,” said Obama.

Borelli notes that President Obama was the sole spokesperson in a television advertisement touting the benefits of his health care plan — an advertisement sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, an organization funded by the drug industry and SEIU, the service employees’ union. In addition, Politico reported that PhRMA, the drug industry trade group, at one point planned to spend “as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.”

“President Obama’s selective outrage about corporate influence is alarming. It’s ironic that the president himself appeared in a TV advertisement sponsored by what he now calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” added Borelli.

“The President’s reference to BP is also disturbing. While Obama is trying to frighten the public by depicting BP as a ‘foreign-controlled corporation,’ he failed to mention the company was an ally in lobbying for his cherished cap-and-trade legislation. BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying group that was largely responsible for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives in 2009,” said Borelli.

Borelli notes that corporate interests such as General Electric have been a key ally of President Obama: “GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been a cheerleader for Obama’s political plan including the president’s green energy agenda. Immelt has partnered with Obama in seeking the so-called green energy economy and the company has aggressively lobbied for the president’s $ 787 billion stimulus plan. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the stimulus money was subsequently steered to GE’s customers. It’s disingenuous for the president to challenge corporate influence when he has actively partnered with big business when it served his political purposes,” added Borelli.

In a radio address last year, Obama cited the important role corporations were playing in pressing for cap-and-trade, saying, “Utility companies and corporate leaders are working with environmental advocates and labor leaders to find a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to fight climate change, and to create millions of new jobs in America.”

Borelli concludes, “Corporate special interests such as GE and the drug industry can be as much as a risk to liberty as progressive politicians. This is especially true when the agenda of big business aligns with progressive elected officials and labor unions. This is why Tea Party activists need to challenge politicians and business leaders.”

God bless Michelle Malkin, a person with enough brains and gumption to report on issues most either ignore, are too ignorant and uninformed to know about, live in denial over, are blinded by idealism or are afraid of ridicule. Malkin has been tackling the issue of the Obama Administration’s land grab, as they seek to further exert the strong and controlling arm of government over the people, threatening to take their land, all in the name of the good of the people.

And now comes Obama’s “stealth ocean grab” from Malkin. This woman must have thick skin to endure and persist from all the ridicule, demonizing and threats lobbied against her over the years and she is sure to take some heat on this issue. Far too many Americans choose to live in ignorant denial about the usurpation of our freedoms, our rights, granted to us by God not some man sitting in the White House who has discovered the power of Executive Order.

Just today, Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest minds of our time, said that it isn’t just evil people who are bent on the “dismantling” of America.

Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have their own agendas that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.

When you combine this kind of selfish, purpose-driven avocation with the fact that most Americans simply refuse to want to believe that America will ever be anything different than their mind’s perception, the ruling class has a clear path at circumventing the U.S. Constitution to achieve the power grab they so rigorously seek.

Sportsmen groups have been ringing the bell of warning about this administration’s actions in seeking to seize control of water access. Within this confiscation of authority is being sought the capacity to zone and control what can and can’t be done in our oceans, our bays, coves, inlets and even so far as having overreaching control within the Great Lakes and most watersheds.

Up to this point, much of this clamoring for power has been channeled through attempts at legislation, meeting opposition, and rightly so, from members of Congress who can actually realize the dangers of yielding control of these waters to the White House. This is the kind of false security that comes with the denial of sportsmen who choose to believe no government would or could ever steal away their rights to fishing and enjoyment of the water.

At times that I have attempted discussions and dialogue with sportsmen, far too many of the responses that came back on me, anchored in anger and disgust, is in and of itself, very troubling. Here’s a sampling of some of the comments:

Nothing but fear mongering and the effort to convince voters that Obama is their enemy by those who are the real enemy of outdoorsmen.

He certainly doesn’t seem to be a skunk in the woodpile, yet he doesn’t seem to be issue-driven.

simply propaganda promoting the (self-serving) interests of the interest groups – in other words, soliciting members for their own – RFA, USSA, and ASA – aggrandizement and the enrichment of their Washington headquarters. This is a blatant attempt by these groups to be seen to be needed, when, in fact, there exists no justification for their existence……….
All you have provided, is a fallacy. You have set before us a presupposition.

are you simply against any effort to conserve fish and habitat?

This is merely a sampling of some of the comments made regarding any thought whatsoever that our Government would consider gaining control over fishing and access to water simply because they can. As was pointed out often in these discussions, none of us have heard any specific issue pertaining to water access that Obama wants to end, therefore, are we to simply have faith in this man and his administration that his exploration of power and control is all for the good of the people and the conservation of water and fishing? This attitude on its face is dangerous and foolish.

Obama has now gone one step further. According to Malkin, the President has once again exercised his Executive Order allowance and formed an alliance of czars to grab control over “conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes.”

Are we still to rely on our belief that until President Obama has a specific issue that will end our rights to water access and the use of our resources, we should trust him? How can you honestly have trust in a man that feels the need to disregard the will of the people, circumvent the Constitutional process, all for the sake of furthering his agenda?

Certainly it doesn’t matter if there is no specific issue that will hijack our liberty, once total control of this is placed in the hands of one person, it’s too late.

We can still pick up our fishing rods and head to our favorite fishing hole but for how long? Hopefully forever, but do we ensure that lifelong heritage by placing faith in one man or one group of unelected officials? Not one member of Obama’s “neon green radicals” was elected by the people. Where is the government of and by the people? Do you really believe their goal is to conserve your fishing rights?

*Update*

ESPN Outdoors downplays any real serious threat to sport fishing but claims outspoken outrage from fishermen got the attention of the White House.

Tom Remington

This is, the EEOC says, because blacks and Hispanics are over-represented among felons.

“Blacks and Hispanics also have an unfortunate higher high school and college dropout rates than whites and Asians — surely this could be determined to be a disparate impact. Does that mean the EEOC could mandate that employers cannot consider an applicant’s education? Where will it stop?” asks Justin Danhof, general counsel of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It is unfortunate that the EEOC is placing outdated racial politics ahead of the American workforce at a time when employers should be encouraged to hire, but this mentality will likely make businesses think twice about plans for expansion. Employers should be free to consider the full content of an applicant’s character when making hiring decisions.”

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It does not ban discrimination based on character. Furthermore, it’s odd that an agency charged with stopping racism and sexism in hiring has adopted a policy that will help more white males than members of any other group.”

“The EEOC should not be trying to micromanage private hiring decisions beyond the authority given to it by Congress,” added Ridenour, “which this wrongheaded policy surely does. And pity the poor employer, fearful on the one hand of being charged with racism if he does not hire a felon — white though that felon might be — but fearful on the other of being sued by his other employees, should that felon commit a crime at the workplace that harms them. Certainly employers should be permitted to hire felons; even applauded when appropriate, but they should not be made to feel they could be asked to defend themselves in court if they do not.”

Washington, D.C. – Attorneys at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believe new technology that makes it easier for employers to check the criminal and credit histories of applicants also makes it harder for blacks and Hispanics to find jobs. Members of the Project 21 black leadership network fault this position, noting that it unjustly interferes with the ability of employers to build a trusted and coherent workforce.

“Background and credit checks are legitimate hiring and recruitment tools,” said Project 21 member Horace Cooper, a former visiting assistant professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law. “There is no federal law making a refusal to hire convicted felons a crime, and felon status is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Especially in the midst of a recession, suits like these — which charge racial discrimination — falsely serve to only make hiring decisions unnecessarily harder and lessen the impact of real allegations of racism.”

Adrienne Hudson filed a lawsuit against First Transit after she was fired from a bus driver position with the company. She alleges her firing was due to her prior conviction for welfare fraud, and that First Transit discriminates against blacks and Hispanics when it does background checks because these minority groups have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites. First Transit representatives would not comment.

The AP reports the EEOC believes background checks can have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics, and quotes EEOC assistant legal counsel Carol Miaskoff saying “the problem is snowballing because of the technology” that is making it easier to do such checks.

Last fall, the EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit against the Freeman Companies event-planning company that claimed the company’s background checks discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and men.

“Once again, the liberal legal theory of ‘disparate impact’ is trotted out. This time, it is by the bean-counters at EEOC. They are now arguing that if an employer conducts background checks on employees they are, in effect, discriminating against black and Latino applicants. But shouldn’t employers have the right to set standards for those they seek to employ and reject those who have criminal records?” said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com “Americans strongly believe in the concept of redemption, but there must be consequences for illegal behavior. To claim otherwise suggests that employers should ignore employment standards and simply hire people based on some ideological concept of ‘social justice.’ The notion that criminal background checks disadvantage blacks and Latinos is based in the reality that blacks are 38 percent of the prison population but only 12 percent of the general population. This shouldn’t be used as an argument for eliminating employment standards, but a reason to understand and combat the dysfunction and violent criminality that’s an all-too-real part of poor black urban life.”

The pledge was made by NAACP Senior Vice President Hilary Shelton on the July 17 edition of “Geraldo At Large” on the Fox News Channel.

During the broadcast, Borelli asked Shelton if the NAACP would issue a statement condemning those who expose her to race-based abuse:

“Borelli: “I’m a black, female conservative. I’m often targeted by individuals who call me all kinds of names: racist, an Uncle Tom, a traitor – you name it. I’d like to know if the NAACP will issue a statement condemning those individuals who were doing that.”

Shelton: “Why, yes, ma’am… Just give us some details… The very broad answer is… yes, we repudiate anybody calling you a bad name in the political arena.”"

Shelton added that the NAACP repudiated past assaults on Bush Administration cabinet members General Colin Powell and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

In 2004, then- NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume said, “attacks on Rice by the radio host and political cartoonists who use stereotypes and racial caricatures are just as bad as those who hide under sheets and burn crosses. This is something the NAACP has fought against for more than 95 years and something we will continue to oppose.”

Mfume was understood to be referring to WTDY-Madison radio host John “Sly” Sylvester calling Rice “Aunt Jemima,” cartoonist Ted Rall calling Rice President Bush’s “house nigga,” cartoonist Garry Trudeau calling her “Brown Sugar” and cartoonists Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger drawing her with accentuated black features and a rural dialect. Sylvester also called Colin Powell “Uncle Tom” on the air.

In response to Shelton’s request to Borelli for details, a letter from Borelli was delivered to Shelton’s office on July 28. In it, Borelli described some racist statements made against her and other Project 21 members and attached a packet of e-mails and postings on the Internet in which she and other Project 21 members have been called “Uncle Tom,” “Auntie Tom,” “Sambo,” “house negro,” “treasonous,” “black tea-bagging ni**er,” “sell out,” “retarded,” “hypocritical,” “coon,” “Stepin Fetchit,” and a “modern day mammy,” “despicable piece of garbage,” “black cancer” and “black bitch.”

Among the samples of emails sent to Borelli and forwarded to Shelton was this:

“You faggot niggas need to be lynched by the Klan. I pray a nightrider strings up every one of you no count good for nothing niggas, it would serve you right for trying to think that these crackers love you. I hate a house nigga worse than I do a Klansman. Rot in hell you scurvy dogs. I would laugh to see you body strung up. It would save us real brothers the time and trouble to do it.”

Borelli also told Shelton:

“As we both seek a more civil debate, I am sure you are as appalled by these statements and the many others like them as I am. And I once again want to thank you for your on-air agreement on July 17 that the NAACP will specifically condemn the slurs made against me because I am an outspoken black conservative woman. We very much appreciate having the weight and prestige of the NAACP behind an effort to stop this unwarranted, unfair and uncivil treatment of people based solely on their political beliefs and skin color.”

Project 21 is looking forward to the statement of repudiation by the NAACP.

“There has been a mighty effort by liberals to present Shirley Sherrod as a victim — even a saint-like figure. However, after revelations that her husband, Charles, is an anti-white bigot and that she adheres to class warfare politics, it’s now being alleged that Ms. Sherrod presided over the crass exploitation of poor black workers on a southwest Georgia agricultural ‘plantation,’” said Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks.

Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and currently host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com, added: “The fellow making the claim is none other than Ron Wilkins, an ex-SNCC organizer, who should know what he’s talking about. Wilkins says he once worked on the Sherrod-managed plantation in the 1970s. I know this guy from the early days of ‘Black Power’ politics in Los Angeles and he’s known to be a straight shooter. If Wilkins claims are proven to be true, Sherrod owes an explanation and an apology — not only to Wilkins but the other black farm workers she misused.”

In an article posted on the left-wing Counterpunch web site on August 2, Ron Wilkins reported that Shirley Sherrod and her husband, Charles, helped manage the New Communities, Inc. farm in Albany, Georgia in the 1970s. Wilkins claimed the Sherrods and other managers “under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers — many of them less than 16 years of age — in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.”

Wilkins, a former organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who is now a professor at California State University – Dominguez Hills, says he infiltrated the NCI operation in 1974 on behalf of a group overseeing NCI called the Emergency Land Fund. Wilkins claims his later efforts to organize NCI workers while working there led to his firing, eviction for an NCI-owned “shack” and arrest on “bogus” charges.

Wilkins added:

Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000-acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.

In 1974, 67 cents had the purchasing power of $2.91 in 2009 dollars according to the website measuringworth.com. Wilkins claims he made $40 a week ($174 in 2009 dollars) at the time he was fired. His 2010 claims about conditions at the NCI farm and managers’ anti-labor behavior are reported in a September 28, 1974 article in the United Farm Workers newspaper El Malcriado — which specifically cites Charles Sherrod as a manager of the farm.

“It truly is shocking to see someone supposedly dedicated to civil rights now exposed for her involvement in the ugly exploitation of black workers approaching their total abuse in the ante-bellum South,” said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member who is also a nationally-syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “Once again, those on the right are supposed to be the ‘bad guys’ who make life difficult for black Americans. Yet here we have Shirley Sherrod, hailed as a black civil rights leader, allegedly taking advantage of poor black Americans, keeping them poor and firing those who complain about mistreatment.”

Counterpunch is a web site edited by respected leftist journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Wilkins’ article can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html, and a scan of the El Malcriado article can be found at http://tw0.us/MkZ while the entire newspaper in which the article is found is at http://tw0.us/MkU.

Wilkins reports that NCI went out of business in 1985.

Washington, D.C. – The National Center for Public Policy Research has today launched a tongue-in-cheek ‘Most Ethically-Challenged Watchdog Groups’ list.

CREW not only tops our list, it is our list.

The National Center’s list is in response to a “CREW’s Crooked Candidates 2010″ list published by the self-styled ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

“Here’s the thing,” said National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. “CREW is a tax-exempt foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. IRS regulations prohibit it from endorsing or rating candidates, even on a ‘non-partisan’ basis. How could publicly listing what CREW calls some of ’2010′s most crooked candidates’ not be rating candidates?”

“Furthermore,” added Ridenour, “the list doesn’t even appear to be non-partisan. Of the 12 candidates rated ‘crooked’ by CREW, eight are Republicans, one is an independent who has been associated with the GOP for most of his career, and only three are Democrats, two of whom are running against Republicans CREW also listed.”

“Raising a further question of whether CREW’s ‘crooked candidates’ rating project was set up to hurt specific candidates and a specific political party is the fact that of the three Democrats rated, none is considered to have even a remote chance of being elected. So no harm done, really, to the Democrats. But of the Republicans, at least five of the eight are locked in very tight races. Three are threatening to take over Democrat seats. The sole independent is also locked in a very tight race.”

David Ridenour added, “CREW also declined to include incumbents on its list of supposedly ‘crooked candidates,’ all of whom appear to be running for federal office. As incumbents are disproportionately from one of the political parties, this action alone could be considered partisan.”

“And finally,” Ridenour said, “lest there be any doubt that this is about partisan politics, the slogan on CREW’s webpage is ‘continuing the culture of corruption.’ Of this phrase, Wikipedia says, ‘Culture of corruption was a political slogan used by the U.S. Democratic Party…’”

“The Internal Revenue Service has said, ‘… in order to violate the political campaign prohibition, an advocacy communication [by a 501(c)(3) organization] should contain some relatively clear directive that enables the recipient to know the organization’s position on a specific candidate or slate of candidates,’” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “When I read CREW’s ‘Crooked Candidates 2010′ webpage, I believed I had a pretty clear indication of what CREW’s position is on these candidates.”

“The rules on intervention in a political campaign are strict,” added Amy Ridenour. “We would not even consider rating candidates as ‘crooked’ or ‘wonderful,’ or even ‘grey-haired’.”

A 2002 IRS publication, “Election Year Issues ” by senior IRS officials John Reilly and Judith Kindell provides further information on IRS electioneering regulations:

The regulations provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii). See also Reg. 53.4945-3(a)(2). Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden. The rating of candidates, even on a non-partisan basis, also is prohibited. See Association of the Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner, 858 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 (1989)… As is stated in TAM 1999-07-021 (May 20, 1998), in order to violate the political campaign prohibition, an advocacy communication ‘should contain some relatively clear directive that enables the recipient to know the organization’s position on a specific candidate or slate of candidates.’