The look on Philly dude's face in former Acorn office http://t.co/yReTNZ6Dqa - 2013-06-07 22:31:21
http://twicsy.com/i/75aiMd
Showing posts with label ACORN II: The ACORN That Would Not Stay Dead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACORN II: The ACORN That Would Not Stay Dead. Show all posts
Friday, June 07, 2013
The look on Philly dude's face in former Acorn office
The look on Philly dude's face in former Acorn office http://t.co/yReTNZ6Dqa - 2013-06-07 22:31:21
http://twicsy.com/i/75aiMd
Visiting the former ACORN office in Philly
Visiting the former ACORN office in Philly. Saying hi to the staffers there. https://t.co/9O2Zcn1Pf1 - 2013-06-07 22:24:02
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Acorn acorn watcha gonna do, when @AnitaMonCrief comes for you
jamesokeefeiii
Acorn acorn watcha gonna do, when @AnitaMonCrief comes for you
NJO: Source: Instagram.
Monday, April 23, 2012
House Judiciary Committee Discusses Project Veritas Voter Fraud Video
Published on Apr 23, 2012
Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Steve King and Cleta Mitchell speak about Project Veritas Voter Fraud video before House Judiciary Committee. There were reports that Nadler and Rep. Conyers were stunned and surprised by the Holder video and asked their staffers what it was about.
"It hardly inspires the public confidence that a white 20-something can obtain the ballot of the first black Attorney General." - Rep. Trent Franks
"I'm shocked that the Attorney General isn't shocked. I'm shocked that the Attorney General hasn't offered a response to this in a meaningful way... It took James O'Keefe to get this ACORN issue brought before America." - Rep. Steve King
NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.
"It hardly inspires the public confidence that a white 20-something can obtain the ballot of the first black Attorney General." - Rep. Trent Franks
"I'm shocked that the Attorney General isn't shocked. I'm shocked that the Attorney General hasn't offered a response to this in a meaningful way... It took James O'Keefe to get this ACORN issue brought before America." - Rep. Steve King
NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Statement Regarding CNN
NJO: Source.
by James O'Keefe
by James O'Keefe
Now that I’ve had a chance to watch CNN’s “Right on the Edge” documentary, I’m happy to comment. I apologize for not saying anything sooner, but don’t want to comment until I have all the facts at my disposal.
As you can imagine in our line of work, we get lots of leads, ideas, schemes and “punked” style plans sent to us all the time. If you were to roam through my personal emails there are many outrageous plans, some parts of which I may approve of in principal with an “I like it” in an email thread. But I may well object to a host of things about the plan, though I like the objective.
NJO: Ugh. The first sentence of the second paragraph, with its weasel switch to plural pronouns, "our, we, us."
When the CNN idea was pitched to me, I’ll admit that I liked the basic absurdity of meeting Abbie Boudreau on a boat and the idea of counter-seduction satire executed in a tame, humorous, non-threatening manner. After all, as all liberal reporters do, she was trying to “seduce” (a metaphor) me so she could get more for her story. It would be fun, I thought, to turn the tables in jest. However, I was repulsed by the over-the-top language and symbolism that was suggested in the memo that was sent to me, and never considered that for a moment.
In my version, the reporter was never going to be placed in a threatening situation. She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux “seduced” unless she wanted to be. If a CNN reporter would be willing to engage in such a folly, it might even be more newsworthy than Rick Sanchez’s firing. (CNN also has Elliot Spitzer on payroll. He’s done more outrageous things than anything I’ve ever gotten in my in-box).
The sexually explicit document CNN is now “reporting” on was never going to be implemented as written. She saw how I was dressed that day, with my usual blazer and collared shirt. In the document she reported as being “authentic,” I was supposed to have been dressed with my chest exposed, slicked backed hair, with gold chains. That ought to have been a red flag the document was not a reflection of my true intentions. Ms. Boudreau was never going to be put in the bizarre situations outlined in the document CNN reported. There were no mirrors, sex tapes, blindfolds, fuzzy handcuffs, posters of naked women, or music. Sorry, you were not going to see my face saying the words “Bubble Headed Beach Blonde who comes on at 5” into a video camera. Those are Don Henley lyrics – and we know, thanks to Chuck DeVore, how much Henley loathes parody.
I do believe that Izzy Santa, who came to Ms. Boudreau with the documents and the story, was simply trying to protect me and the organization from a dangerous and objectionable plan, one sent to me in my personal emails that she assumed, wrongly, and probably due to my own lack of communication to her, that I was going to implement. Nothing in the document was implemented.
NJO: Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
On August 10, a week before the meeting, James sent an email to three people: Project Veritas staffer Izzy Santa, Jonathon Burns of St Louis Tea Party, and author of the "CNN Caper" document Ben Wetmore, asking "Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"
It should be noted that James has known Ben Wetmore since c.2005 when Wetmore was a staffer and field representative for Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, and that James had worked with Wetmore a number of times prior to this incident, and that James had described Wetmore as "a mentor of mine; a genius" in September 2009.
On August 13, four days before the meeting, James sent an email to Izzy Santa, saying "Please go to fedex and print out pleasure palace graphic on large banner - needs to be ready by late tonight - if possible..."
Here's the graphic:
On August 14, three days before the meeting, he sent another email to Izzy Santa, saying "Could you come down Tuesday for the CNN operation - I'll need another person around." The "CNN Caper" document written by Ben Wetmore refers to the plan as an "operation" five times.
On August 17 at 8:04AM, Izzy Santa sends an email to an unknown party, attesting that "James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her."
At about 12:30PM on the same day, Abbie Boudreau meets Izzy Santa in the vicinity of the house and boat being used by James O'Keefe, and then a short time later, in the same place, encounters James O'Keefe. By Boudreau's account, Santa again claims that James is planning to "gag" CNN, and again attests that props are on the boat, this time specifying "strawberries and champagne." Also, by Boudreau's account, James asks her (Boudreau), "What are you ashamed of?" The idea of the female journalist having some sort of shame attached to her -- which is the disgusting theme of the second part of the CNN Caper document -- would appear to loom in James' mind here.
The "strawberries and champagne" are new details not mentioned in the document, which suggests that 1) the plan to get Boudreau on the boat and humiliate her using props was still on, and that 2) the specifics had been revised somewhat. That second point is what James focuses on in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs, that the document "was never going to be implemented as written." He has notably less to say about what, exactly, was going to be implemented -- indeed, it's almost as if he's trying to deflect attention away from that by bringing up stupid shit like hairstyle discrepancies and lyrics and such -- but the gist has already been made clear: Grudge against CNN; Boat staged with suggestive props; "James O'Keefe Pleasure Palace"; Get female CNN reporter on boat; Shame On Her.
At the very least, James' statement that "Nothing in the document was implemented" does not sit well in agreement with his request to Santa to print out the Pleasure Palace graphic. One might even say that when he said that "Nothing in the document was implemented", he was doing that thing vulgarly known as "lying." And if I was counting, I might also say he was using passive voice to defocus attention from his personal agency in this thing that he did here which he then lied about in this lie that he told here.
I could also mention Boudreau's observations that Santa's lip was shaking and that she had some dirt on her face. This strongly suggests to me that someone may have just assaulted her. It's very disappointing that Boudreau and her crew did not, apparently, follow up on this.
I never wanted to be part of a CNN documentary because I know that CNN claims to be fair minded yet is not. Their pursuit of a non-story based on a document I neither produced, nor followed, confirms what we already know: “The most trusted name in news” can’t be trusted. Look at their reporting.
CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation we’ve ever been a part of. For example, on September 10, 2009 CNN broadcasted we were “basically thrown out“ of the ACORN offices we visited. We weren’t. When the other tapes were released, it was shown we were not “thrown out” of any offices. (We’re still waiting on their correction.) On June 1st, 2010, CNN falsely reported we “plead guilty following an attempt to tamper.” We didn’t and they issued a correction. Now this.
I provided CNN with a clear statement that the document in question was objectionable. Still, they sent their “Special Investigations Unit” out in a failed attempt to discredit me. They do this not because they want to get to the truth, but because they are threatened by a bunch of independent journalists with video cameras uncovering the stories that they went to J-School to find.
Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost need to start worrying about – and covering – real abuses that are actually happening at Planned Parenthood, ACORN, or in Charlie Rangel’s office. They need to start producing the type of investigations young people with shoestring budgets and flair are investigating.
I can assure my supporters and my misguided adversaries that Project Veritas will continue to work to produce the investigative reports that CNN and others in the mainstream media have failed to deliver. It’s time to get back to work. Projects will be released soon. That inbox is getting full again.
And you never know what bizarre idea I’m going to need to reject next . . .
As you can imagine in our line of work, we get lots of leads, ideas, schemes and “punked” style plans sent to us all the time. If you were to roam through my personal emails there are many outrageous plans, some parts of which I may approve of in principal with an “I like it” in an email thread. But I may well object to a host of things about the plan, though I like the objective.
NJO: Ugh. The first sentence of the second paragraph, with its weasel switch to plural pronouns, "our, we, us."
When the CNN idea was pitched to me, I’ll admit that I liked the basic absurdity of meeting Abbie Boudreau on a boat and the idea of counter-seduction satire executed in a tame, humorous, non-threatening manner. After all, as all liberal reporters do, she was trying to “seduce” (a metaphor) me so she could get more for her story. It would be fun, I thought, to turn the tables in jest. However, I was repulsed by the over-the-top language and symbolism that was suggested in the memo that was sent to me, and never considered that for a moment.
In my version, the reporter was never going to be placed in a threatening situation. She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux “seduced” unless she wanted to be. If a CNN reporter would be willing to engage in such a folly, it might even be more newsworthy than Rick Sanchez’s firing. (CNN also has Elliot Spitzer on payroll. He’s done more outrageous things than anything I’ve ever gotten in my in-box).
The sexually explicit document CNN is now “reporting” on was never going to be implemented as written. She saw how I was dressed that day, with my usual blazer and collared shirt. In the document she reported as being “authentic,” I was supposed to have been dressed with my chest exposed, slicked backed hair, with gold chains. That ought to have been a red flag the document was not a reflection of my true intentions. Ms. Boudreau was never going to be put in the bizarre situations outlined in the document CNN reported. There were no mirrors, sex tapes, blindfolds, fuzzy handcuffs, posters of naked women, or music. Sorry, you were not going to see my face saying the words “Bubble Headed Beach Blonde who comes on at 5” into a video camera. Those are Don Henley lyrics – and we know, thanks to Chuck DeVore, how much Henley loathes parody.
I do believe that Izzy Santa, who came to Ms. Boudreau with the documents and the story, was simply trying to protect me and the organization from a dangerous and objectionable plan, one sent to me in my personal emails that she assumed, wrongly, and probably due to my own lack of communication to her, that I was going to implement. Nothing in the document was implemented.
NJO: Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
On August 10, a week before the meeting, James sent an email to three people: Project Veritas staffer Izzy Santa, Jonathon Burns of St Louis Tea Party, and author of the "CNN Caper" document Ben Wetmore, asking "Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"
It should be noted that James has known Ben Wetmore since c.2005 when Wetmore was a staffer and field representative for Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, and that James had worked with Wetmore a number of times prior to this incident, and that James had described Wetmore as "a mentor of mine; a genius" in September 2009.
On August 13, four days before the meeting, James sent an email to Izzy Santa, saying "Please go to fedex and print out pleasure palace graphic on large banner - needs to be ready by late tonight - if possible..."
Here's the graphic:
On August 14, three days before the meeting, he sent another email to Izzy Santa, saying "Could you come down Tuesday for the CNN operation - I'll need another person around." The "CNN Caper" document written by Ben Wetmore refers to the plan as an "operation" five times.
On August 17 at 8:04AM, Izzy Santa sends an email to an unknown party, attesting that "James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her."
At about 12:30PM on the same day, Abbie Boudreau meets Izzy Santa in the vicinity of the house and boat being used by James O'Keefe, and then a short time later, in the same place, encounters James O'Keefe. By Boudreau's account, Santa again claims that James is planning to "gag" CNN, and again attests that props are on the boat, this time specifying "strawberries and champagne." Also, by Boudreau's account, James asks her (Boudreau), "What are you ashamed of?" The idea of the female journalist having some sort of shame attached to her -- which is the disgusting theme of the second part of the CNN Caper document -- would appear to loom in James' mind here.
The "strawberries and champagne" are new details not mentioned in the document, which suggests that 1) the plan to get Boudreau on the boat and humiliate her using props was still on, and that 2) the specifics had been revised somewhat. That second point is what James focuses on in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs, that the document "was never going to be implemented as written." He has notably less to say about what, exactly, was going to be implemented -- indeed, it's almost as if he's trying to deflect attention away from that by bringing up stupid shit like hairstyle discrepancies and lyrics and such -- but the gist has already been made clear: Grudge against CNN; Boat staged with suggestive props; "James O'Keefe Pleasure Palace"; Get female CNN reporter on boat; Shame On Her.
At the very least, James' statement that "Nothing in the document was implemented" does not sit well in agreement with his request to Santa to print out the Pleasure Palace graphic. One might even say that when he said that "Nothing in the document was implemented", he was doing that thing vulgarly known as "lying." And if I was counting, I might also say he was using passive voice to defocus attention from his personal agency in this thing that he did here which he then lied about in this lie that he told here.
I could also mention Boudreau's observations that Santa's lip was shaking and that she had some dirt on her face. This strongly suggests to me that someone may have just assaulted her. It's very disappointing that Boudreau and her crew did not, apparently, follow up on this.
I never wanted to be part of a CNN documentary because I know that CNN claims to be fair minded yet is not. Their pursuit of a non-story based on a document I neither produced, nor followed, confirms what we already know: “The most trusted name in news” can’t be trusted. Look at their reporting.
CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation we’ve ever been a part of. For example, on September 10, 2009 CNN broadcasted we were “basically thrown out“ of the ACORN offices we visited. We weren’t. When the other tapes were released, it was shown we were not “thrown out” of any offices. (We’re still waiting on their correction.) On June 1st, 2010, CNN falsely reported we “plead guilty following an attempt to tamper.” We didn’t and they issued a correction. Now this.
I provided CNN with a clear statement that the document in question was objectionable. Still, they sent their “Special Investigations Unit” out in a failed attempt to discredit me. They do this not because they want to get to the truth, but because they are threatened by a bunch of independent journalists with video cameras uncovering the stories that they went to J-School to find.
Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost need to start worrying about – and covering – real abuses that are actually happening at Planned Parenthood, ACORN, or in Charlie Rangel’s office. They need to start producing the type of investigations young people with shoestring budgets and flair are investigating.
I can assure my supporters and my misguided adversaries that Project Veritas will continue to work to produce the investigative reports that CNN and others in the mainstream media have failed to deliver. It’s time to get back to work. Projects will be released soon. That inbox is getting full again.
And you never know what bizarre idea I’m going to need to reject next . . .
Saturday, January 16, 2010
From the files of Ben Wetmore: "The Structure of Video Activism"
NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.
Today, from January 2010, "The Structure of Video Activism".
Speech: The Structure of Video Activism
Ben Wetmore
1. figure out your values, and figure out what you want changed in the world
-easier said than done
-write out your values, write out your demands, it becomes a good action-list
-always a danger of mission creep
-many people get scared when things get dicey: anything controversial yields to the common man's temerity and anxiety. It's when people are afraid that it's most compelling, when you force them to take a side, when you make them physically uncomfortable, you force them to reset those careful mental equations they've constructed to live in a society with so many contradictions. Always force the common man to wipe the chalkboard clean and start anew.
-this keeps you focused.
-the dan Flynn rule that all channels about entertainment eventually become the E! television network. The desire for ratings, attention and popularity will always, inevitably, over time turn you into playboy/hustler magazine unless you have a solid foundation as to what your identity is, and so write out your principles and stick to them.
Practical example: neocons we were working with only wanted to do stuff about terrorism, they wanted to do all sorts of fabulous ridiculous and crazy things that I liked, but only on their topic, and they then became hostile to anything that wasn't advancing that agenda. The lack of an agenda will always eventually yield to a minority's serious agenda in time.
Practical application: write a mission statement and don't be afraid to be specific, then write out your demands. CM articles
2. pick a good and worthwhile target
-dont waste your time on bureaucrats/teachers/low-level people, strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter. Find the lever, find the man behind the curtain.
-pick one that's well known, someone worth dethroning. Don't waste your time with low-level pukes who are just pawns of the king.
-pick the target, personalize it, polarize it and perpetually hit harder.
-explain to people the way in which the target hurts them, the way in which they hurt real people. This takes creativity but fundamentally isn't difficult.
-don't be afraid to attack people the media tells you is on our side, some of the best satire is focused on people who never get attacked: i.e. the banks.
Practical example: SGA vs. Ladner;3. learn about the target, find out as much information as possible
Practical application: name the target and set the goal; you want Mayor Smith fired.
-need an information network of sorts, need to be among the people
-you can't just start making accusations or just going off half-cocked
-good research skills usually involves a lot of reading and a lot of listening
-reconstruct a resume, look up lawsuits, make public records requests
-publish everything you find on a basic blog at blogger, don't hide your dirt, the left does this with all their targeted congressional targets; the wash post called me for dirt on ladner, and I told them I published it all, I didn't have much to add; most journalists never publish the good stuff they find, they leverage it for more access or use it to boost their prestige; most reporters are entirely awful human beings.
Practical example: james accidentally going to a pregnancy center asking for a racist donation for an abortion.4. identify and exploit their weakness
Practical application: make a menu of all the questions you want to have answered, and make a separate list of all the known places of potential information on your target.
-with public figures, its the most common complaint everyone knows
-provide documentation to confirm the conventional wisdom: is he an alcoholic? is he a womanizer? is he a gambler? feed into their preconceived expectations.
-hypocrisy always sells; use their values against them; internalize the values and language of your ideological opponents, it breeds an amazing amount of confusion.
-read psychology/advertising/marketing and counterinsurgency books: influence by cialdini is the best.
-gossip is often half-true
Practical example: PP racism; dog abortion; LTPC ("you're the most progressive people here")5. structure the jokes and criticism
Practical application: understand your opponents and anticipate their reactions
-make sure to get feedback, make sure your stuff is actually funny; major risk: inside jokes that aren't funny to anyone.
-most jokes are relatively simple and direct
-pop culture references are easy and people latch onto them like white on rice
-always use a prop: the prop focuses their attention: make the prop funny in itself (we spent hours talking just about props); always use a costume, but make it relevant, chicken costume/bailout story.
Past props:
bailout - big checks
ltpc - gays
Chicken costume - all stunts
Gay marriage - assless chaps
ACORN - pimp costume
-new type of humor: awkward moments, a la the office; LTPC: Anton's comment "well maybe you can learn"
Practical example: the gay marriage video doesn't have enough jokes6. find the natural allies and assess what they can do for you
Practical application: write out the jokes about your subject that are actually funny to normal people, and make sure those jokes are easily understandable, don't hide the ball and don't depend on inside information.
-most of the time it's just word of mouth/marketing
-but it can also be additional people and volunteers
-they can also waste your time, so avoid the bitches: everyone has an opinion and none of them are useful.
Practical example: SFLA is sitting on dog abortion; SFLA staffers also needlessly delayed the PP-racism project on almost endless theological debates/disputes, some groups and some people will never be converted, just as you can't stop to kick every barking dog, you can't stop to engage and win over every dissenting group whose support is conditioned on them agreeing entirely with you, most of the time their assistance is only word of mouth anyway.7. figure out your endgame
Practical application: write out the people who can help you, and what they can realistically provide. Don't ask them for more than that, and don't involve them more than that. It's a time-suck.
-a firing isn't enough, you want permanent systemic change; you don't want same shit different day.
-best example: Rome's solution to Carthage; Carthage delondo est.
-howard dean didn't run to win, he ran to build a movement, and he did a fabulous job. People laughed at Soros 'wasting' 500 mil. in 2004, but he used it to build a movement and institutions that changed the world. His goal was not the Presidency as much as it was the entire nation, that's an endgame.
-most people fail to dream big enough here, have big demands so that the compromises are still amazing
Practical example: Ladner's gone and his replacements are still there, there was never a period of denazification; ACORN will likely get refunded or just change names; don't get depressed about this but keep perspective and find a way to set your goals in such a way that makes their recovery impossible.8. strike where they're weakest, don't let up at all
Practical application: have a few written major goals, the things that would change the world if things were different. Have major unrealistic goals, because realizing them is much more realistic than you think.
-remain formless and be immune from criticism, don't lie cheat or steal because they'll find out and it'll make you a magnet for criticism; look at the insane ways they criticize james, imagine if he had done something stupid-- it would have been fatal to the project.
-dont fall for the trap that it's honorable to leave them alone when they're down, when they're down, kick twice as hard
-use as many creative ways possible to 'expand the conflict' so that they're fighting on all fronts; most people have zero ability to counter humor and art, for example
-don't fight 'fair', fair is for losers, winners win.
-keep a hard heart, and remember that they kill babies for sport, don't feel bad for them.
-it's like half-treating a virus, it'll adapt and grow stronger and attack again; or a killer in a thriller movie, Jason is never really dead.
-always be the punisher, never forget and never forgive short of full conversions: Michael schiavo will always be a free man for having killed Terri, but who is lodging weekly disbarment motions against Judge Greer? Answer: no one.
Practical example: the GOP has almost given up on ACORN. People are weak and often give up. I found reasons to hate Ladner on such a strong visceral level that I never gave him the benefit of the doubt. AU/rape cover-up; Ladner/scholarship revocation, find someone to blame for your angst, and remember Eric Hoffer's observation about people's motivations about mass movements.9. plan for the long-haul, keep expanding the conflict to other people until they give in
Practical application: when you have something hot, never let up. Create a fanatical desire within yourself to prevail. Identify your own catalytic passions and hold onto them, never let go. Be angry, but stay smart.
-even if you step away from the fight for a week or year, come back to it and keep the pressure on
-these people are weaker than you think, but they also have better lasting power even though that seems contradictory -- over time you will win, but it will seem like forever.
-over time people will believe whatever sincere critique you offer
-someone will ALWAYS say this STUPID line, "but, if you attack them, you only make them stronger." which is code for "I'm scared, so let's not do anything and lose, because I'm weak." - this is almost always a mistake. if you have nothing to do, attack. if you have something lame to do, attack. attack their weak points every chance you get. not only does this make you aggressive, but it tests you and refines your work. As well, you never know what great things will come from action. Action, action action!
Practical example: it took five years for Ladner to get removed; no one expected ACORN to get defunded - the support for the Iraq war, in summer of 2006 there was still a great deal of public support, but the public critique wore them down and evaporated support.10. market your idea and not yourself
Practical application: Always take action. Call me when you get depressed or discouraged, we'll go for a drink and I'll cheer you up. The cost of this is that I expect the same arrangement.
-vanity will easily become so consuming that you lose sight of what made you interesting, keep focused on the project, on the work, on what matters
-vanity is very appealing
-use attractive women
-don't get caught up with controlling the media message, provide the content and keep it going
-when you become the issue, you're no longer effective. Remain formless.
-glory comes at the cost of effectiveness, or as Reagan said or was quoted as saying, "there's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."
Practical example: Lila/racism PP investigation; laura bush undercover op.
Practical application: Keep people around you who support you but who will give you serious feedback, and critical feedback, and actively solicit negative opinions and don't dismiss them. Imbue yourself with a culture of self-improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)