Change Means Never Having To Face Facts

Change Means Never Having To Face Facts

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.

Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.

Some of Sen. Obama’s most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word “change” makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check “change.” But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where “change” turned problems into catastrophes.

In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for “change.”

That “change” brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars’ despotism look like child’s play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised “change” that turned out to be even worse than what went before.

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, “change” will make them better. Specifics don’t interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.

What specifics do we know about Obama’s track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of “changes” to expect if he is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of “the mess in Washington” that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of “change.”

The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don’t know. Or it ought to.

For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.

Tragedy Averted

Tragedy Averted

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Seven months. That’s all it took before Hawaii concluded that the only state universal child medical coverage program in the country is unsustainable. Give officials credit for heading off a disaster.

Read More: Health Care


On March 1, the Hawaii Medical Service Association began enrolling children in the state Keiki (child) Care program. The grand plan was to provide medicine for every child between birth and 18 years old who didn’t otherwise have coverage.

But then parents who could afford coverage began dropping their private plans and placing their children in the program. Gov. Linda Lingle’s office, seeing a sure disaster ahead, pulled the plug on the patient last week, citing “budget shortfalls.” There simply isn’t enough money in the state treasury to fund it.

This was no cold-hearted decision. No, it was a rational, fiscally responsible policy judgment that both restores some degree of lost liberty and provides a much-needed lesson on the economics and wisdom of building a health care program that socializes costs.

Supporters are predictably outraged. But the only people who could be justifiably upset are those who would have been forced to pay their tax dollars for a service that should be an individual and family responsibility.

As socialist health care programs go, Keiki Care was small scale. Officials designed it to accommodate about 3,500 children. It never got that big. By the time just 2,000 children had enrolled, it had become obvious that it was not going to work.

Imagine if the plan included all children in Hawaii. Or all 1.3 million Hawaiians. It would have been a fiscal disaster.

Yet allegedly credible politicians and empty-headed dreamers want to forcibly socialize health care for the entire U.S. and provide coverage for 300 million Americans.

They tell us repeatedly that such a system will actually lower medical costs. Of course it will — but only if health care is rationed, less high-tech care and advanced drugs are used, and people lose the right to choose their own doctor.

Every government that has experimented with such universal health care plans has experienced similar ailments. Britain? Long wait times and shabby care. Canada? The same. Sweden? Its problems are, not so remarkably, similar to those in Britain and Canada.

All three have cost-containment problems, as well, and all have to address the sometimes deadly nature of their lengthy wait times to see a doctor or to have vital surgeries, a hallmark of universal care.

Severe problems begin when large numbers in universal-care nations begin to help themselves to the “free” health care provided by the government. Since they believe someone else is paying, they run to the doctor for conditions they would not otherwise spend their own money on. That leads to system overuse, the symptoms of which are long wait times, overworked doctors, substandard care and soaring costs that must be borne by taxpayers.

Lingle was right to shut down Keiki Care and wise to do it before it became a deeply entrenched problem, one that might well have bankrupted the Aloha State. It’s much easier for shoddy universal care to kill a patient than it is for an elected official to kill a government giveaway program that has put down even shallow roots.


Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.


Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.

They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hang-ups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.

When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.

After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.

Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.

Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.

Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.

U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.

With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.

Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S.

“It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.

Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”

Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”

Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.

“Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”

Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”

Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.

With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.

Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.

The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust

Do you think history repeats itself.

“The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
— Cicero , 55 BC

ACORN’s sweatshop

ACORN’s sweatshop

Clarice Feldman
Not only is ACORN (closely linked in its formation and support with SEIU — Service Employees Union International) exploiting us by its outrageous practices abetting vote fraud and mortgage  manipulation, but it appears it exploits its very own workers. The New York Post writes:

Pushed to meet daily quotas and bullied by bosses if they didn’t, Ohio ACORN workers faked voter registrations, signed up people more than once, and even paid off registrants to keep from being fired, its canvassers told The Post.
“Every day, there was pressure on us. Every single day,” said Teshika Elder, a Cleveland single mom of three who worked for ACORN this summer.
“We had meetings every morning where they’d go over your quota; they’d yell at you if you were low,” said Elder, 21. “They’d sit us down and say if you didn’t do better, they’d suspend you. They’d say, ‘Try harder next time,’ [and] if you didn’t get it, you’d be fired.”
Desperate canvassers sometimes resorted to trading cigarettes, cash and food in exchange for registrations, according to Elder and two other former ACORN workers, Jaymes Sanford, 18, and Selvin Cunningham, 23.

Some voters were signed up more than once, and said that worried – or lazy – canvassers sometimes filled out bogus cards.

John McCain and an Army of Joes

John McCain and an Army of Joes
The real anger at McCain’s rallies.

By Byron York

Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.

Munoz and the others cheering.


Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for “small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government.” McCain added that Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to “spread the wealth around” — made Joe the Plumber “the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama.”

The crowd laughed and cheered. But for them, Joe the Plumber is much more than a zinger in McCain’s stump speech. In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences, for two reasons. First, he is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.

The second reason Joe the Plumber resonates with the crowds is what his experience says about the media. Everybody here seems acutely aware of the once-over Wurzelbacher received from the press after his chance encounter with Obama was reported, first on Fox News, and then mentioned by McCain at last week’s presidential debate. Wurzelbacher found himself splashed across newspapers and cable shows, many of which reported that he didn’t have a plumber’s license, that he wasn’t a member of the plumbers’ union, that he had a lien against him for $1,182 in state taxes, and that he failed to comprehend what many commentators apparently felt was the indisputable fact that Barack Obama would lower his taxes, not raise them. As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.

In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.

After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.

“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “

I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.

“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”


Photo by Damien LeVeck

Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”

The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”

The Corn confrontation.
Photo by Andrew Coyne

A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”

I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”

“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”

“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.

“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.

That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”

And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”

I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”

Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.

“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”

“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”

“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”

“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.

“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.

And indeed they can’t. 

Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS




I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month’s election, I urge you to read the following editorial. I don’t know who “Michael Masters” is or what he does; but he does write cogently and well. A Google search turns up a Michael Masters who is a lawyer in Philadelphia but I don’t believe that he is the author of this open letter. There is a “Michael C. Masters” who lives in McLean, VA – I presume, but do not know for sure, that he is the author. However, he didn’t show up in any Google searches that I conducted, so I guess he isn’t “notorious” enough to be found. I look at that as a good thing, however. On the surface, that suggests he is just another citizen like the rest of us and has no particular ax to grind. However, he HAS done his homework before writing this editorial.


To Barack Hussein Obama,


The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted.   While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it. 


The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted.   In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year.   The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly  While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.


Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about “race” contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America.   While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14. 


In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without “preparations” at lower levels … Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin … while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered “I would” to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without “any” preconditions.  While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.


On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work.   While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately … not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim.  While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.


You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar … and it failed.  The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13%  were only after agreement from the Democrat party.  While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth. 

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a “Captain” of a platoon in Afghanistan “the other day” when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan.  You lied in that debate.


In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a “professor of Constitutional law” when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law.  In this last debate, you were careful to say that you “taught a law class” and never mentioned being a “professor of Constitutional law.”  You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn … and he was right ….  corn is too expensive at producing ethanol,  and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn  from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food.   You distorted the truth. 


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden.   You lied to America. 


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural.  You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected.   While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts. 


You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan.  You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn … who all helped cause the financial problems of today … and they all made major contributions to your campaign.   While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful. 


You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn.  Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator … and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions.  Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns.  You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you.  While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America. 


During your campaign, you said: “typical white person.”  “they cling to their guns and religion.”  “they will say that I am black.”  You played the race card.  You tried to label any criticism about you as racist.  You divide America. 

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions.   You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn.   Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it.   While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America. 


The drain to America’s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP).  You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities.  Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear.   You are lying to America. 

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you “changed” your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004.   The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008  spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and    You are lying to America.   


Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA.  They eliminated religion from our history.  They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade.  They bring their personal politics into the classrooms.  They disparage conservatives.  They brainwash our children.  They are in it for themselves ….. not America.    Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because

teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans?  You are deceiving America. 


Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.  Your character looks horrible.  While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.  You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.    


1.  You lied to America.  You lied many times.  You distorted facts.  You parsed your answers like a lawyer. 


2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.  


3.  You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations. 


4.  You divide America about race and about class.  


Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain:  

War hero.  Annapolis graduate with “Country first.”

Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years.  26 years in the Senate.  Straight talk.  Maverick.  54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats.  Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago. 


Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means.  You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated.  Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed. 


Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character.   It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty. 


Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character.  Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches?   Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain?   Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview?  …. of course not.  So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?   because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security …. and you are praying on their fears with empty promises  … and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for “change” like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932.  The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was.   They loved his style.  Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you … your style has camouflaged your dishonesty …. but many of us see you for who you really are   … and we will not stop exposing who you are every day,  forever if it is necessary.   


Mr. Obama, you are dishonest.  Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.   


Mr.  Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future   


Mr. Obama, you are not the “change” that America deserves.  We cannot trust you. 


Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief. 


Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements.  And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character.  The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships.   The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves …. just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon … Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events …  false witness … perjury …  your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own …. but your lies are even worse. 


Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late.  We need to do the job that the media will not do.  We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day. 


Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.  And God help America if we deserve you. 


Michael Master

McLean, Virginia


If you forward just one more thing to those in your address book between now and then, I ask that you forward this.

How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT

How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT


We have already seen how candidate Obama has worked to quiet all dissenters. Remember how hard he worked to silence Governor Palin from the Iran rally this week. But that wasn’t the first time, when a group called the American Issues Project launched an ad talking about the Illinois Senator’s unexplained links to terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama sent a letter to the DOJ asking for an investigation then pressured stations not to run the ad threatening them with letters to their advertisers etc. When the woman who survived an abortion made a commercial against the Senator’s Abortion position, He attacked her PERSONALLY as a liar. In Missouri where he tried to rally supporters in the State police to silence the NRA.

A (God Forbid) President Obama, will work with a Democratic congress to place even greater restrictions on the free speech of those who disagree with the liberal agenda. This is how they indeed to shut up the right:


October 20, 2008 —
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of “fairness” might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn’t sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn’t been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real – and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of “A Manifesto for Media Freedom,” just out from Encounter Books.

Not Just ACORN: Obama’s Own Campaign Accused of Election Fraud

Not Just ACORN: Obama’s Own Campaign Accused of Election Fraud

Like a common thief who, when caught red-handed with his hand in the till, calls the cop who caught him a crook, Barack Obama’s campaign has asked the Department of Justice to “look into whether any administration officials have worked in a joint effort with the McCain campaign and the RNC in legitimizing the allegations of vote fraud.” We are somehow reminded of Boss Tweed’s bullyboys and private police force roughing up any New Yorker who dared to point out that he had seen Tweed’s partisans vote twice.

Below is an optical character recognition scan of the relevant portion of Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer’s letter to the Department of Justice. Not only is Bauer sufficiently audacious to assert, “These [vote fraud] allegations do not mean illegal voting. Nobody really expects thousands of Mickey Mouses or Tony Romos to show up at the poll to vote this fall.” Sure, Bobby, and that guy who is concealing merchandise in his coat doesn’t really intend to carry it out of the store without paying. Why register nonexistent people, dead people, and children to vote unless you plan to have them vote? What stops an ACORN worker from going to multiple polling places to vote under multiple ACORN-fabricated identities? Mickey Mouse might not get past the door, but that seven year-old girl whom ACORN registered as an adult just might.

Furthermore, Bobby, you should remember the old adage about coming into court with clean hands, and you sure don’t want a court (or the Department of Justice) to take official notice of the highly credible allegations against Barack Obama’s own campaign of outright election fraud.

    II. Current Bogus Claims of Vote Fraud and the McCain-Palin Campaign’s Attempts to Involve U.S. Attorneys and the Department of Justice. 

    History is repeating itself. As Election Day approaches – just as in 2004 and 2006 – Republican Party officials and operatives nationwide, including the candidates themselves, are fomenting specious vote fraud allegations, and there are disturbing indications of official involvement or collusion. What we have seen, each step connecting to and reinforcing the other, are:

    A, High level party claims of ”fraud,” including those made by the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees – including the entirely unsupported assertion by John McCain to a national television audience that vote fraud threatened to tear at the very ”fabric of democracy;”’

    B. Republican party officials reinforcing and sensationalizing this message by repeating it at the state and local level and initiating actions in violation of the law to harass voters and impede their exercise of their rights;

    C. Republican officeholders calling on the Department of Justice to initiate investigations of these manufactured allegations of ”fraud” – including, remarkably, direct appeals to US Attorneys; and

    D. Emerging indications of official Departmental involvement or collusion, as leaks of an investigation have now begun in violation of Departmental policy,

    Of course, the timing of the opening of this investigation and leaking of this information is damning, 19 days before the general election – and less than 24 hours after the Republican Presidential nominee announced the advent of fraud so pervasive that it threatened the very ”fabric of democracy”…

    Voter registration impropriety does not constitute actual vote fraud. Indeed, despite strenuous effort there is not documented evidence of anything but isolated and sporadic instances of voter fraud. See Lipton, In 5-year Egort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud, New York Times, April 12, 2007.

    ’ Senator McCain’s running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, has taken up the claims in similarly hyperbolic and unsupportable forms: ”’In this election, it’s a choice between a candidate who won’t disavow a group committing voter fraud, and a leader who won’t tolerate voter fraud,’ Palin said.” Associated Press, October 16, 2008, available at W6bbOHSUgHkKvipTJwD93RPSOGO.

Right, Bobby, “Voter registration impropriety does not constitute actual vote fraud,” provided that Mickey Mouse, Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins, Jive Turkey, and perhaps a million more registrants with less prominent names are purged from the rolls before Election Day. As long as Obama wants to involve the Department of Justice in accusations that the Republicans are falsely accusing his campaign of election fraud, let’s add some Democrats–Hillary Clinton to be precise.

    ’ Nonlawyer Partner
    1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036
                   (202) 293-1177         Facsimile (202) 293-3411January 23, 2008
    Jill Derby, Chair Nevada State Democratic Party 1210 South Valley View Road Suite 114 Las Vegas, NV 89102

    Dear Chair Derby:
    I write on behalf of Hillary Clinton for President (”the Committee”) in regard to the January 19, 2008 Nevada Democ-ratic Caucus. The Committee is aware of a letter addressed to you today from the Obama for America campaign requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the caucuses. The Committee shares the Obama campaign’s concern that full participation in the democratic process may have been compromised by the substantial number of irregularities occurring at the caucuses, and we fully support a complete inquiry by the Nevada State Democratic Party (the ”Party”) into all caucus improprieties.

    This letter is not intended as a response to the Obama campaign’s letter. However, in the interest of a complete record, and in contrast to the alleged minor procedural problems noted by the Obama campaign, the Committee wishes to bring to your attention information we have received evidencing a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party’s caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising countless voters. Finally, the Committee has received a vast number of reliable reports of voter suppression and intimidation by the Obama campaign or its allies.

    The Committee had 30 phone lines on Saturday to receive calls in its Las Vegas offices. These lines rang continuously from early morning until well after the caucuses concluded with reports from people who were victimized and who observed irregularities. The phone lines were so over-whelmed that many callers resorted to calling individual Committee staff cell phones to report that they could not get through. The Committee also received many similar calls at its national headquarters.

    The Committee is confident that any investigation into the conduct of the caucuses will be thorough, fair and in the interest of insuring that future Party caucuses will be as open and democratic as possible.

    Systematic Corruption of the Party’s Caucus Procedures
    The Committee received substantially similar reports of improprieties of such a number as to leave no conclusion but that the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters engaged in a planned effort to subvert the Party’s caucus procedures to its advantage. For example:

    þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama.

    þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards.

    þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama:
    o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama.
    o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes.
    o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes.

    o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough.
    o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates.

    þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus.

    Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process
    Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows:

    þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site.

    þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site.

    þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate.

    þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line.

    Voter Suppression and Intimidation
    The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below:

    þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only.

    þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused.

    þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters.

    þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton.

    þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus.
    þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama.

    The complaints summarized above represent only a small sample of the complaints received by the Committee. With respect to each of these complaints and many more, the Committee has the names and phone numbers of those reporting these incidents and the specific precinct numbers where the incidents occurred. Upon request the Committee will share these with the Party with appropriate safeguards to protect these individuals from reprisal. On the whole, these reports show a troubling effort by the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters to advance their own campaign at the expense of the right of all Nevada Democrats to participate in the democratic process in a free, fair and open manner.

    Senator Clinton and the Committee are wholly committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has his or her vote cast and counted. There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters.
    Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President

We think this letter should join Mr. Baeur’s letter at the Department of Justice just to make sure all the cards are on the table, and that the air is cleared thoroughly before November 4.

Stealing the Presidency: An Obama/ACORN Primer


Stealing the Presidency: An Obama/ACORN Primer

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war…A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.”
  – Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Rules?  What rules?  Laws?  What laws? 


Clearly, Alinsky’s acolytes take him at his word.  When one is fighting a war “against social evils,” one is above the law.  Rules and laws are for the other people.


I’m stunned by the irony here.    


For the past eight years, Americans have been bombarded nearly nonstop by cries of “Bush stole the White House,” without a single proven shred of evidence, without a single indictment or conviction of Republicans on vote fraud, vote rigging or anything even close.  Meanwhile the only group indicated and convicted in actual vote fraud cases in the last two elections — ACORN — is fully mobilized still, claims to have registered 1.3 million new voters this year, and is tied historically and inextricably to our front-running candidate for President, Barack Obama.


If anyone tried to sell this story as fiction, no publisher in his right mind would touch it.  The average reader’s willingness to suspend disbelief simply doesn’t stretch this far.


Yet, here we are two weeks out from what may very well be an actual, stolen presidential election.


ACORN pledged to spend $35 million this year in voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.  The bulk of this money has been targeted at the most important battleground states of the past 2 elections.  And as the National Black Republican Association proclaims, ACORN’s motto is:  “Let Every Fraudulent Vote Count!”  Indeed the ACORN strategy apparently rests on Mickey Mouse & company voting early, often and everywhere.


Should legal, registered, qualified voters be concerned that their votes will be negated by fraudulent votes?  Yes, we all should be. 


State of the Investigations


With investigations ongoing in about a dozen states, Barack Obama has requested that everything be turned over to a special prosecutor.  Not just any special prosecutor either.  Obama wants all of the ACORN investigations lumped into the ongoing, Democrat-launched probe into Justice Dept. attorney firings in the Bush Administration. 


The bottom line here is simple.  Obama and the Democrats are attempting to frame every investigation into voter fraud, vote rigging and vote buying from the past 2 elections, as well as this one, as purely political.  According to Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress, none of this ACORN fraud ever happened.  The attorneys were fired because they refused to investigate ACORN and the Democrats say that was political.  Obama claims that all investigations now being mounted by states and the FBI are intended to suppress voter turnout, and are politically motivated. 


Only ivy-league lawyers could turn this heap of poppycock into thousands of words on good paper. 


Maybe the individual state efforts can save American democracy. 


Ohio, the state to watch:  When Sarah Palin implored Ohioans last week not to let “the Buckeye state become the ACORN state,” she hit that nail squarely upon its head.  In the very state that could decide this election, if it turns out to be close, the Democrat Secretary of State got her way last week with an emergency decision of the Supreme Court.  The High Court overturned a circuit court ruling that had instructed Ms. Brunner to aid counties swamped with new voter registrations to weed out fraud by checking them against state databases of driver’s license and social security numbers.  She refused. 


But the U.S. Supreme Court did not address the substance of the suit.  It ruled in Brunner’s favor on a technicality of the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which directed the suit to state court, rather than federal.  Attorneys have now filed a brief with Ohio’s state supreme court.  The judges have instructed Brunner to respond by Monday, and both sides must file briefs by Friday.


Of course, all this stalling on Brunner’s part has the appearance of being purely political.  The legitimate Ohio voters have a right to a legally protected process.  They may be forced to demand it, or we all may pay the price.


Meanwhile, also in Ohio, the Buckeye Institute has filed a RICO suit against ACORN.  What may be the most encouraging sign in this entire election is the fact that Hillary Clinton Democrats are joining Republicans and investigators in this struggle to protect the integrity of America’s vote. 


Nearly completely ignored by our watchdog mainstream media is the fact that a huge rift still exists in the Democrat Party due to the thuggish tactics used by Obama, his supporters and ACORN to garner the Democratic nomination.  Caucus fraud was rampant and Democrats have been collecting evidence and video testimonies by eye witnesses for months now.  This is the evidence that they are now sharing with plaintiffs in the Ohio RICO suit.


As reported on the Hillbuzz website last week:


“What’s happening here is something we have never seen before: centrist Clinton Democrats and Republicans are working together to expose the DNC and Obama campaign’s illegal activities and orchestrated, coordinated fraud. Both parties are working with federal agents to investigate ACORN, which has been funded with upwards of $800,000 in questionable donations from the Obama campaign (in what appears to be the expressed and explicit direction to engineer voter fraud in the general election).
“The tactics being employed now in the 15 states currently under investigation are the VERY SAME TACTICS we saw on the ground in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, and other states working for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.”


A lifelong Democrat from D.C., Dr. Lynette Long, has spent the past 6 months investigating and tallying results from the Democratic Party nominating contests.  Her conclusion:


“As I write this, the Democratic Party is poised to formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for President of the United States.
“It’s the triumph of fraud.
“I’ve spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.” (emphasis in original)


Even as Barack Obama and his attorneys attempt to portray investigations into ACORN voter fraud as politically motivated attacks brought by Republicans, faithful Democrats band together with Republicans and Independents behind the scenes to protect the integrity of the American electoral system from systematic fraud.


Apparently Barack Obama’s mama forgot to teach him the meaning of shame.


In this I second Hillary Clinton:  Shame, shame on you, Barack Obama.


MissouriGeorge W. Bush won Missouri by 7 points, but John McCain is now neck and neck with Barack Obama.  In this state, where every single legitimate vote will be crucial, eight ACORN workers pleaded guilty in April to vote fraud in the 2006 election for submitting registrations with false names and addresses, and forged signatures. 


Presently, local and state officials are attempting to verify the mounds of ACORN-submitted registrations dumped on them the final day in typical Cloward-Piven fashion that seeks to overwhelm and crash the whole system.  Hundreds of fraudulent registrations have already been identified.  But whether officials’ efforts will be enough, or whether they will be in time, is anybody’s guess.  In a contest where every electoral vote is crucial, the integrity of Missouri’s 11 votes is threatened by a far more dangerous possibility than a bunch of hanging chads.


Pennsylvania:  Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that Republican Party leaders filed suit to protect the integrity of the vote against widespread ACORN fraud, “accusing the group of fostering voter registration fraud and asserting that the election system lacks adequate safeguards to stop it.”


In a state with 21 electoral votes that Hillary Clinton won in a landslide during the primaries, Pennsylvania has become one of the primary sites for PUMA Pac activities.  PUMA people are not fading into the woodwork in the manner that our mainstream media would have us believe.  No, they are a force to be reckoned with, and have signaled that they will work hand in hand with Republicans to protect this election.


The Obama/ACORN National Strategy


Investigations ongoing in about a dozen states indicate widespread and systemic fraud.  The FBI is currently probing these allegations, most of them involving ACORN, the group that proudly operates Camp Obama and who trains its membership in militant tactics taken from the Alinsky “rule book” that specifically instructs organizers to disobey the law.


According to the comprehensive research published by Heidi J. Swarts in her book, Organizing Urban America:  Secular and Faith-Based Progressive Movements (University of Minnesota Press), ACORN differs significantly from the kinds of organizations that have any charitable motives whatsoever.  The organization has no interest in good deeds, nor organizing any sort of programs that do not entail political/government solutions to all social problems. 


In addition, writes Swarts, ACORN set itself apart from all other socially motivated progressive initiatives with its “strategic innovations,” involving “national campaigns…which are quickly disseminated through one centralized organization” to its 1,200 nationwide offices in more than 35 states.  Even though ACORN had visions of national political campaigns since its inception in 1970, the group was until the 1980s more interested in keeping its own prominence as the “only truly radical community organization” than in moving towards unity with other progressive movements for “change.”


When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, ACORN leader Wade Ratke decided to widen his scope and seek the cooperation of other groups.  And his decision has paid off.  Swarts writes that “since the 1990s, but particularly since 2000, ACORN has demonstrated far greater openness to building alliances, not only with labor unions and the Church-based community organizations but with a wide range of advocacy groups.”


These massive numbers of community organizers working in cohesive concert, especially since 2000, have made their national campaigns for “change” possible.  And what do these groups seek?  Power for low- and moderate-income Americans.  They see mass mobilization as their fundamental source of power.  They intend to use that power, not only to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama states, but also to fundamentally change taxpayers into hog-tied guarantors to their manifesto’s demands.


And it would seem now that ACORN & company stand at the threshold of having one of their very own in the White House.  Barack Obama did promise ACORN in 2007 that he would make their representatives part of his transition team to the Presidency and from there they would together map the “change” they intend to bring posthaste.


One thing, I believe, is certain.  The minute Barack Obama is sworn in as the Chief law enforcement officer in America, the FBI will no longer be investigating ACORN.  Neither will the Justice Department. 


And I doubt there will be a mainstream media outlet in the Country who will dare to call Obama’s use of federal agencies “political.”  In fact, they probably will not even bother to report on any of it.  They’ll be far too busy singing the praises of our new Community Organizer in Chief.


Welcome to the Revolution.  Hail Obama.


Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She blogs at