Yesterday when Joe Biden was interviewed by Barbara West of WFTV in Florida, he becomes very defensive at the tough questions most people want answered.Â Especially if Barack Obama is a Marxist and if he really meant what he said to Joe the Plumber about ‘Spreading the Wealth Around ‘.Â Shortly after the interview aired, the Obama campaign pulled all future interviews and has essentially ‘banned’ WFTV from any other coverage of the campaign essentially punishing them for asking the questions everyone wants answered.
Is this a sign for what might be coming in a Obama Biden presidency where they censor out and shun certain media outlets that either ask general questions or might disagree with their political views?Â Sounds like forced communist TV to us.Â Unfortunately as WFTV has found out, this is the case.Â If Obama does become president, you will soon see a massive change in the way future ‘news’ is released, what is censored and what is allowed.Â Not to mention, the Fairness Doctrine will bring our Comrades closer to pushing for communist radio as well.
See for yourself how Joe Biden reacts to the questions everyone wants answered:
Rich Chrismer, the St. Charles County elections director, says his office last week turned over to the FBI 15 voter registration cards with nonexistent addresses that had been submitted by the Barack Obama presidential campaign in Missouri.
Chrismer said the bad addresses were noted by one of his employees who was checking on voter registrations.
He said the FBI had asked him to contact the bureau if anyone tried to vote using the suspicious registration. He said the cards were turned in, mostly on Oct. 8 and Oct. 9, by Obama for America . Thatâ€™s one of the Obama campaign organizations operating in Missouri.
It looks like Barack Obama learned something from all those years of working with Acorn .
Obama, has called Ayers, now a college education professor, ‘a guy in my neighborhood’ and said he and Ayers are not close. He told ABC News on Wednesday that McCain is trying to score ‘cheap political points’ by bringing up Ayers.
Ayers in the mid-1990s hosted a meeting at his house to introduce Obama to neighbors during Obama’s first run for a seat in the Illinois Senate. They also served on a nonprofit anti-poverty board together.
‘We don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife…’ McCain said. ‘That’s not the point here. The point is Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that’s not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not.’
A Web video ad released by the McCain campaign shows pictures of Obama and Ayers and said Obama has not told the truth about the extent of his ties with Ayers.
‘Americans say, ‘Where’s the truth, Barack?’ Barack Obama. Too risky for America’
Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see HERE ) â€¦ well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obamaâ€™s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.
In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stinkÂ means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bankâ€™s reputation back?
It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is.Â ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.
We pulled the docket down, but here’s a brief for your summary:
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffsâ€™ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffsâ€™ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bankâ€™s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiffâ€™s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
UPDATE :Â Hotair.com comments on this story HERE .
THE seeds of todayâ€™s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act – a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in â€œsubprimeâ€ loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from Americaâ€™s financial institutions .
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORNâ€™s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbottâ€™s way – ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORNâ€™s overall efforts.
UPDATE 2: Fox News gets on the story
UPDATE 3: CNS News Analysis
Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat â€œred-lining,â€ a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. â€œNo loan is exempt, no bank is immune,â€ warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. â€œFor those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.â€
The Clinton-Reno threat of â€œvigorous enforcementâ€ pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. â€œBanks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldnâ€™t have been getting mortgage loans.â€
This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the â€œbanks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,â€ who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.
UPDATE 4: Obama Audio saying it was a Good Idea to give people loans that couldn’t afford them.
We told you before how Obama sued banks with so called â€œcommunity organizersâ€ to force the banks to give bad loans to people who couldnâ€™t afford them. Well now we have the audio of Obama saying in 2007 that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldnâ€™t afford them is a good idea.
UPDATE 5: So what really (no really ) cause this economic crisis?
Nine years ago this month, the New York Times proved to be rather prophetic:
Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980â€™s.
â€From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,â€ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. â€If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.â€
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990â€™s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard Universityâ€™s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period thenumber of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent . In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent .
This whole mess was inspired by rabble-rousing left-wing groups who felt (not thought) that blacks were not getting enough mortgages.
Note, however, that when whites (31%) or Asians (46%) are on the losing end of this equation, it is apparently NOT evidence of any racism. Right, ACORN?
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites , in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
This video is an informative look at the factors that are causing our current financial and economic crisis. It discusses policy changes 13 years ago that unleashed the sub-prime mortgage-backed securities market, which accelerated prices erratically, inviting speculation and loose lending practices which were both condoned and encouraged by existing regulation and carried out by risk-blind executives and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum 12/07
Here’s a video from a forum exclusively for thousands of community organizers including Gamaliel and ACORN people.Â Obama said that ACORN and friends (responsible for voting fraud and the subprime crisis) are going to be shaping policy for an Obama presidency.
What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the A ssociation of C ommunity O rganizations for Reform N ow (ACORN ), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.
News Reports on ACORN Voter ID Fraud
This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal ‘motor-voter’ bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn ‘leadership trainer’ is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.
An Anti-Capitalism Agenda
To understand the nature and extent of Acorn’s radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, ‘ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.’ (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga’s ‘Acorn Squash.’)
Obama’s ACORN Association Exposed (Part 1)
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s ‘New Left,’ with a ‘1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism’ to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of ‘one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.’ In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force ‘a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.’ Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities – until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas – where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often ‘slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.’ Acorn’s new goals are municipal ‘living wage’ laws targeting ‘big-box’ stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks – efforts styled as combating ‘predatory lending.’ Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive ‘donations’ that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
Obama’s ACORN Association Exposed (Part 2)
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward ‘undisguised authoritarian socialism.’ Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain ‘exit visas.’ ‘How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?’ asks Stern, adding, ‘This is the road to serfdom indeed.’
In Your Face
Acorn’s tactics are famously ‘in your face.’ Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.
Acorn, however, defiantly touts its confrontational tactics. While Stern himself notes this, the point is driven home sharper still in an Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled ‘Enraging the Right.’ Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply’s avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern’s powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. Do Atlas and Dreier object to Stern’s characterizations of Acorn’s radical plans – even his slippery-slope warnings about Acorn’s designs on basic freedom of movement? Nope. ‘Stern accurately outlines Acorn’s agenda,’ they say.
Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.
But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post-New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist ‘New Party.’
Obama Meets Acorn
What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let’s begin with Obama’s pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a ‘community organizer’ does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama’s early Chicago days opens with the touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago’s ‘Friends of the Parks,’ so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play. This is the image of Obama’s organizing we’re supposed to hold. It’s far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, ‘Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement’ in their communities. Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.
Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama’s organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story’s emphasis is to affirm Obama’s important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.
And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.
Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call ‘direct action,’ orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.
Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive ‘direct action?’ Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama’s early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn’s ‘inside baseball’ strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they’d be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the ‘direct action’ side of community organizing.
Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.
To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan ‘actions’ that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a ‘surprise visit’ to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks – but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama’s alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.
The extent of Obama’s ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, ‘Case Study: Chicago – The Barack Obama Campaign,’ by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn’s National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically ‘non-partisan’ status of Acorn’s get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.
Before giving us a tour of Acorn’s pro-Obama but somehow ‘non-partisan’ election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama’s ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s ‘motor voter’ case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing ‘Project VOTE’ in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.
At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns – his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were ‘old friends,’ says Foulkes.
So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as ‘the Senator from Acorn.’
Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.
According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, ‘allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants’ to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, ‘whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.’ As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and ‘non-partisan’ arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.
Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its ‘non-partisan’ registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of ‘non-partisanship.’
Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.
In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, ‘Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?’ which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, ‘It’s clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,’ and reading Foulkes’s case study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help but agree.
Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the larger point is that Obama’s ties to Acorn – arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country – are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face ‘direct action’ game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the ‘progressive’ fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have blocked that solution.
In any case, if you’re looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama’s network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the ‘President from Acorn’ at his feast.
By Stanley Kurtz
National Review Online
UPDATE:Â ACORN Offices Raided
UPDATE: ACORN Registers Mickey Mouse to Vote!
Here’s the Voter Registration application.Â ACORN has registered Mickey Mouse to vote â€” in Orlando, of course. Here’s the registration application.Â If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny:
As reported by the St. Petersburg Times , it is ”stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN.”
What a coincidence: the Obama campaign furtively paid this same group $800,000 to get out the vote, presumably by using tactics ACORN activists were taught by Obama himself , who also took part in ACORN’s contribution to the subprime disaster by forcing banks to make loans based on skin color.
Even ACORN goons are probably smart enough to come up with more subtle names than Mickey Mouse or the lineup for the Dallas Cowboys . But why should they bother? It’s not like Obama will be taken to task for it. Just chalk it up to the Audacity of Arrogance.
Read Rick Moran ‘s latest to get an idea of what the blatant cheating Democrats have been indulging in could mean for the future of our democracy if the election is close â€” as it probably will be.