10/6/08

What did Barack teach ACORN?

More ACORN stories: here collectivism: here Alinsky: here

Part One of a series: "What did Barack Obama teach ACORN?"
Read the entire series: here

As the readers of NW Republican know, the union-backed group ACORN is a principal actor in today's twin mega-frauds: bogus voter registrations and the 'affordable housing' bailout.

Before entering Chicago elective politics, Barack Obama was a "community organizer" for an ACORN subsidiary, Project Vote. (He also managed 'affordable housing' lawsuits for ACORN as late as 1994.) Barack was effective - "the undisputed master of agitation," according to trainer Mike Kruglik - so good at it that he was promoted and became a trainer of other organizers.

Intellectuals may be interested to know that although Barack attended Occidental College, and graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he calls his Alinskyite experience "the best education I ever had." Note: Barack's website now claims that he never worked for ACORN.

NW Republican is offering its readers a chance to learn what Barack Obama learned as a community organizer, and what he taught to community organizers when he was employed by ACORN/Project Vote. This could be useful information, as he is favored to be elected President of the United States next month.

We'll start with a selection from the 'bible' of community organizing and advocacy journalism: 'Rules for Radicals' by the late socialist Saul Alinsky. In the lead photo at the top of this post, Obama is teaching Alinsky's principles of "Power Analysis" and "Relationships built on self-interest" as seen written upon the blackboard [click photo to enlarge.]

This selection from Chapter 1, below, is rich with revelations:

• Alinsky and Obama are devoted to a political power revolution.
• A massive political organization - ACORN - fulfills a revolutionary requirement.
• Alinsky and Obama mistakenly view democracy's ideal as the achievement of "social justice" rather than preserving liberty.
• Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left.
• Socialists like Obama and his friends believe we deserve a more perfected society than permitted under the U.S. Constitution.
• Truth is relative and situational - a flexible tool for advancing revolution.
• Alinsky and Obama take an abusive reading of the "General Welfare" doctrine - a Constitutional provision the framers intended for curbing factions, not enabling them.
from "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky, Chapter 1: The Purpose

The life of man upon earth is a warfare - Job 7:1

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold onto power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

In this book ware are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, co-operation equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world into a place where all men and women will walk erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." This means revolution.

The significant changes in history have been made by revolutions. There are people who say that it is not revolution, but evolution, that brings about change - but evolution is simply the term used by nonparticipants to denote a particular sequence of revolutions as they synthesized into a specific major social change. In this book I propose certain general observations, propositions, and concepts of the mechanics of mass movements and the various stages of the cycle of action and reaction in revolution. This is not an ideological book except insofar as argument for change, rather than for the status quo, can be called an ideology; different people, in different places, in different situations and different times will construct their own solutions and symbols of salvation for those times.

This book will not contain and panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma. I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic. Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they posses the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain and injustice.

Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate in dogma, and to protect the free, open, question , and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."
(nwrepublican.blogspot.com)

ACORN voter fraud probed in 14 states

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

How to elect a socialist community organizer President

Will 2008 finally be the first US presidential race to be decided by voter fraud and the leftist mainstream press? It appears that it just may be. The press has been nonstop in its glorification of Democrat Obama, vilification of McCain and barbs, false rumors and jokes waged against Sarah Palin. Prior to Obama beginning his campaign for POTUS, cable channel MSNBC had already announced its intention to go ‘all leftist all of the time’. NBC has aired multiple positive “documentaries” about Barack Obama while discounting John McCain. Obama’s group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is under suspicion or indictment of its members in at least 14 states.

ACORN claims to be “non-partisan” but, the group has endorsed Barack Obama for president and, as reported by and shown on FNC on Sunday, ACORN campaign workers have openly said they tell voters to cast their vote for Obama. And wanting to ensure their apparent Stalinist-leaning candidate Obama is elected, the US mainstream media have either ignored or suppressed the truth about Obama’s terrorist and Marxist friends and associations—anti-democracy William Ayers, Bernadette Dorn and Saul Alinsky come quickly to mind. Apparently, agreeing with the anti-democracy movements, the leftist press suppresses these radical ties to Obama while they dream of their Communist utopia.

At the command of the Obama campaign, in St. Louis, MO pro-Obama Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce (self-acknowledged members of Obama’s “Truth Squad”—AKA “goon squad”) threatened to prosecute those who made “untrue” negative comments about Obama. Note: The truths or untruths of any and/or all statements are to be determined by Obama supporters. If it is ‘for the Stalinist/Marxist cause’, it appears that anything is allowed. In Alaska, the “troopergate” case against Alaska Governor and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin that had already been proven unfounded has resurfaced and is going forth; largely due to leftist Judge Peter Michalski of the Anchorage Superior Court and Democrat Obama supporters who are also elected officials. The liberal and leftist fix is in, folks. It strongly if not irrevocably appears that—without an unprecedented voter turnout against him—Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. After that happens, you can kiss your freedoms goodbye. Obama’s actions have already told us this is so. If you don’t like what Obama ends up being, do you really think you can get them back with the following election? Think again. By then, the country will be so in his and his cronies’ vice grip that there can and will be no return to the US Constitution and sanity.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters05s20oct05,0,2217005.story

http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner?mode=search&q=shame&Submit.x=23&Submit.y=12

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/radical-saul-alinsky-influenced-obama.html

http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar9.htm

- Sher Zieve

(webcommentary.com)

What about ACORN?

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Big Bedfellows perpetrate labor extortion

Related: "Big Bedfellows ripped over extortion deal"
• "Extortion subdues Colorado workers"
Big Bedfellows stories: hereMore worker-choice stories: here

Anti-corruption measure could curb Big Business, Big Labor's worst instincts

Some Republican lawmakers are calling an agreement reached last week between business and labor “extortion” and “bribery.”

The group is so outraged by the $3 million business has pledged to fight the so-called right-to-work ballot initiative that they are likening it to mob bosses like Jimmy Hoffa throwing bricks through windows for not receiving protection payment.

Republican lawmakers Rep. Amy Stephens from Colorado Springs and Sen. Mike Kopp from Littleton plan to introduce legislation next year that would make it illegal to negotiate financial deals that would impact initiatives already on the ballot.

The two lawmakers point their fingers at Gov. Bill Ritter and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper for helping to negotiate the deal. Under the agreement, labor agreed to pull from the ballot four union-backed measures, amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57, in exchange for a $3 million campaign pledge from business leaders to help fight Amendment 47, the so-called right-to-work measure, as well as Amendments 49 and 54.

“This is the political equivalent of mob bosses threatening to throw a brick through the window of your business if you don’t give them protection money,” said Stephens.

“The unions have made no pretense since the very beginning — their initiatives were only intended as political leverage, which is extortion,” she added.

Colorado Concern

Dan Ritchie, a member of a group of business executives known as Colorado Concern, said the deal isn’t a sellout by unions or a labor squeeze on business. He simply pointed out that the initiatives would be costly and divide the state, which is why labor and business put aside separate ideologies to develop a partnership.

“Some cynics have falsely claimed that this partnership represents a ransom or a buyout, but it was neither,” said Ritchie, chairman of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. “People of good faith and good conscience came together for the betterment of Colorado.”

Support

Supporters of the agreement also include Sage Hospitality Resources, Oakwood Homes, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., Congressman Ed Perlmutter, D-Lakewood, Congressman Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, the Colorado Hospital Association, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and Colorado Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, to name a few.

Most supporters praised the ability of both labor and business to come together, put away differences and work together for a solution that does not “damage Colorado.”

But Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown said he would not become a “cheerleader” for the agreement. He also supports legislation that would make it illegal to negotiate financial deals concerning ballot initiatives.

“What can damage Colorado is this dangerous precedent-setting $3 million extortion agreement that shows no faith in economically savvy Colorado voters,” he said. “At a time when there is a need to rebuild trust in government, business and labor, cynical wink-wink bargains like this do not help.”

Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, said the agreement “raises questions about the use of ballot measures and the relative ease for monied interests to get matters on the ballot.”

Jabs backs right to work

American Furniture Warehouse chief executive Jake Jabs announced Friday that he will hold a news conference tomorrow to discuss the agreement, as well as his support for Amendment 47. Jabs began appearing in television ads on Friday offering his support for the so-called right-to-work initiative. Jabs declined to answer questions until Tuesday. Meanwhile, former State Treasurer Mark Hillman said the business-labor agreement will come back to haunt business leaders.

“These business executives consented to an extortion racket and will pay the price for years to come,” he said.

“Business leaders just purchased the ammunition for their own execution,” continued Hillman. “Labor will continue its racket of extortion and intimidation until business executives grow tired of being beaten with their own hammer or until so few of them remain that their opinion doesn’t matter.”

Comments:
JeffCoGiant @ 2008-10-06 00:45:06
This is case in point why Amendment 54 is necessary -- to clean up the corruption that is going on between business, unions, government, and politicians demanding political contributions in order to grant these no-bid contracts. The last thing that these groups want is transparency. We want to know where our money is being spent and we want the corruption and the scams to stop! Vote YES on 54!

(thedenverdailynews.com)

The key to union control: Card check

Related: "Union political cash ushers in ugly Fascistic Era"
• "Workers most prosper when they are free"
More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Who needs secret-ballot union recognition elections, anyway?

Organized labor spent heavily to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. With the presidency at stake, unions are expected to spend up to $360 million by November, more than twice as much as four years ago.

At the top of labor’s agenda is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which would deny employees the opportunity to vote before a union takes over their workplace.

Today, organized labor represents just 7.5 percent of private employees. Labor officials blame their woes on the fact that they must win a secret ballot to force company recognition. So organized labor proposes doing away with elections if 50 percent of the workers plus one sign a card.

Unions dislike secret ballots, which protect workers from retaliation for rejecting representation. In contrast, labor organizers find it much easier to mislead and harass workers to sign a union card. Bruce Raynor of the union UNITE HERE says simply: “There’s no need to subject the workers to an election.” Ironically, a Zogby poll found that 84 percent of union members believed in certification elections.

EFCA didn’t go anywhere this year, but come November, the Democrats are likely to increase their margins in Congress, even possibly reaching a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. Labor also is campaigning for Barack Obama. Bill Darling, the AFL-CIO’s legislative director, said that a Democratic presidential victory “could be an opportunity for historic change.”

Earlier this year Obama endorsed the “card check” bill, promising: “We’re ready to play offense for organized labor — letting them do what they do best: organize our workers.” Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, predicted that EFCA would cause unions to “grow by 1.5 million members a year, not just for five years but for 10 to 15 straight years.” More employees mean more dues.

Some of that money would go for organization campaigns. Observes Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, EFCA “could trigger a surge in unionization across U.S. industry — and in time, a reversion to the bloated economy that brought America to its knees in the late 1970s and early ’80s and that today cripples much of European business.”

Alas, many unions today are as interested in politics as economics. They see the political process as the best way to get what they can’t win through negotiation in a free market.

Labor consultant Jonathan Tasini reported that “unions spend seven to 10 times what they give candidates and parties on internal mobilization,” which he figured meant “$8 billion to as much as $12 billion on federal elections alone” between 1979 and 2004. EFCA would enable organized labor to pour even more money into campaigns, spurring passage of union-supported legislation.

For instance, labor is pushing Congress to override state laws limiting unionization of public safety employees, open the Traffic Safety Administration to organizing, and reverse recent National Labor Relations Board decisions defining “supervisors,” who are exempt from collective bargaining requirements. Organized labor also has attacked the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which targets union corruption.

Despite the explosion of opportunity afforded Americans through economic growth, technological transformation and rapid globalization, many unions also lobby government to enforce economic stasis in the name of protecting their members. For instance, in a labor-dominated Congress, initiatives promoting trade liberalization would die.

A larger Democrat majority in Congress likely would hike, not cut, taxes. A labor-dominated congressional majority likely would restrict alternative capital sources, such as private equity. Spending would surge. Private Social Security accounts and market-oriented Medicare reform options would be off the table.

Teachers unions would block any proposals for parental choice and school accountability. Unions would work to kill consumer-oriented health care, such as health savings accounts. Finally, a more influential labor movement would join trial attorneys to block tort reform. The Democratic House voted to create new investor liabilities as part of the subprime lending bailout.

Some businesses have attempted to immunize themselves by locking in regulations today. Most rules, however, could be changed by a future administration.

Another business strategy has been to hire Democratic lobbyists, but an overwhelming Democratic victory likely would generate an unstoppable labor policy tsunami.

Congress should reject card check on its merits. Workers are entitled to a secret ballot over unionization.

Abandoning workplace elections would allow organized labor to intimidate its way to greater power and money, which would, in turn, be used to promote a left-wing economic agenda. The public would pay a high price for years to come.

- Doug Bandow is vice president of policy for citizen outreach and the Bastiat scholar in free enterprise at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of “Leviathan Unchained: Washington’s Bipartisan Big Government Consensus.”

(eurekareporter.com)

ACORN organizer sets payoff to labor bigs

More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Get ready for the Unites States of Organized Labor

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers ... I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States.” ~ Barack Obama

"We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election." ~ George McGovern

If Obama is elected president, which is highly likely according to the latest political futures market Intrade (now a 65% chance of winning), get ready for a unionized America and the end of the worker's right to a secret ballot.

If he gets his way, Obama is ready to force millions of Americans into unions by eliminating, for all practical purposes, this fundamental American right.

This betrayal of a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy can only mean one thing: America will go the way of Europe, i.e., higher unemployment, slower GDP growth, a higher cost of living, and no new job creation. That’s the history of highly unionized states like Michigan. Since the end of World War II, America has steadily moved toward a more dynamic, flexible labor market, which has resulted in huge job creation and a higher standard of living for all workers. But -- if Obama and the unions have their way -- that is about to change.

Obama is a strong supporter of the falsely-named “Employee Free Choice Act” (also known as the Card Check bill) sponsored by Ted Kennedy. It almost passed Congress this year and is certain to become law if Obama becomes president. Obama told the AFL-CIO this year, "I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States." (President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation.)

What’s so bad about the “Employee Free Choice Act”? The name is positively Orwellian: instead of preserving workers’ ability to make the decision to unionize by secret ballot, it does just the opposite. The bill makes it much easier to create a union at a business -- the union bosses can publicly pressure a majority of workers to sign union authorization cards (thus, the name “card check”). There is no secret ballot -- workers sign the cards in front of other employees and union leaders, and union officials keep the signed cards until they obtain the required number. Under the watchful eyes (and arm twisting) of union organizers, workers will be intimidated into signing.

Union supporters deny that the secret ballot is eliminated. Once the union leaders are accepted as the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers, employees can then freely vote for or against the union in a secret ballot.

The problem is that the card check process creates heavy peer pressure to support the union publicly, even if workers have misgivings privately. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation.”

Congressman John Klein (R-Minn.) has warned, “It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone -- your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers -- knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice.’.... It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot, so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice.'”

The potential for abuse is enormous. Even long-time Democrat George McGovern is opposed to the Card Check bill: “To my friends supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.”

Happily, Sen. McCain opposes the pro-union bill. “I am strongly opposed to H.R. 800, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Not only is the bill's title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived legislative measure would be a gross deception to the hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it.”

Business leaders should especially be alarmed about another aspect of H. R. 800. It gives unions the option to have federal arbitrators write the terms of a binding contract, setting wages, benefits, hours, work rules, and all other terms of employment if negotiations between the employer and union fail. And this contract has the force of law for two years.

Bernard Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, warns that this legislation is so harmful that it is nothing short of a “hostile takeover” of American business and will result in making the United States uncompetitive in the global world and will ship millions of jobs overseas: “When I asked CEOs if they had heard of this attack on principles that form the bedrock of our democracy -- secret ballots in elections -- only 7 out of 100 raised their hands. And yet, this plan has the potential to redraw the political and economic landscape of America. CEOs, and for that matter all Americans, need to know how this legislation would jeopardize our system of free enterprise.”

Spread the word: An Obama victory means a unionized America, higher cost of living, more unemployment, a static economy, and a lackluster Wall Street.

- Mark Skousen is a financial economist, author and university professor.

(humanevents.com)

SEIU organizers harass workers at their homes

More SEIU stories: here

How Fascistic SEIU Got Montgomery County Workers' Contact Info Is Mystery

A Montgomery County commissioner, eyeing an investigation into how a union received county workers' contact information, expects he'd be stymied, while county department heads say the information didn't come from their offices.

A controversy erupted in mid-August when Montgomery County's Human Resources office and labor counselors drafted a harshly worded letter they forwarded to department heads to send to their staffers opposing the effort by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to unionize county employees. The commissioners said some staffers complained about SEIU organizers visiting them in their homes, despite some of the workers being unlisted.

It is still not publicly known how SEIU obtained the contact information. The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board permits local governments to pass on their employee contact information to a union only if a labor petition drive draws at least a 30-percent affirmative response rate.

Two county departments, Human Resources and the Office of the Controller, have comprehensive databases of county employees. Heads of both offices said none of their staff gave out any numbers or addresses.

"It did not come from the controller's office," Controller Diane Morgan, D, said at yesterday's Montgomery County Commissioners' meeting.

Commissioners' Chairman Jim Matthews, R, said shortly afterward "it bothers me terribly" that union representatives received addresses of county employees. He added he resents any implication that the information could have come from either him or from Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, D, and called such a supposition "below the belt," although no one had raised such a possibility at the meeting.

Montgomery County Chief Deputy Solicitor and acting Human Resources Director Carolyn Carluccio also said it is impossible her office was the union's source.

"It's a very small office," she said. "It's staffed with very dedicated, very hard-working women. They are so busy that frankly I don't think they'd have time to do this."

She added she understood some of the workers the SEIU approached to be incorrectly identified as current employees or as non-managerial.

Commissioner Bruce Castor, R, said in early September he planned on calling for an investigation to determine where it came from. He indicated the prospects for such a probe look bleak. He said Mr. Hoeffel supports unionism and is aligned too strongly with Mr. Matthews and County Solicitor Barry Miller.

"There is no one I trust to do the investigation in the commissioners' office because I believe everyone fears for their job at the hands of Matthews and Miller," Mr. Castor said. "I can't expect the controller to investigate herself. The D.A. would usually need a complaint from a person willing to testify. The law allows an individual commissioner to investigate by putting people under oath, but Miller ruled that despite the clear stature allowing it, that I may not. He is a law unto himself as long as Matthews and Hoeffel let him be or somebody sues them. Bottom line is, at this point, the D.A.'s Public Corruption Unit is the only possibility."

As of yet, no one has made a complaint to the prosecutor's office regarding this issue, according to District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman.

The county's Human Resources office does not have precise knowledge as to how many employees the union contacted or how many departments it targeted. Ms. Carluccio said it appears SEIU obtained contact information for members of a broad range of departments.

"I think it was pretty pervasive, frankly," she said.

(thebulletin.us)

SEIU faces U.S. Supreme Court smackdown

More SEIU stories: hereunion-dues: hereworker-choice: here

Militant jumbo union demands fees from members for out-of-state political uses

Two cases from Maine will be up for oral arguments when the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday. It's unusual for the nation's high court to accept even one case a term from Maine, let alone two. Making it even more unusual is that oral arguments on the cases will heard on the court's opening day.

In the first case, the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve a dispute over a labor union's use of fees paid by nonunion employees to finance the labor organization's court battles in other states.

Twenty state workers in Maine challenged the expenditure by the Service Employees International Union, which bargains on their behalf. The nonmembers are required to pay a service fee for the union's collective bargaining efforts and contract administration.

At issue is whether a state can condition public employment on the paying of fees for such purposes.

The second case stems from a lawsuit filed by three Mainers accusing Altria Group Inc. of deceptive and unfair advertising regarding their "light" cigarettes. The suit claimed the tobacco company's marketing practices violated Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Law.

A federal judge initially issued a summary judgment in the cigarette makers' favor, ruling that the claims were pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which says states can't impose any requirements on the advertising or promotion of cigarettes.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston later found that the claims are not pre-empted by federal law.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether state-law challenges to advertising claims about tar and nicotine yields are pre-empted by federal law.

The Supreme Court isn't expected to issue decisions on the cases before next year, but the rulings could have national implications.

The cases are Altria Group Inc. v. Good and Locke v. Karass.

(www.boston.com)

Curbing gov't-political fraud in Colorado

More fraud stories: here

Amendment 54: Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors.

This amendment would prohibit particular government contractors from making campaign contributions during the contract’s duration and two years following. Government projects contract out to private-sector vendors, and though this is regulated by state law, sometimes a project can only be carried out by one provider because of specific constraints.

In this case, the prohibition of campaign contributions would only apply to those contractors with contract values greater than $100,000 in a single year that received three or fewer bids. It also covers labor organizations that represent public employees in a bargaining process. A sample of state contracts showed that about 6 percent of contracts had a value of $100,000 or more, and were not put to bid but awarded on the sole-source basis.

Proponents say this would promote civil trust and government transparency. It would prevent the influence of policy decisions being based on campaign contributions from labor, business unions and other covered government contracts. And, proponents say, it would promote a competitive bidding process for contracts, so that it’s more attractive to enter into these bids.

Opponents argue that the law’s broad scope could have far-reaching consequences; for example, one individual holding a contract in a certain local government could be punished for making a contribution in a separate jurisdiction. It also puts a burden on smaller communities, they say, where only one contractor may be available for projects.

(aspendailynews.com)

Governator cuts collectivists' High-Ed subsidy

Related: "Collectivism studies widely subsidized in U.S."
• "Publicly-funded labor-activism in NoCal"
• "Publicly-funded labor-activism in SoCal"

Unionists are troubled, hold fury in check for now

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto power to cut $5.4 million in labor education and research support at the University of California, just before he signed the state budget on Sept. 23.

The cut, the only one made to the university by the state, reduces the university's overall support budget to less than $3 billion for the 2008-09 fiscal year and affects labor education and research throughout the 10 UC campuses.

The funding would have continued to support labor studies at the campuses and the research centers at UC Berkeley and UCLA, among other efforts.

Ken Jacobs, chair of UC Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education, said the cuts were ideologically, rather than financially, based.

"This is the only program targeted for cuts and it wasn't targeted in terms of review ... but was based more on an ideological opposition to labor studies rather than on the quality and importance of our work," Jacobs said. "And that's very troubling."

Since 1964, the center has been a resource for research on labor-related issues, including workers' health care, green jobs, immigrant workers and social movement unionism.

Schwarzenegger said it was important for him to use his veto power to make necessary cuts in the budget.

"I have an obligation to reduce spending when my veto power is adequate to do so," he stated in his veto message. "Consequently-and in order to further ensure that this budget remains in balance-I am taking the difficult but necessary action reflected in this veto to further control state spending."

Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, said the decision was an unexpected one.

"We believe that some of the most extreme anti-union and anti-worker lobbyists have been pressuring him to attack us and we think its a very unfortunate move and very shortsighted," Wong said. "But apparently he has given into the demands of this very extreme group of people."

Wong said the governor went against prior promises to retain this portion of the budget and that he has set a dangerous precedent.

"It's an extraordinary thing because there is no precedent for the government to handpick programs within the university to eliminate," Wong said. "This sets a very dangerous precedent for the governor to violate the internal process of the university and to block students from taking certain types of classes within the university."

The directors said they hope funds to support the program will be reinstated for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Until then, they will turn to the university for more funding.

"Despite the elimination of state funding for the labor institutes, President (Mark) Yudof is committed to finding a way to fund the institutes in the 2008-09 year and ensuring that they will not close," said UC spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez.

(dailycal.org)

Hottest stories last week

Get the RSS feed. (What is RSS?)

Hot on the feed - last 7 days.

Hot-searched stories right now.

What should the GOP say about ACORN?

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

How to Respond to Barack on Multi-Billion Dollar Bailout

To blame President Bush alone is absurd; to point out that many parties from both political parties are responsible for the economic fiasco is fair; to point out the involvement of the Democrats is necessary. The mainstream media are simply covering up or ignoring the facts that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were instituted and bloated by Democrats, first under Jimmy Carter and then under Bill Clinton.

Financial institutions were pressured by government agencies into lending money to people who couldn’t afford to pay back the loans if conditions would change, or be branded as racist or red-liners. The ties of many financiers who were at fault, to Barack Obama, were strong.

McCain was among the politicians who blew the whistle long ago, warning of the need for regulation; Barney Frank is on tape asserting, fairly recently, that Fanny and Freddy were basically sound; the economy began to collapse only during the past two years, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Chris Dodd tried to funnel 20% of the profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund that Democrats have used to fund political action groups like ACORN, which Obama had represented in the past as an attorney.

(canadafreepress.com)

Union-backed ACORN fouls Indiana vote

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

More Dead, Underage And Fictitious Voter Registrations in Indiana, From ACORN

ACORN is making headlines again for filing voter registrations for the dead, the underage and some showing fictitious signatures in Indiana. Suggestions of a criminal investigation are coming out for ACORN groups getting the vote out for Obama.

ACORN otherwise known as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has been in the news in multiple cities across America lately for filing voter registrations for people that were dead, underage and in some cases duplicate filings.

The latest report from The Times, NWI.com, is from Lake County Indiana.

Lake County elections officials have confirmed that a "large portion" of 5,000 registration forms turned in from the ACORN group, have been found to have problems and have been rejected.

The job of the county elections board was to weed out invalid registrations and according to Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley, more invalid forms may have been missed and slipped into the voter rolls. Curley is recommending a criminal investigation take place into the matter.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Curley stated "Fraudulent applications are the workings of ACORN groups operating from Milwaukee and Chicago who are getting out the vote for Obama. I'm Republican, but I want everyone who should vote to vote. But I want a clean election.
An ACORN spokesperson couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment. Telephones to ACORN offices in Gary, Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee were reported to be disconnected.
One of the apparent problems according to Elections Board Director Sally LaSota and a county elections board technologist overseeing voter registration Ruthann Hoagland is that ACORN members took names from the phone book, filled out the forms and forged some signatures.
Curley said one registration form was filled out in the name and address of Jimmy John's, a Crown Point fast-food outlet. Another registration, dated in August, is in the name of a Gary man who died Nov. 16, 2007, according to his death certificate.

Hoagland said large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style.
Not only are the invalid registration forms an issue at this point, but many people that should be able to legitimately vote, might not be able to because ACORN members "delivered incomplete registrations" and the election staff may not have the time to research and complete the process before the middle-of-the-month deadline.

On September 14, 2008, ACORN was in the news for problems with voter registrations from Michigan with fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications. In that case the problem was referred to as "ACORN submitted applications are numerous applications filed in one name, described as a 'huge number,' and some with names that appear to be made up."

In August of 2008, the problem was again in Milwaukee.

As Wikipedia shows, just as a reference about previous problems over the years, ACORN members have been indicted and convicted.
• In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms.

In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. ACORN's regional director said, "we find it abhorrent and do everything we can to prevent it from happening."

On November 1, 2006, four part-time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud. Prosecutors said the indictments are part of a national investigation.] ACORN said in a press release that it is in part responsible in these individuals being caught, has fired them, and has cooperated and publicly supported efforts to look into the validity of the allegations.

ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified.

In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time. ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.

According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."

# In 2008, the Michigan Secretary of State office told the Detroit Free Press that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote.
The Pittsburgh Tribune recently reported the Barack Obama campaign recently amended their Federal Election Commission report to reflect $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal ACORN group, called Citizens Services Inc., which is a subsidiary of the ACORN group.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
FEC spokeswoman, Mary Brandenberger, says it is not unusual for campaigns to amend reports regarding large sums of money.

The Pittsburgh Tribune article details much more information about ACORN and Obama's prior associations as an organizer for Project Vote, an ACORN offshoot, and represented ACORN in legal actions, which was reported by various media outlets as well as the Associated Press.

The Earth Times provides the RNC fact sheet about Obama, ACORN and more examples of problems with voters registration in 2008, including locations such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida.

In the fact sheet it is found the Chief Public Advocate of the Consumers Rights League, James Terry, testified before Congress and stated "ACORN's pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as a series of unfortunate events."

With the presidential election less than a month away, some wonder why ACORN is allowed to participate in any way with all the legal problems they have encountered over the years and more specifically, over the last few months.

(digitaljournal.com)

ACORN: A clear and present danger

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

Union-backed fraud group makes a difference

As you may have noticed, left-wingers really hate to lose. That’s why, even eight years after the fact, they are still wringing their hands over the 2000 presidential election. They still insist that George W. Bush and the Republicans swiped it, even though several objective sources have since confirmed that, chads or no chads, Bush carried Florida, and that Sandra Day O’Connor, otherwise a heroine to leftists, was one of the Supreme Court justices who ruled against Al Gore, the candidate who couldn’t even carry his home state. Which is reason enough all of us should be forever grateful to the voters in Tennessee.

The idea that the Democrats have been crying “Foul!” for eight long years should appeal to everyone who appreciates irony. For it is those on the far left who have done everything in their power to corrupt the election process. One of their chief means of doing so has been through the activities of a group known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). With approximately 175,000 dues-paying members, they own TV stations, businesses and periodicals, and have offices stretching from Canada to Peru, with over 80 offices in the U.S.

To give you some idea how all-encompassing the group is, they have schools where the children of leftists are trained in class-consciousness; they run boot camps for training street activists; and, like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, they extort money from banks and other businesses by threatening racial violence and trumped-up civil rights charges. One can almost imagine Marx, Lenin and Stalin, shaking their heads in admiration and hoisting their glasses in toast.

Apparently, the members of ACORN have gained control of the New York City government, resulting in a rollback of welfare reform; the appointment of a politicized Civilian Review Board, empowered to prosecute police officers and ban racial and ethnic profiling in the city that experienced 9/11 firsthand; raise corporate taxes; and is attempting to prevent any corporation from fleeing the city without obtaining an “exit visa.” Even before Berkeley got around to having its own foreign policy, New York’s City Council, by a 31-17 vote, passed a resolution condemning the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

For several years, the leadership covered up the fact that Dale Rathke, the brother of Wade Rathke, who co-founded ACORN, had embezzled nearly a million dollars from the organization. Once the theft finally came to light, the excuse given for not informing the authorities was that those of us on the right would use it as an excuse to attack the group. That of course is an obvious lie. Those of us on the right have far better reasons than financial skullduggery to attack ACORN. In fact, I, for one, regard Dale Rathke as something of a folk hero. I say it was far better that he squandered his ill-gotten gains on wine, women and song, than that the group got to spend it subverting the democratic process.

These people, self-proclaimed defenders of freedom, liberty and the working man — or, more often, non-working man — devote most of their energy and resources to making sure that they fix elections in much the same way that crooked gamblers fix fights. During the 2004 election cycle, ACORN ran a “voter mobilization drive” that resulted in countless allegations of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging and vote-for-pay scams. One of their specialties was registering convicted felons. Attorney generals in many states filed charges against several members of the group, charges that included voter-intimidation, vandalism and the destruction of voter registration forms.

What I have not been able to figure out is why the leaders of the group have not been indicted under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) for taking part in an ongoing criminal organization. The only logical reason that the feds have backed off is because of ACORN’s close ties to organized labor. Tragically, in 2008 America, it’s not only individuals who are easily intimidated, but the government itself.

It’s no surprise that Barack Obama is ACORN’s choice for the White House. ACORN, after all, was created by those who subscribed to Saul Alinsky’s left-wing belief that class warfare is the only war worth fighting and that in order to win it, the ends always justify the means. And however much the left has recently attempted to pass off “community organizer” as a Christ-like vocation, everyone in his right mind knows that these days it’s code for Communist activist.

To my way of thinking, as catastrophic as it would be if Sen. Obama were to wind up in the White House, it would be far worse if he were to be elected because he and his colleagues had stolen the election.

An acorn, as we all know, is a nut. ACORN, however, home to 175,000 nuts, are the seeds, not of mighty oaks, but of political stinkweed, and the sooner they’re eradicated, the better.

- Burt Prelutsky, television scriptwriter, former humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine

(exilestreet.com)

Just how stupid are we about ACORN?

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Voter ignorance is the biggest advantage for Obama and the Democrats

When a detective wants to find who committed a crime, that detective asks a simple question, "Who benefited?" Polls show that the current financial crisis benefited Obama and most Congressional Democrats and it has been noticed that some Democrats tried to make ACORN a beneficiary of the rescue plan.

So Obama ("the Senator from ACORN), ACORN and plenty of Congressional Democrats are suspects to be investigated.

It is fundamental that the economy depends on confidence.

Which party has been undermining that confidence?

The Democrat Party.

Which presidential candidate has been undermining confidence in the economy?

Obama.

At bottom, what is the cause of the financial crisis?

Many loans not being repaid on time.

Why aren't they being repaid on time?

Uncreditworthy lenders obtained loans that they are unable to repay.

Fact: many risky loans were made as a result of pressure from ACORN (the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) and their liberal Democrat Congressional allies and most people did not appreciate what was happening and what ultimately would happen as a result.

National Journal's Stuart Taylor, Jr., in his latest article, "The Sound And Fury Behind The House's Failure,"lamented that "[m]any voters are uninformed about public affairs and deluded by populist simplicities."

Democrats count on that to keep power in Congress and to capture the White House.

The nineteenth paragraph of Taylor's article should be explained to those uninformed voters and deluded populists.

Taylor put it this way: "Among other things, leading Democrats have in recent years opposed -- while the Bush Treasury Department, the Fed, McCain and other Republicans supported -- tighter restraints on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, the two mortgage giants were catering to (disproportionately) Democratic demands for 'affordable housing' while lavishing many millions on campaign contributions, a gigantic lobbying apparatus, and excessive executive compensation. The proposed restraints in a 2005 Senate bill that Democrats deep-sixed, for example, would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from recklessly pouring so many hundreds of billions of (implicitly) government-guaranteed dollars into risky investments, including subprime mortgages for borrowers without the means to carry them."

EXACTLY!

As I previously explained in detail, catering and/or caving to ACORN eventually created the crisis.

Bush and McCain were right, but Obama and his Congressional allies, particularly Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, blocked the necessary corrective action that Bush and McCain wanted to have taken.

Taylor duly documented the abysmal (and dangerous) ignorance of many voters:

"Shenkman, in Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, and the authors of several other recent books cite polls, social-science studies, and other evidence showing that, for example, only two in five Americans can identify the three branches of the federal government; fewer than half know who Karl Marx was, or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was part of; and only four in 10 people between the ages of 18 and 24 can find Iraq on a map.

"'I am convinced... that, over the past several decades, we have become less knowledgeable, more apathetic, more reliant on others to think for us, more susceptible to simple answers, and more easily exploited,' William Pannapacker, an associate professor of English at Hope College, concluded in a Chronicle of Higher Education review of seven books on voter ignorance."

That's why Obama is a viable presidential candidate!

That's why many Democrats demagogue.

Taylor: "Small wonder that so many voters are fixated on the mistaken notion that the main beneficiaries of the bipartisan rescue plan would be Wall Street elites. In fact, the main beneficiaries would be the millions of ordinary Americans who will lose their jobs as we plunge into a deep recession -- or worse."

That's the result of demagoguery.

There were better ways to deal with the problem, but the Democrats would not permit them and a rescue had to be undertaken for the sake of the national economy and the citizenry as a whole.

Taylor: "Congressional leaders understood.... But many of their members did not, or at least pretended not to understand to avoid casting unpopular votes."

Pathetically, politics was played with the rescue plan. It had to be voted down first, before it could be modified and passed.

The Democrats had the power to pass the original bill without a single Republican vote, but they did not want to do it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech before the original House bill evidenced her desire NOT to have that bill passed and then blame the Republicans and claim that McCain had been ineffectual in the crisis.

Taylor: "Pelosi's partisan rant -- 'for eight years, this government has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation' -- was especially misleading in blaming Republicans alone for a financial crisis that Democrats did much to bring about."

The financial crisis was working well for Obama and the Democrats (because most voters were unaware and the mainstream media was not reporting that ACORN and the Democrats had brought about the crisis), so Pelosi let the crisis continue for a week without passing a plan!

Voter ignorance is the biggest advantage for Obama and the Democrats. much bigger than voter fraud.

But the truth can set us free and block an Obama presidency!

- Michael J. Gaynor

(webcommentary.com)

U.S. to get a community-organizer Presidency

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

The Obama-ACORN connections

With Obama's brotherhood of community organizers, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, more commonly known "ACORN," caught trying to steal the election and helping to bring about the financial crisis, Obama tries to distance himself from the extreme left-wing activists on his so-called anti-smear web site.

Obama represented ACORN, taught classes for future Leaders of ACORN, and ACORN endorsed his presidential campaign. In the Chicago Reader, Hank De Zutter writes:

"In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote.

[. . .]

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.”

Even though Obama never took part in a trial, he was part of a team of attorneys who represented the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in 1995 to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters.

ACORN’s political action committee endorsed Obama for President. The endorsement was based in part on Obama's work as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago.

Obama’s campaign paid more than $800,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, but “mistakenly misrepresented” what ACORN was doing to The Federal Election Commission. Some found this "mistake highly suspicious:

"Barack Obama's failure to accurately report his campaign's financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign's interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud."

According to Donors Forum website [ifs.donorsforum.org, accessed 6/10/08], during the time Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund (1993 to 2002), ACORN received thousands of dollars --$45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) -- in grants from the fund.

If I was Obama and my past as a community organizer was as closely tied to ACORN, and all it's fraudulent activities, as Obama's is, I'd try to hide it too.

The chief public advocate of the Consumers Rights League, James Terry, testified in Congress about ACORN’s on going pattern of fraud:

"ACORN routinely says it will clean up its act. Yet, given its decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds, ACORN's pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as a series of 'unfortunate events."

I don't know about you, but I'm not ready for an ACORN-like "community organizer" presidency.

Some recent examples of ACORN's nefarious activities include:

Fraudulent voter registration in Connecticut:

Joseph Borges, registrar of voters in Bridgeport said that more than 20% of the thousands of registrations submitted by ACORN were "fraudulent or duplicate."

Fraudulent voter registration in Florida:

“Local elections officials are looking into potential election fraud and some of the information is pointing to a Democratic-leaning voter's group....Seminole County's elections supervisor is holding up dozens of voter registration applications because they appear to be fraudulent: wrong addresses, bad signatures and more. … Many of the applications with suspect information were turned-in by the activist group ACORN.”

Fraudulent voter registration in Indiana:

"Lake County elections officials acknowledged they have found problems and had to reject a large portion of the 5,000 registration forms turned in recently by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, an activist group that conducted registration drives across the county this summer.

[. . .]

Elections Board Director Sally LaSota and Ruthann Hoagland, a county elections board technologist overseeing voter registration, said Wednesday it appears some ACORN vote canvassers pulled names and addresses from telephone books and forged their signatures. Curley said one registration form was filled out in the name and address of Jimmy John's, a Crown Point fast-food outlet. Another registration, dated in August, is in the name of a Gary man who died Nov. 16, 2007, according to his death certificate."

Fraudulent voter registration in Nevada:

In Clark County, Nevada, ACORN submitted 2,000 To 3,000 fraudulent voter applications a week:

"The group [ACORN] has drawn accusations of voter fraud and criminal investigations in several states. Last year, authorities in Washington state brought felony charges against ACORN workers for filing false voter registrations. Some ACORN workers pleaded guilty and went to jail, while the organization paid $25,000 and agreed to have its registration efforts monitored in a settlement with Washington state authorities. [Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry] Lomax said while he supports the goal of getting more people registered to vote, he sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week.”

Fraudulent voter registration in New Mexico:

“Such is the situation for Bernalillo County, which reported, the day before Obama’s EspaƱola rally, that it had received 1,100 fraudulent voter-registration cards. While there is no information, yet, on where those cards came from, Matthew Henderson, ACORN’s New Mexico head organizer, acknowledges some could have come from his group."

Fraudulent voter registration in North Carolina:

“A Durham official is asking state elections administrators to check approximately 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud. … Mike Ashe, Durham County's elections director, said the forms were among about 4,000 submitted to his office over the past four to six weeks by a national left-wing group called Acorn … Ashe's staff also learned this week of irregularities with a handful of other registrations. It was not clear who was responsible for these problems. … ‘This is serious, obviously,’ Ashe said.”

Fraudulent voter registration in Ohio:

ACORN has submitted about 75,000 voter registration cards to the Cuyahoga board this year.

[. . .]

At its Tuesday meeting, the elections board canceled five fraudulent registrations submitted by ACORN workers. The cases involved already-registered voters who alerted the board after being notified by mail that their registration records had been updated.

[. . .]

In August 2006, elections boards in Franklin and Summit counties investigated potentially bogus registration cards submitted by ACORN. The Franklin board turned over 500 cards to its county prosecutor, but the board's Deputy Director Matthew Damschroder said the prosecutor could not file charges because it was impossible to nail down who filled out the fake cards.

Fraudulent voter registration in Pennsylvania:

“Philadelphia elections officials are accusing the nonprofit advocacy group ‘Acorn’ of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. Acorn, which advocates on behalf of low-income residents in the city, has mounted a voter registration drive in the past few months. But city election commissioners are complaining that many of the submitted registrations appear to be faulty, and they have forwarded the matter to the district attorney's office for further investigation."

Fraudulent voter registration in Pennsylvania:

“Criminal investigations could be launched against at least six voter registration workers who tried to add dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to the voter rolls, according to the Milwaukee Election Commission and the organization that employed them. Officials are reviewing some 200 to 300 fraudulent voter registration cards, Sue Edman, the commission's executive director, said Wednesday. … In about 12 cases, deputy registrars paid by ACORN were ‘making people up or registering people that were still in prison,’ said Carolyn Castore, ACORN's state political director. And in other cases, workers used the same address for numerous voters or used driver's license numbers that did not fit the voters' birth dates, Edman said. But most of the fraud involved submitting duplicate cards for voters who were already registered, and forging the voters' signatures, Castore said.”

Nope, I'm not ready for an ACORN-like "community organizer" presidency.

(examiner.com)
Related Posts with Thumbnails