More collectivism stories: here
10/17/08
Problem: Joe is non-union
EFCA stories: here • card-check: here • worker-choice: here
Dems want to force disinterested workers into unions without a secret ballot election
This 2008 election has been called several different things. Many Republicans and center-right activists are calling this the “401(k) election” due to the different tax and investment treatments the two candidates are proposing. Those on the left, who are tired of the Bush Administration, are referring to this as the “Take Back the Flag” election.
While both are valid catch-phrases, neither captures the direct attacks on democracy that could occur as a result of an Obama administration. This is why the 2008 election should be referred to as the “Worker Freedom Election.”
Labor unions comprised more than 35 percent of the American workforce in the mid-1950s. Today, they account for a mere 12 percent of the total working population and are falling. As a result, Big Labor bosses are becoming increasingly ferocious in their efforts to keep and increase their free-flowing stream of union dues.
That hasn’t stopped unions from spending an exorbitant amount of money supporting their anti-worker causes. Since the 2000 election, unions have given close to $300 million to Democratic candidates across the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions have already contributed a total of $52 million in the 2008 political cycle. Ninety-one percent of that went toward Democrats, with only 9 percent going toward Republican candidates. The largest 527 contribution in 2008 cycle was from one of the most ferocious unions and a staunch Obama supporter, the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), at $18 million. Just this year, the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation (both Obama supporters) have promised to spend well over $300 million to ensure their agenda is part of the "change" America is being spoon-fed.
With this type of money and force being thrown behind Democrat candidates and Obama, they must be expecting something in return. They are -- votes.
Specifically, they want votes for the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” commonly referred to as EFCA. Possibly the most anti-democratic legislation ever introduced, EFCA will disenfranchise millions of workers by taking away their right to vote on union membership using a private, secret ballot, as current law affords them.
Obama, in keeping his allegiance, moved where the sting-pullers commanded and cosponsored and voted for EFCA. In a press release on June of last year, he stated this act “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks” and that the “choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone.”
A NAFTA compliant truck could soar through the loophole in that type of reasoning. Make no mistake -- if EFCA is passed into law, the choice to join a union will not “be left up to the workers” as Obama thinks.
Here is a more likely scenario:
John Doe is a Republican who was born and raised in North Carolina, a right to work state. This means that Mr. Doe was never forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Mr. Doe wakes up on November 5 to learn that Sen. Obama is now President-elect Obama. As president, Mr. Obama keeps his promise to the Big Labor bosses and pushes his left-wing friends in Congress to reintroduce EFCA. After passing the House and Senate, Mr. Obama proudly signs this bill into law with SEIU president Andy Stern (who is being sued by thirty of his own SEIU officers in northern California) and AFL-CIO president John Sweeney standing by his side.
Mr. Doe goes to work the next day, and there are very large, no-necked men telling the workers to sign a union card. Before EFCA, the union would have had to get at least 30 percent of the workers to sign a union card to trigger a federally supervised private ballot election.
Now, the private ballot has been replaced with a process known as “card check,” which allows a union to officially be formed if a majority of workers do nothing more than sign a card. Every single vote under the Obama “card check” administration is made public to the employer, the union organizers, and to all co-workers. Mr. Doe is the deciding vote against unionization.
The union bosses will know how Mr. Doe voted. The wives of the union organizers, who teach Mr. Doe’s children, will know if he opposes them. The organizers’ sons work at the grocery store where Mrs. Doe shops. His best friends at work, originally from Michigan and who play on his basketball team and play poker every Thursday night, will all know how he voted. Mr. Doe knows there is no way he can safely protect his family and even himself if he opposes the union, because everyone will know it was he who prevented their workplace from being unionized.
His friends know Mr. Doe is a Republican because the sticker on his Jeep says “Republican: Because Not Everyone Can Be on Welfare.” They tell their sons that Mr. Doe opposed the union, and Mrs. Doe no longer gets help with her groceries to her car. His sons are personally singled out in the classroom. His “friends” trash his new poker table when he expresses reservations about joining a union. He gets a nice little note tied to a brick on his seat that says “Remember, we will know how you vote.” This all happens because unions will know exactly how he voted, and that makes the intimidation more than an empty threat.
Mr. Doe reluctantly signs a union card. And that’s all it takes. No election, no federal supervision; simply a couple of rough union organizers and some cards.
This scenario will repeat itself over and over again all across the nation. Unionization will at least double. Right to work laws will be inconsequential as a crowbar replaces democracy as a tool for the union organizer.
The two candidates for president both talk about change.
McCain speaks about change in terms of his presidency being different than the current administration. His record shows that he butted heads with the most conservative members of Congress and adamantly disagreed with the current administration more than occasionally.
However, Obama talks too about change, about a change that we can believe in. His record shows he and his party are completely bought up by Big Labor and that he will pander to their wishes even if it sacrifices the basic democratic freedoms and principles this country was founded upon.
I am not sure who falls into Sen. Obama’s definition of “we” or how much it costs to be part of that club, but I do know this -- that is not change that I can believe in.
- Mr. Brian Johnson, MPA is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom.
(humanevents.com)
Dems want to force disinterested workers into unions without a secret ballot electionThis 2008 election has been called several different things. Many Republicans and center-right activists are calling this the “401(k) election” due to the different tax and investment treatments the two candidates are proposing. Those on the left, who are tired of the Bush Administration, are referring to this as the “Take Back the Flag” election.
While both are valid catch-phrases, neither captures the direct attacks on democracy that could occur as a result of an Obama administration. This is why the 2008 election should be referred to as the “Worker Freedom Election.”
Labor unions comprised more than 35 percent of the American workforce in the mid-1950s. Today, they account for a mere 12 percent of the total working population and are falling. As a result, Big Labor bosses are becoming increasingly ferocious in their efforts to keep and increase their free-flowing stream of union dues.
That hasn’t stopped unions from spending an exorbitant amount of money supporting their anti-worker causes. Since the 2000 election, unions have given close to $300 million to Democratic candidates across the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions have already contributed a total of $52 million in the 2008 political cycle. Ninety-one percent of that went toward Democrats, with only 9 percent going toward Republican candidates. The largest 527 contribution in 2008 cycle was from one of the most ferocious unions and a staunch Obama supporter, the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), at $18 million. Just this year, the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation (both Obama supporters) have promised to spend well over $300 million to ensure their agenda is part of the "change" America is being spoon-fed.
With this type of money and force being thrown behind Democrat candidates and Obama, they must be expecting something in return. They are -- votes.
Specifically, they want votes for the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” commonly referred to as EFCA. Possibly the most anti-democratic legislation ever introduced, EFCA will disenfranchise millions of workers by taking away their right to vote on union membership using a private, secret ballot, as current law affords them.
Obama, in keeping his allegiance, moved where the sting-pullers commanded and cosponsored and voted for EFCA. In a press release on June of last year, he stated this act “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks” and that the “choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone.”
A NAFTA compliant truck could soar through the loophole in that type of reasoning. Make no mistake -- if EFCA is passed into law, the choice to join a union will not “be left up to the workers” as Obama thinks.
Here is a more likely scenario:
John Doe is a Republican who was born and raised in North Carolina, a right to work state. This means that Mr. Doe was never forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Mr. Doe wakes up on November 5 to learn that Sen. Obama is now President-elect Obama. As president, Mr. Obama keeps his promise to the Big Labor bosses and pushes his left-wing friends in Congress to reintroduce EFCA. After passing the House and Senate, Mr. Obama proudly signs this bill into law with SEIU president Andy Stern (who is being sued by thirty of his own SEIU officers in northern California) and AFL-CIO president John Sweeney standing by his side.
Mr. Doe goes to work the next day, and there are very large, no-necked men telling the workers to sign a union card. Before EFCA, the union would have had to get at least 30 percent of the workers to sign a union card to trigger a federally supervised private ballot election.
Now, the private ballot has been replaced with a process known as “card check,” which allows a union to officially be formed if a majority of workers do nothing more than sign a card. Every single vote under the Obama “card check” administration is made public to the employer, the union organizers, and to all co-workers. Mr. Doe is the deciding vote against unionization.
The union bosses will know how Mr. Doe voted. The wives of the union organizers, who teach Mr. Doe’s children, will know if he opposes them. The organizers’ sons work at the grocery store where Mrs. Doe shops. His best friends at work, originally from Michigan and who play on his basketball team and play poker every Thursday night, will all know how he voted. Mr. Doe knows there is no way he can safely protect his family and even himself if he opposes the union, because everyone will know it was he who prevented their workplace from being unionized.
His friends know Mr. Doe is a Republican because the sticker on his Jeep says “Republican: Because Not Everyone Can Be on Welfare.” They tell their sons that Mr. Doe opposed the union, and Mrs. Doe no longer gets help with her groceries to her car. His sons are personally singled out in the classroom. His “friends” trash his new poker table when he expresses reservations about joining a union. He gets a nice little note tied to a brick on his seat that says “Remember, we will know how you vote.” This all happens because unions will know exactly how he voted, and that makes the intimidation more than an empty threat.
Mr. Doe reluctantly signs a union card. And that’s all it takes. No election, no federal supervision; simply a couple of rough union organizers and some cards.
This scenario will repeat itself over and over again all across the nation. Unionization will at least double. Right to work laws will be inconsequential as a crowbar replaces democracy as a tool for the union organizer.
The two candidates for president both talk about change.
McCain speaks about change in terms of his presidency being different than the current administration. His record shows that he butted heads with the most conservative members of Congress and adamantly disagreed with the current administration more than occasionally.
However, Obama talks too about change, about a change that we can believe in. His record shows he and his party are completely bought up by Big Labor and that he will pander to their wishes even if it sacrifices the basic democratic freedoms and principles this country was founded upon.
I am not sure who falls into Sen. Obama’s definition of “we” or how much it costs to be part of that club, but I do know this -- that is not change that I can believe in.
- Mr. Brian Johnson, MPA is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom.
(humanevents.com)
NPR exposes ACORN-SEIU $$ connection
Read the latest SEIU stories: here
More ACORN stories: here • Wade Rathke stories: here
NPR reports that ACORN's cofounder, Wade Rathke, also founded SEIU
Conservatives are on the march against the community organization ACORN, accusing its massive voter registration effort of fraud and faulting Obama for having any connections to the group. As we reported this morning, ACORN doesn't necessarily mind the attention.
But what exactly is ACORN? Actually, it's many, many things. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has dozens of affiliated entities, from a home-buying assistance corporation to community radio stations to liberal research and training institutes. The giant web of ACORN organizations, primarily based in Louisiana, has been funded by a mix of labor union money, government grants (which really drive conservatives crazy) and charitable contributions from large foundations. See below for a breakdown of funding sources.
Plus, Project Vote -- the voter mobilization organization that works closely with and draws its leadership from ACORN -- paid ACORN and an affiliate $5.4 million in 2006. But where does Project Vote get its money? Normally it's hard to tell, but we obtained a 2006 tax return showing the nonprofit's funders, including: $4.5 million from the charitable trust of the investment management firm Vanguard; $425,000 from the Bauman Family Foundation, which also gives to the People for the American Way; and $396,000 from the liberal phone company Working Assets.
The breakdown on ACORN comes after the jump.
Union Money
ACORN's biggest union backer, the Service Employees International Union, gave more than $4 million to the community organization and its affiliates from 2006-07, according to Dept. of Labor filings. One SEIU local union, the Illinois Homecare Workers and Home Childcare Providers, sprouted from ACORN's organizing efforts and pays rent to ACORN.
ACORN's affiliates also pick up money from the Change to Win labor federation, the Food and Commercial Workers Union and the United Federation of Teachers, among others.
Government Grants
Much to the dismay of conservatives, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave ACORN Housing Corp. $8.2 million from 2003 to 2006, according to USAspending.gov. ACORN Housing provides counseling, classes, and access to special loans to low-income homebuyers. HUD has given another $1.6 million to other ACORN affiliates since 2003.
The Environmental Protection Agency also chipped in, with $100,000 for ACORN's Louisiana Environmental Justice Project in 2004, for a program to rid homes of lead. The Republican National Committee wants a federal probe of ACORN. But the Justice Department has liked ACORN enough to give a New York ACORN affiliate $138,000 in 2005, for a juvenile delinquency prevention program.
Foundations
The foundations that give to ACORN & Co. vary widely. There are some classically liberal ones: The Bauman Family Foundation gave $350,000 to ACORN's American Institute for Social Justice. George Soros' Open Society Institute gave $300,000 to that institute and $250,000 to ACORN proper. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation gave the institute $1.8 million.
But some of the biggest donors are mainstream foundations of big corporations, according to data from the Foundation Center. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation gave $2.4 million to ACORN Housing and the Bank of America Charitable Foundation gave $1.4 million. Citigroup's foundation gave $1.5 million to the social justice institute.
Other major donors include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave $1.4 million for an education reform campaign. The Ford Foundation has given $1.3 million, including $257,000 this year for "public education and technical assistance to grassroots groups working to expand access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, living wage ordinances and paid sick days." Foundations affiliated with the late founder of the United Parcel Service gave a combined $6.4 million.
Individuals
The 527 organization Fund for America was set up last year by top liberal donors and operatives to help fund pro-Democratic organizations this election season, but it ended up folding. The Fund, itself bankrolled by George Soros and others, gave $200,000 to ACORN.
ACORN has also had its own affiliated 527s. Communities Voting Together, for example, was founded to "educate and mobilize low income voters in key communities in key battleground states in the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections, focusing on Latino and African-American neighborhoods." The group received $125,000 from film producer Jeanne Levy-Hinte; $100,000 from environmentalist donor John R. Hunting, whose wealth comes from the Steelcase office furniture company; $80,000 from the president of Working Assets, and $70,000 from Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt fortune.
There's a lot more to ACORN's financial picture that we can't complete here. ACORN's network is complex, and money often transfers from one affiliate to another, making it hard for outsiders to keep track of it all. But one thing is for sure: ACORN is busy.
- Will Evans
(npr.org)
More ACORN stories: here • Wade Rathke stories: here
NPR reports that ACORN's cofounder, Wade Rathke, also founded SEIUConservatives are on the march against the community organization ACORN, accusing its massive voter registration effort of fraud and faulting Obama for having any connections to the group. As we reported this morning, ACORN doesn't necessarily mind the attention.
But what exactly is ACORN? Actually, it's many, many things. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has dozens of affiliated entities, from a home-buying assistance corporation to community radio stations to liberal research and training institutes. The giant web of ACORN organizations, primarily based in Louisiana, has been funded by a mix of labor union money, government grants (which really drive conservatives crazy) and charitable contributions from large foundations. See below for a breakdown of funding sources.
Plus, Project Vote -- the voter mobilization organization that works closely with and draws its leadership from ACORN -- paid ACORN and an affiliate $5.4 million in 2006. But where does Project Vote get its money? Normally it's hard to tell, but we obtained a 2006 tax return showing the nonprofit's funders, including: $4.5 million from the charitable trust of the investment management firm Vanguard; $425,000 from the Bauman Family Foundation, which also gives to the People for the American Way; and $396,000 from the liberal phone company Working Assets.
The breakdown on ACORN comes after the jump.
Union Money
ACORN's biggest union backer, the Service Employees International Union, gave more than $4 million to the community organization and its affiliates from 2006-07, according to Dept. of Labor filings. One SEIU local union, the Illinois Homecare Workers and Home Childcare Providers, sprouted from ACORN's organizing efforts and pays rent to ACORN.
ACORN's affiliates also pick up money from the Change to Win labor federation, the Food and Commercial Workers Union and the United Federation of Teachers, among others.
Government Grants
Much to the dismay of conservatives, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave ACORN Housing Corp. $8.2 million from 2003 to 2006, according to USAspending.gov. ACORN Housing provides counseling, classes, and access to special loans to low-income homebuyers. HUD has given another $1.6 million to other ACORN affiliates since 2003.
The Environmental Protection Agency also chipped in, with $100,000 for ACORN's Louisiana Environmental Justice Project in 2004, for a program to rid homes of lead. The Republican National Committee wants a federal probe of ACORN. But the Justice Department has liked ACORN enough to give a New York ACORN affiliate $138,000 in 2005, for a juvenile delinquency prevention program.
Foundations
The foundations that give to ACORN & Co. vary widely. There are some classically liberal ones: The Bauman Family Foundation gave $350,000 to ACORN's American Institute for Social Justice. George Soros' Open Society Institute gave $300,000 to that institute and $250,000 to ACORN proper. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation gave the institute $1.8 million.
But some of the biggest donors are mainstream foundations of big corporations, according to data from the Foundation Center. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation gave $2.4 million to ACORN Housing and the Bank of America Charitable Foundation gave $1.4 million. Citigroup's foundation gave $1.5 million to the social justice institute.
Other major donors include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave $1.4 million for an education reform campaign. The Ford Foundation has given $1.3 million, including $257,000 this year for "public education and technical assistance to grassroots groups working to expand access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, living wage ordinances and paid sick days." Foundations affiliated with the late founder of the United Parcel Service gave a combined $6.4 million.
Individuals
The 527 organization Fund for America was set up last year by top liberal donors and operatives to help fund pro-Democratic organizations this election season, but it ended up folding. The Fund, itself bankrolled by George Soros and others, gave $200,000 to ACORN.
ACORN has also had its own affiliated 527s. Communities Voting Together, for example, was founded to "educate and mobilize low income voters in key communities in key battleground states in the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections, focusing on Latino and African-American neighborhoods." The group received $125,000 from film producer Jeanne Levy-Hinte; $100,000 from environmentalist donor John R. Hunting, whose wealth comes from the Steelcase office furniture company; $80,000 from the president of Working Assets, and $70,000 from Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt fortune.
There's a lot more to ACORN's financial picture that we can't complete here. ACORN's network is complex, and money often transfers from one affiliate to another, making it hard for outsiders to keep track of it all. But one thing is for sure: ACORN is busy.
- Will Evans
(npr.org)
Catholics cancel $1.3 million ACORN grant
ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud: here 8 Wade Rathke: here
ACORN donors duck for the shadows
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development suspended funding a nationwide community organizing group after it was disclosed June 2 that nearly $1 million had been embezzled.
Funding was suspended for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, popularly known as ACORN, because of the financial irregularities, said Ralph McCloud, executive director of CCHD, the U.S. bishops' domestic anti-poverty and social justice program.
"We're not funding them at any level," McCloud told Catholic News Service Oct. 15. The suspension covers all 40 ACORN affiliates nationwide that had been approved for $1.13 million in grants for the funding cycle that started July 1, 2008.
McCloud said the suspension came soon after his office learned that ACORN disclosed that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, had embezzled nearly $1 million from the organization and its affiliates in 1999 and 2000. Dale Rathke stepped down from his position with the organization in June when the matter became public; no charges were filed against him. Wade Rathke stepped down as the group's lead organizer at the same time but remains chief organizer for ACORN International LLC.
CCHD has hired specialists in forensic accounting to investigate whether any of its grant funding has been misappropriated, McCloud added.
Since revealing its financial troubles, the organization has come under intense scrutiny because of its voter registration practices. In several states voter registration forms have been found to include nonexistent or dead people. Some registrants have told elections officials they completed multiple cards at the urging of ACORN canvassers who claimed they would be fired if they did not meet a daily quota for signing up new voters.
McCloud released information showing that CCHD funded more than 320 ACORN projects with grants totaling more than $7.3 million during the last 10 years. He said the community organization also had received funds since early in CCHD's history.
CCHD's Web site reveals the campaign gave about $1.11 million to 40 ACORN affiliates in 2007 and $1.17 million to 45 affiliates in 2006.
Over the years, some of the funds undoubtedly were used for voter registration drives, McCloud said.
"It probably was," he told CNS. "But by the same token, we didn't find any voter registration irregularities, the allegations we are finding now."
McCloud also said that CCHD guidelines require that organizations in line for funding "go through a great deal of scrutiny."
Prior to the awarding of grants, applications from local organizations are vetted at the diocesan level by a funding committee, endorsed by the local bishop, and then scrutinized by the national CCHD staff and a committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, McCloud explained.
"The whole idea is making sure that the efforts of the groups we fund are working in nonpartisan efforts and focusing on the kind of work that we would like for them to do," McCloud said.
The organization has not returned several calls from CNS seeking comment about the suspension of funding.
However, ACORN officials are defending the organization's voter registration practices. During an Oct. 14 press conference, spokesman Patrick Whelan acknowledged that some of the organizations 13,000 canvassers submitted duplicate or false registrations, but said they represented a tiny fraction of the 1.3 million new voters signed up for the Nov. 4 election. He said the organization itself discovered many of the problem registrations.
Traditionally drawn to causes usually backed by Democrats, the 38-year-old organization has conducted organizing campaigns in low- and moderate-income communities on issues such as unemployment, affordable housing, predatory lending, health care, minimum wage and living wage, and immigration. ACORN also has conducted voter registration drives throughout its history by hiring canvassers to go door to door and to visit public sites where people gather.
The organization has more than 1,200 chapters in 110 cities, according to its Web site.
(catholicnews.com)
ACORN donors duck for the shadowsThe Catholic Campaign for Human Development suspended funding a nationwide community organizing group after it was disclosed June 2 that nearly $1 million had been embezzled.
Funding was suspended for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, popularly known as ACORN, because of the financial irregularities, said Ralph McCloud, executive director of CCHD, the U.S. bishops' domestic anti-poverty and social justice program.
"We're not funding them at any level," McCloud told Catholic News Service Oct. 15. The suspension covers all 40 ACORN affiliates nationwide that had been approved for $1.13 million in grants for the funding cycle that started July 1, 2008.
McCloud said the suspension came soon after his office learned that ACORN disclosed that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, had embezzled nearly $1 million from the organization and its affiliates in 1999 and 2000. Dale Rathke stepped down from his position with the organization in June when the matter became public; no charges were filed against him. Wade Rathke stepped down as the group's lead organizer at the same time but remains chief organizer for ACORN International LLC.
CCHD has hired specialists in forensic accounting to investigate whether any of its grant funding has been misappropriated, McCloud added.
Since revealing its financial troubles, the organization has come under intense scrutiny because of its voter registration practices. In several states voter registration forms have been found to include nonexistent or dead people. Some registrants have told elections officials they completed multiple cards at the urging of ACORN canvassers who claimed they would be fired if they did not meet a daily quota for signing up new voters.
McCloud released information showing that CCHD funded more than 320 ACORN projects with grants totaling more than $7.3 million during the last 10 years. He said the community organization also had received funds since early in CCHD's history.
CCHD's Web site reveals the campaign gave about $1.11 million to 40 ACORN affiliates in 2007 and $1.17 million to 45 affiliates in 2006.
Over the years, some of the funds undoubtedly were used for voter registration drives, McCloud said.
"It probably was," he told CNS. "But by the same token, we didn't find any voter registration irregularities, the allegations we are finding now."
McCloud also said that CCHD guidelines require that organizations in line for funding "go through a great deal of scrutiny."
Prior to the awarding of grants, applications from local organizations are vetted at the diocesan level by a funding committee, endorsed by the local bishop, and then scrutinized by the national CCHD staff and a committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, McCloud explained.
"The whole idea is making sure that the efforts of the groups we fund are working in nonpartisan efforts and focusing on the kind of work that we would like for them to do," McCloud said.
The organization has not returned several calls from CNS seeking comment about the suspension of funding.
However, ACORN officials are defending the organization's voter registration practices. During an Oct. 14 press conference, spokesman Patrick Whelan acknowledged that some of the organizations 13,000 canvassers submitted duplicate or false registrations, but said they represented a tiny fraction of the 1.3 million new voters signed up for the Nov. 4 election. He said the organization itself discovered many of the problem registrations.
Traditionally drawn to causes usually backed by Democrats, the 38-year-old organization has conducted organizing campaigns in low- and moderate-income communities on issues such as unemployment, affordable housing, predatory lending, health care, minimum wage and living wage, and immigration. ACORN also has conducted voter registration drives throughout its history by hiring canvassers to go door to door and to visit public sites where people gather.
The organization has more than 1,200 chapters in 110 cities, according to its Web site.
(catholicnews.com)
LIUNA gov't workers paid to do nothing
Related story: "The 28 labor-states"
Getting a preview of union-friendly Obamanomics
Chicago garbage collection crews work fewer than six hours a day -- and get "paid to do nothing" for 25 percent of their time on the clock -- costing taxpayers at least $14.3 million a year, according to an internal investigation denounced as a "witch hunt."
During a 10-ward, 10-week surveillance, Inspector General David Hoffman found that waste and falsification of time in the Bureau of Sanitation is "systemic and pervasive and extends to all wards," aided and abetted by poor supervision by layer upon layer of middle management.
Laborers and truck drivers whose movements were eyeballed and tracked by undercover investigators were found to be in bars and restaurants, relaxing at home, sitting in their cars or standing around drinking and, in one case, urinating on the street when they were supposed to be hard at work.
Of the 145 laborers whose daily movements were tracked, investigators "did not see a single laborer doing a full day's work." The worst ward had crews slacking off for an average of two hours, 28 minutes a day. In the best-performing ward, laborers were paid to do nothing for one hour, 38 minutes.
When the cost of employee benefits and the price tag for maintaining and fueling trucks is factored in, the annual waste citywide approaches $21 million, the inspector general found.
The malingering is so pervasive, the city could pick up the same amount of garbage with 25 percent fewer employees, provided the survivors work a full 8.5-hour shift with 30 minutes off for lunch.
Hoffman identified "extremely poor supervision" as the "principal cause" for the waste and fraud that Chicago taxpayers can ill afford.
Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Michael Picardi said he was "disgusted" by the findings.
Picardi said he summoned his 50 ward superintendents to a late afternoon meeting, where he read them the riot act and warned of disciplinary action.
"I'm appalled by these findings," he said. "I want to send a clear message to all the employees included in this: You should worry about your job."
But Picardi described the malingerers as "a few bad apples" and insisted that "most" of his 3,000 employees ''put in a full day's work."
"I'm not going to resign. . . . The team doesn't have a lousy record. The team just won an award for national snow removal for the first time in the department's history.''
Lou Phillips, business manager for Laborers Union Local 1001, said it's no accident that Hoffman issued his report at a time when hundreds of laborers are targeted for layoffs to ease a budget crunch.
"Sounds a little bit like a witch hunt to me. They're laying off 1,080 people. Over 300 are members of Local 1001. Read between the lines," he said. "It could be a downed truck. It could be between loads. There's a number of different situations" that could cause down time.
(suntimes.com)
Getting a preview of union-friendly ObamanomicsChicago garbage collection crews work fewer than six hours a day -- and get "paid to do nothing" for 25 percent of their time on the clock -- costing taxpayers at least $14.3 million a year, according to an internal investigation denounced as a "witch hunt."
During a 10-ward, 10-week surveillance, Inspector General David Hoffman found that waste and falsification of time in the Bureau of Sanitation is "systemic and pervasive and extends to all wards," aided and abetted by poor supervision by layer upon layer of middle management.
Laborers and truck drivers whose movements were eyeballed and tracked by undercover investigators were found to be in bars and restaurants, relaxing at home, sitting in their cars or standing around drinking and, in one case, urinating on the street when they were supposed to be hard at work.
Of the 145 laborers whose daily movements were tracked, investigators "did not see a single laborer doing a full day's work." The worst ward had crews slacking off for an average of two hours, 28 minutes a day. In the best-performing ward, laborers were paid to do nothing for one hour, 38 minutes.
When the cost of employee benefits and the price tag for maintaining and fueling trucks is factored in, the annual waste citywide approaches $21 million, the inspector general found.
The malingering is so pervasive, the city could pick up the same amount of garbage with 25 percent fewer employees, provided the survivors work a full 8.5-hour shift with 30 minutes off for lunch.
Hoffman identified "extremely poor supervision" as the "principal cause" for the waste and fraud that Chicago taxpayers can ill afford.
Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Michael Picardi said he was "disgusted" by the findings.
Picardi said he summoned his 50 ward superintendents to a late afternoon meeting, where he read them the riot act and warned of disciplinary action.
"I'm appalled by these findings," he said. "I want to send a clear message to all the employees included in this: You should worry about your job."
But Picardi described the malingerers as "a few bad apples" and insisted that "most" of his 3,000 employees ''put in a full day's work."
"I'm not going to resign. . . . The team doesn't have a lousy record. The team just won an award for national snow removal for the first time in the department's history.''
Lou Phillips, business manager for Laborers Union Local 1001, said it's no accident that Hoffman issued his report at a time when hundreds of laborers are targeted for layoffs to ease a budget crunch.
"Sounds a little bit like a witch hunt to me. They're laying off 1,080 people. Over 300 are members of Local 1001. Read between the lines," he said. "It could be a downed truck. It could be between loads. There's a number of different situations" that could cause down time.
(suntimes.com)
Barack Obama's New Deal: Forced Unionism
EFCA stories: here • card-check: here • worker-choice: here
EFCA a prelude to eliminating state right-to-work laws by act of Congress
While it hasn’t gotten much attention, one of the most important issues that our elections this November could decide is the future of organized labor.
This is important not just for the 15.7 million workers who happen to be in unions, but for the vast majority of the 154 million-member U.S. labor force. The wages, benefits, and working conditions of most employees are affected by collective bargaining even if they don’t have a union. For example, employers who want to keep unions out will sometimes have to offer their workers such amenities as health insurance.
One of the most important problems that our economy has faced for the last 30 years has been stagnating real wages. With inflation now running at 10.6 percent over the last quarter, the problem appears to most people to be rising prices but for more than two decades prior to the past year, inflation has been tame. Yet the real - inflation-adjusted — wage of the typical employee barely increased at all over the whole 34 years from 1973-2007.
This is amazing, when we consider that productivity - the amount that workers produce per hour - increased quite substantially over that period. Measured very conservatively, if we take “usable productivity” - the increased production that we can expect to be reflected in rising wages - it rose by 48 percent from 1973-2007. So our economy grows but, unlike in the past, most employees do not share in the gains.
One important reason for this great leap backwards is that the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively have been sharply curtailed over the past three decades.
For example, employees do still have the legal right to petition for a federally-run election at their workplace, in which workers can vote on whether or not to join a union. (To get such an election, they need the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees.) But after the employees get enough signatures, employers very often intimidate workers through threats and firings before the vote is held. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has estimated that one in five workers who are actively involved in a union organizing drive can expect to be fired. Many others are “persuaded” to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment.
As a result of these tactics, only about 12 percent of employees are organized in unions today, as compared with 35 percent in the 1950s. Reform legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act would give employees a fighting chance to regain some of their lost rights. This bill would mandate that an employer recognize the union if it obtains the signatures of a majority of employees. There would be no need for the long and costly - especially to the workers who are fired - election campaign.
A poll by Global Strategies Group this month found that 68 percent of middle-class Americans support the Employee Free Choice Act. Polls also indicate that tens of millions would join a union if they had the choice.
The bill passed the House 241-185 but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. It’s a party-line split in the Senate (except for support from Republican Senator Arlen Specter). So the bill would need a Democratic president and something close to 59 Democrats in the Senate in order to pass.
This law would probably change Americans’ lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It’s all long overdue.
- Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
(citizen-times.com)
EFCA a prelude to eliminating state right-to-work laws by act of CongressWhile it hasn’t gotten much attention, one of the most important issues that our elections this November could decide is the future of organized labor.
This is important not just for the 15.7 million workers who happen to be in unions, but for the vast majority of the 154 million-member U.S. labor force. The wages, benefits, and working conditions of most employees are affected by collective bargaining even if they don’t have a union. For example, employers who want to keep unions out will sometimes have to offer their workers such amenities as health insurance.
One of the most important problems that our economy has faced for the last 30 years has been stagnating real wages. With inflation now running at 10.6 percent over the last quarter, the problem appears to most people to be rising prices but for more than two decades prior to the past year, inflation has been tame. Yet the real - inflation-adjusted — wage of the typical employee barely increased at all over the whole 34 years from 1973-2007.
This is amazing, when we consider that productivity - the amount that workers produce per hour - increased quite substantially over that period. Measured very conservatively, if we take “usable productivity” - the increased production that we can expect to be reflected in rising wages - it rose by 48 percent from 1973-2007. So our economy grows but, unlike in the past, most employees do not share in the gains.
One important reason for this great leap backwards is that the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively have been sharply curtailed over the past three decades.
For example, employees do still have the legal right to petition for a federally-run election at their workplace, in which workers can vote on whether or not to join a union. (To get such an election, they need the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees.) But after the employees get enough signatures, employers very often intimidate workers through threats and firings before the vote is held. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has estimated that one in five workers who are actively involved in a union organizing drive can expect to be fired. Many others are “persuaded” to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment.
As a result of these tactics, only about 12 percent of employees are organized in unions today, as compared with 35 percent in the 1950s. Reform legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act would give employees a fighting chance to regain some of their lost rights. This bill would mandate that an employer recognize the union if it obtains the signatures of a majority of employees. There would be no need for the long and costly - especially to the workers who are fired - election campaign.
A poll by Global Strategies Group this month found that 68 percent of middle-class Americans support the Employee Free Choice Act. Polls also indicate that tens of millions would join a union if they had the choice.
The bill passed the House 241-185 but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. It’s a party-line split in the Senate (except for support from Republican Senator Arlen Specter). So the bill would need a Democratic president and something close to 59 Democrats in the Senate in order to pass.
This law would probably change Americans’ lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It’s all long overdue.
- Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
(citizen-times.com)
No truth to anti worker-choice TV ads
More worker-choice stories: here
Organized labor campaigns to preserve forced-labor unionism in Colorado
Throughout the 2008 election season, 9NEWS is committed to holding accountable those who take out political commercials on our station and My20 for what they say. The following Truth Test, against Amendment 47, regards a political ad paid for by Coloradans for Middle Class Relief (www.voteno47.com), registered as an issue committee with the Colorado Secretary of State.
The organization has about $4.8 million in contributions, $1 million of which came from the National Education Association last week. The committee also received $1.6 million from United Food and Commercial Workers in June (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085619561).
Amendment 47 is known as the "Right to Work" measure in Colorado. If passed, it would prohibit Colorado employers from requiring its workers to be a member of a union and pay union dues as a condition of their employment. The amendment stipulates that employers would be charged with the highest misdemeanor available if they have such a requirement for employees.
There is a clause in the proposal, as well, that defines "labor union" to include "organizations that deal with employers over employee issues," such as pay rates, work hours, and grievances. The definition also includes organizations that provide "mutual aid or protection in connection with employment" (Blue Book).
If passed, this would make Colorado a "right-to-work" state, in line with 22 other states in the southern and western regions of the country (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm).
Right now, federal law states that a worker may not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) states that full union membership cannot be compelled (Source: American Bar Association overview of labor law published by the Bureau of National Affairs).
This ad is 30 seconds long. Its claims are tested below.
QUOTE: The few rich owners who are pushing Constitutional Amendment 47 say they want to give people a choice.
TRUTH: It is true that some wealthy businessmen and women have backed Amendment 47 and groups supporting this amendment do discuss freedom of choice and the rights of workers.
It has been reported that one of the Coors beer company heirs, Jonathan Coors, has been pushing the amendment (Denver Post article-). The brewery has not supported the amendment and the Coors family patriarch, Bill Coors, has come out publicly opposed to the measure.
Two issue committees, A Better Colorado (http://www.abettercolorado.com) and Defend Our Economy (http://www.defendoureconomy.org), have been supported by pro-business organizations, businesses and leaders. Both groups discuss the "freedom to choose," on their Web site or in TV commercials, which they argue is given to workers through Amendment 47.
American Furniture Warehouse donated just over $2,000 to A Better Colorado. Its CEO, Jake Jabs has also donated $10,000 to that issue committee. Other donors include the Free Enterprise Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, and the National Right to Work Committee (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085614486).
Jabs also contributed $10,000 to Defend Our Economy in September. Other organizations have donated to this committee, including the Colorado Small Business Coalition and the Royal Crest Dairy (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085616094). More about this organization, and its contributors, can be found in this Truth Test (Defend Our Economy TT).
QUOTE: You do have a choice. Would you choose to pass an amendment that could strip away all progress that Colorado workers have made with wages and health care and retirement?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards the concerns opponents have about the impact of this measure on union organization in the state.
Unions have traditionally represented workers in collective bargaining negotiations with management. In this sense, unions have been at the forefront of defining wages, health benefits and retirement conditions.
If Amendment 47 passes, opponents argue that more of these workers will not pay into the collective bargaining agreements, effectively removing the opportunity for such negotiations and possibly negatively affecting current standards regarding wages and benefits.
The Colorado Blue Book reports, "labor unions with fewer resources are not as effective in standing up for the interests of all employees."
Supporters cite U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics that show wages lower in right to work states than they are in non-right to work states. (Source: Bureau of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/annpay.t01.htm)
Proponents argue those figures are skewed in that they don't take cost of living considerations into account. For example, wages are higher in New York (a non-right to work state) because the cost of living there is higher.
They also state that removing union payments as a condition of employment would give employees more freedom to choose which union activities they do participate in, whether that be for collective bargaining or political purposes (Blue Book).
QUOTE: In times like these, who would choose to destabilize Colorado's economy and put jobs at risk?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards opponents' concerns related to employment and working conditions.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, union membership in Colorado includes about 191,000 people, which was 8.7 percent of all employees in of 2007. This figure is below the national average (http://www.bls.gov/ro7/counion.htm).
If Amendment 47 passes, opponents worry that such a measure would negatively impact wage-earners and possibly leave many, currently protected by unions, unemployed. There is no definite information on the impacts to employment in Colorado, so whether this would impact the job market or "destabilize the economy" is up to you to decide.
QUOTE: If it's not broke, why fix it? No on 47. It's risky, it's reckless, it's wrong.
TRUTH: This is opinion.
(9news.com)
Organized labor campaigns to preserve forced-labor unionism in ColoradoThroughout the 2008 election season, 9NEWS is committed to holding accountable those who take out political commercials on our station and My20 for what they say. The following Truth Test, against Amendment 47, regards a political ad paid for by Coloradans for Middle Class Relief (www.voteno47.com), registered as an issue committee with the Colorado Secretary of State.
The organization has about $4.8 million in contributions, $1 million of which came from the National Education Association last week. The committee also received $1.6 million from United Food and Commercial Workers in June (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085619561).
Amendment 47 is known as the "Right to Work" measure in Colorado. If passed, it would prohibit Colorado employers from requiring its workers to be a member of a union and pay union dues as a condition of their employment. The amendment stipulates that employers would be charged with the highest misdemeanor available if they have such a requirement for employees.
There is a clause in the proposal, as well, that defines "labor union" to include "organizations that deal with employers over employee issues," such as pay rates, work hours, and grievances. The definition also includes organizations that provide "mutual aid or protection in connection with employment" (Blue Book).
If passed, this would make Colorado a "right-to-work" state, in line with 22 other states in the southern and western regions of the country (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm).
Right now, federal law states that a worker may not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) states that full union membership cannot be compelled (Source: American Bar Association overview of labor law published by the Bureau of National Affairs).
This ad is 30 seconds long. Its claims are tested below.
QUOTE: The few rich owners who are pushing Constitutional Amendment 47 say they want to give people a choice.
TRUTH: It is true that some wealthy businessmen and women have backed Amendment 47 and groups supporting this amendment do discuss freedom of choice and the rights of workers.
It has been reported that one of the Coors beer company heirs, Jonathan Coors, has been pushing the amendment (Denver Post article-). The brewery has not supported the amendment and the Coors family patriarch, Bill Coors, has come out publicly opposed to the measure.
Two issue committees, A Better Colorado (http://www.abettercolorado.com) and Defend Our Economy (http://www.defendoureconomy.org), have been supported by pro-business organizations, businesses and leaders. Both groups discuss the "freedom to choose," on their Web site or in TV commercials, which they argue is given to workers through Amendment 47.
American Furniture Warehouse donated just over $2,000 to A Better Colorado. Its CEO, Jake Jabs has also donated $10,000 to that issue committee. Other donors include the Free Enterprise Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, and the National Right to Work Committee (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085614486).
Jabs also contributed $10,000 to Defend Our Economy in September. Other organizations have donated to this committee, including the Colorado Small Business Coalition and the Royal Crest Dairy (http://sos.state.co.us, SOS ID: 20085616094). More about this organization, and its contributors, can be found in this Truth Test (Defend Our Economy TT).
QUOTE: You do have a choice. Would you choose to pass an amendment that could strip away all progress that Colorado workers have made with wages and health care and retirement?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards the concerns opponents have about the impact of this measure on union organization in the state.
Unions have traditionally represented workers in collective bargaining negotiations with management. In this sense, unions have been at the forefront of defining wages, health benefits and retirement conditions.
If Amendment 47 passes, opponents argue that more of these workers will not pay into the collective bargaining agreements, effectively removing the opportunity for such negotiations and possibly negatively affecting current standards regarding wages and benefits.
The Colorado Blue Book reports, "labor unions with fewer resources are not as effective in standing up for the interests of all employees."
Supporters cite U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics that show wages lower in right to work states than they are in non-right to work states. (Source: Bureau of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/annpay.t01.htm)
Proponents argue those figures are skewed in that they don't take cost of living considerations into account. For example, wages are higher in New York (a non-right to work state) because the cost of living there is higher.
They also state that removing union payments as a condition of employment would give employees more freedom to choose which union activities they do participate in, whether that be for collective bargaining or political purposes (Blue Book).
QUOTE: In times like these, who would choose to destabilize Colorado's economy and put jobs at risk?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards opponents' concerns related to employment and working conditions.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, union membership in Colorado includes about 191,000 people, which was 8.7 percent of all employees in of 2007. This figure is below the national average (http://www.bls.gov/ro7/counion.htm).
If Amendment 47 passes, opponents worry that such a measure would negatively impact wage-earners and possibly leave many, currently protected by unions, unemployed. There is no definite information on the impacts to employment in Colorado, so whether this would impact the job market or "destabilize the economy" is up to you to decide.
QUOTE: If it's not broke, why fix it? No on 47. It's risky, it's reckless, it's wrong.
TRUTH: This is opinion.
(9news.com)
Franklin Delano Obama?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George SantayanaWhat history should we be learning from? How about the Great Depression? Just like in the 1920s, we have a world financial crisis.
What we are seeing on Wall Street is mirrored in England, Germany, France and Japan, down to the governments buying up bank stocks.
Just like the ‘20s, America has outrageous credit problems and no savings. U.S. debt stands at $4 trillion and private debt is higher than it was during the Depression. The United States’ debt-to-income ratio is more than 126 percent and families have the lowest rate of saving since 1929.
That makes us two-for-two for what it takes for a depression. We need a stock market crash, followed by the government flailing around trying to fix it using all the wrong (socialist) methods. Can we really have a total stock market crash? Yes, because the government keeps throwing borrowed money at the problem and artificially re-inflating the bubble. That just sets us up for a bigger crash.
If we keep trying “bailouts,” we are just increasing the final reckoning. If we go far enough, we can lose everything.
If we get another crash and the resulting depression, what will life be like? In the first Depression, about 15 percent of the population lived in the cities and the other 85 percent were basically farmers. If you talk with folks who lived through the Depression, many say that it wasn’t a big deal, because they grew their own food and they lived off the land. The difference between the ‘20s and now is urbanization of America.
Today, 80 percent of Americans live in cities. The next depression will be much worse and require much quicker action from the president.
A “depression president” today would have to immediately provide for the city dwellers or America will burn. How could he provide for them? Confiscating food supplies would be my first guess. As they say, “no government is more than three meals from a revolution.” However you put it, a depression these days will be a powder keg. As we have seen in the last few weeks, nobody knows what to do about all this.
In the ‘20s, people were desperate for change and they elected a charismatic socialist, FDR. Today we have Obama, a charismatic socialist. People have been brainwashed into thinking they are desperate for change, even though things are not close to critical yet.
Obama’s programs, just like FDR’s, are textbook socialism. FDR: Jobs through the WPA relief program. Obama: Jobs through National Infrastructure Investment Program. Obama is going to throw $60 billion at this program, (from where?) and that will magically generate $35 billion in “new economic activity,” “creating 2 million jobs.” $60 billion just magically becomes $350 billion! Wow, that’s great politics! Unless you can add.
None of this stuff worked for FDR and it won’t for Obama. When FDR figured that out, he gave us his “Second New Deal,“ which was just deeper socialism, like Fannie Mae (which we just got the bill for last month) and heavier labor union promotion.
Obama calls his proposed (stupid) union promotion program the “Employee Free Choice Act” (a typical political lying title).
It will give unprecedented power to the unions. Promoting unions raises the costs of American goods and makes us less competitive in the world market. That will lead to tariffs and protectionism, which also don’t work.
FDR was able to claim (as politicians so often do) that his “New Deal” worked. It’s true that he got us out of the depression. It is a lie that he did it with his socialistic “New Deal.” He really got us out of the depression by getting us into World War II. Can we look for WWIII if Obama is elected? None of his socialist agendas have a chance of working and a war is always a quick fix. Only after FDR was able to draft young men and send them off to war was he able to “cure” the unemployment rate. Soldiers were out of the equation and the void in the labor force was spread over the remaining population.
Only after he was able to order rationing “for the war effort” was he able to stabilize the economy. It is easier to manipulate markets when you can control both supply and demand. The soup lines gave way to “victory gardens” when, in the name of patriotism, people grew food and fed themselves, something we should all do today.
What is different between then and now is that FDR had time to schmooze the voters and build his lies while trying to find something that worked. Obama will not have that luxury.
FDR got elected with his pie-in-the-sky “New Deal” because people were desperate.
Obama is promising the same pie-in-the-sky socialist “solutions.” Will we fall for it?
- Rick Coddington is a third-generation native New Mexican.
(stpns.net)
Obama shows his Saul Alinsky side
ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud: here • Saul Alinsky: here • collectivism : here
Barack Obama's loose wing-nuts
With new charges erupting daily, Obama's close ties to ACORN may be the straw that breaks his back. The problem is that Obama is one of them, having served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois and funneled millions of dollars to them from the ANNEBERG CHALLENGE, which he chaired. There is also the fact that Obama has financed the groups' recent activities with $800,000.00 of his campaign money. For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed graveyards for votes and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale. One man admitted to registering 72 times at the urging of ACORN representatives who often paid him to register.
As Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds, ACORNS illegal voting will get more and more attention. FBI raids are occurring on an almost daily basis as allegations of voter fraud pops up in more and more states.
The negative publicity will paint Obama as the leftist radical that he is and substantiate the question of his lack of judgment. It may even cause some to wonder if he is involved in voter fraud which would be entirely within keeping to his Saul Alinsky playbook, "Rules for Radicals".
And while his cultish followers decry any mention of his past associations with the likes of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, as "smears", it calls into question both his lack of character and lack of judgment.
Let us remember that eight of the 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote and ask ourselves if ACORN had a hand in that too.
Yes Barry, ACORN is the gift that will keep on giving as the election draws near and your true character and lack of judgment come out for all to see.
(gather.com)
Barack Obama's loose wing-nutsWith new charges erupting daily, Obama's close ties to ACORN may be the straw that breaks his back. The problem is that Obama is one of them, having served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois and funneled millions of dollars to them from the ANNEBERG CHALLENGE, which he chaired. There is also the fact that Obama has financed the groups' recent activities with $800,000.00 of his campaign money. For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed graveyards for votes and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale. One man admitted to registering 72 times at the urging of ACORN representatives who often paid him to register.
As Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds, ACORNS illegal voting will get more and more attention. FBI raids are occurring on an almost daily basis as allegations of voter fraud pops up in more and more states.
The negative publicity will paint Obama as the leftist radical that he is and substantiate the question of his lack of judgment. It may even cause some to wonder if he is involved in voter fraud which would be entirely within keeping to his Saul Alinsky playbook, "Rules for Radicals".
And while his cultish followers decry any mention of his past associations with the likes of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, as "smears", it calls into question both his lack of character and lack of judgment.
Let us remember that eight of the 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote and ask ourselves if ACORN had a hand in that too.
Yes Barry, ACORN is the gift that will keep on giving as the election draws near and your true character and lack of judgment come out for all to see.
(gather.com)
FBI opens ACORN probe
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Multi-state conspiracy makes 2008 the most fraudulent presidential election in U.S. history
A day after John McCain charged that the liberal-leaning voter registration group ACORN ''may be perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history,'' it was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is investigating whether the group coordinated the filing of phony applications.
Details of the inquiry weren't readily available. McClatchy confirmed an Associated Press report disclosing the investigation and learned that the FBI was attempting to determine if ACORN systematically encouraged the creation of fake voter registrations in several states.
Executive Director Michael Slater of Project Vote, which funds ACORN and represents it in legal matters, said the group has yet to be informed of any national investigation but would cooperate. Slater said that any suggestion that ACORN was orchestrating voter fraud was ``absolutely false.''
For years, ACORN has been a force in registering mostly younger, lower-income minorities to vote. So far this year, the group has registered 1.3 million new voters.
`HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS'
Because those new voters often support Democrats, Republicans have targeted ACORN and accused organizers of trying to undermine elections. Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, U.S. attorneys were encouraged to bring voter-fraud cases, mostly against Democrats, and some prosecutors who balked were fired.
Project Vote's Slater said the timing of the investigation was ''highly suspicious'' because it was so close to the election.
''We knew this was coming,'' Slater told McClatchy. ``We saw in 2004 that we were attacked by Republican interests, and law enforcement was politicized to go after us. We saw civil suits and organizations created whose specific purpose was to demonize ACORN.''
'BOGUS' FORMS
According to Slater, ACORN has alerted authorities on a daily basis since late last year whenever internal reviews found that canvassers had submitted suspicious application forms.
Slater said that 1,187 packages, each containing a registration worker's daily collection of as many as 18 forms, have been flagged by county election officials as ``potentially bogus.''
He also estimated that about 1 percent of ACORN's nationwide registration applications -- some 13,000 forms -- could contain fictitious names or addresses. In addition, as many as 25 percent may be duplicates.
County officials review each registration application and reject all duplicates.
To affect an election tally, someone would have to vote in the name of the fictitious registrant, which is a felony.
ACORN officials said that most phony submissions came from canvassers who were trying to get paid without actually finding citizens who wanted to register to vote.
They simply filled out the forms using names from the phone book, fictitious names or, in one case, ``Mickey Mouse.''
ACORN is bound by laws in most of the 21 states where it's been active to turn in all new registration applications, even suspicious ones, and the group follows that policy everywhere, spokesman Scott Levenson said.
Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers -- investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico.
During Wednesday night's final presidential campaign debate, McCain pressed Democratic rival Barack Obama to explain his ties to ACORN, which he said ``may be destroying the fabric of democracy.''
Earlier, Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio sent a letter asking Attorney General Michael Mukasey to order an investigation of whether ACORN was committing voter registration fraud in an organized way.
BATTLEGROUND BATTLE
The Ohio Republican Party is in a court battle with Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner over potential election fraud. The Republicans won a federal appeals court order demanding that Brunner turn over to county election officials by Friday the names of about 200,000 new registrants whose personal information did not exactly match state drivers' license or Social Security data.
Any discrepancies, no matter how small, could be used to challenge the eligibility of those Ohioans to vote. Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
(miamiherald.com)
Multi-state conspiracy makes 2008 the most fraudulent presidential election in U.S. historyA day after John McCain charged that the liberal-leaning voter registration group ACORN ''may be perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history,'' it was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is investigating whether the group coordinated the filing of phony applications.
Details of the inquiry weren't readily available. McClatchy confirmed an Associated Press report disclosing the investigation and learned that the FBI was attempting to determine if ACORN systematically encouraged the creation of fake voter registrations in several states.
Executive Director Michael Slater of Project Vote, which funds ACORN and represents it in legal matters, said the group has yet to be informed of any national investigation but would cooperate. Slater said that any suggestion that ACORN was orchestrating voter fraud was ``absolutely false.''
For years, ACORN has been a force in registering mostly younger, lower-income minorities to vote. So far this year, the group has registered 1.3 million new voters.
`HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS'
Because those new voters often support Democrats, Republicans have targeted ACORN and accused organizers of trying to undermine elections. Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, U.S. attorneys were encouraged to bring voter-fraud cases, mostly against Democrats, and some prosecutors who balked were fired.
Project Vote's Slater said the timing of the investigation was ''highly suspicious'' because it was so close to the election.
''We knew this was coming,'' Slater told McClatchy. ``We saw in 2004 that we were attacked by Republican interests, and law enforcement was politicized to go after us. We saw civil suits and organizations created whose specific purpose was to demonize ACORN.''
'BOGUS' FORMS
According to Slater, ACORN has alerted authorities on a daily basis since late last year whenever internal reviews found that canvassers had submitted suspicious application forms.
Slater said that 1,187 packages, each containing a registration worker's daily collection of as many as 18 forms, have been flagged by county election officials as ``potentially bogus.''
He also estimated that about 1 percent of ACORN's nationwide registration applications -- some 13,000 forms -- could contain fictitious names or addresses. In addition, as many as 25 percent may be duplicates.
County officials review each registration application and reject all duplicates.
To affect an election tally, someone would have to vote in the name of the fictitious registrant, which is a felony.
ACORN officials said that most phony submissions came from canvassers who were trying to get paid without actually finding citizens who wanted to register to vote.
They simply filled out the forms using names from the phone book, fictitious names or, in one case, ``Mickey Mouse.''
ACORN is bound by laws in most of the 21 states where it's been active to turn in all new registration applications, even suspicious ones, and the group follows that policy everywhere, spokesman Scott Levenson said.
Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers -- investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico.
During Wednesday night's final presidential campaign debate, McCain pressed Democratic rival Barack Obama to explain his ties to ACORN, which he said ``may be destroying the fabric of democracy.''
Earlier, Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio sent a letter asking Attorney General Michael Mukasey to order an investigation of whether ACORN was committing voter registration fraud in an organized way.
BATTLEGROUND BATTLE
The Ohio Republican Party is in a court battle with Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner over potential election fraud. The Republicans won a federal appeals court order demanding that Brunner turn over to county election officials by Friday the names of about 200,000 new registrants whose personal information did not exactly match state drivers' license or Social Security data.
Any discrepancies, no matter how small, could be used to challenge the eligibility of those Ohioans to vote. Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
(miamiherald.com)
ACORN Board to discuss Wade Rathke
ACORN stories: here • Wade Rathke: here • Voter-fraud: here
Union-backed voter fraud group to meets today; all eyes on Rathke embezzlement controversy
At its national board meeting in New Orleans Friday, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will try to resolve whether two board members overstepped their authority by filing a lawsuit seeking access to financial records that might shed light on an embezzlement scandal involving the founder's brother.
One of those board members, Karen Inman, called a news conference Thursday calling for greater transparency and accountability from an ACORN affiliate that Dale Rathke, brother of founder Wade Rathke, managed at the time he stole nearly $1 million by charging the nonprofit's credit cards for items unrelated to his work.
Inman and another board member, Marcel Reid, filed suit in August seeking the disclosure of records kept by that affiliate, Citizens Consulting Inc. Both are members of an interim management committee that was established to set the nonprofit's affairs in order after Wade Rathke was removed as ACORN's chief organizer when the scandal became public over the summer.
But others who sit on the 51-member national board accused the pair of overstepping their authority and asked to have the suit dismissed. At the meeting Friday, the board will determine whether Inman and Reid should in fact represent the entire board in the pursuit of audits and other financial records.
James Gray, an attorney representing them, said Thursday that a New Orleans civil district court judge had already indicated the records kept by CCI should be preserved and released to board members who want to inspect them. The judge will hold a status conference Nov. 7 to discuss the outcome of Friday's national board meeting.
At the Thursday news conference, Inman said she was concerned that Wade Rathke continued to lead a human rights group called ACORN International, even though the board moved over the summer to sever all ties with him. While the Rathke family has previously said the group is a separate organization, Inman said it keeps offices in the same Canal Street building that ACORN does. She believes Rathke continues to exert influence over the nonprofit as a whole.
Although Dale Rathke stole the money more than eight years ago, his brother never revealed the theft to the board, instead setting up a schedule by which his brother could return the funds without a mess. Board members found out about the theft this year after a prominent ACORN donor questioned whether its donations had been misused, and many were furious that Wade Rathke family had kept them in the dark.
"Our motion was to have him eliminated from all ACORN affiliates," Inman said.
The New York Times reported this week that ACORN's interim chief organizer had met with Wade Rathke to find a place for him in one of several dozen of the nonprofit's affiliates. Inman said such negotiations represented an end run around the board.
After Inman spoke, a representative of the Louisiana ACORN chapter took the podium to defend Wade Rathke. Lanny Roy, the state chapter's vice president, said the board members who wanted Rathke removed were new arrivals who did not understand his long record of social justice work.
"Wade Rathke has done nothing wrong," Roy said. "They crucified him."
(nola.com)
Union-backed voter fraud group to meets today; all eyes on Rathke embezzlement controversyAt its national board meeting in New Orleans Friday, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will try to resolve whether two board members overstepped their authority by filing a lawsuit seeking access to financial records that might shed light on an embezzlement scandal involving the founder's brother.
One of those board members, Karen Inman, called a news conference Thursday calling for greater transparency and accountability from an ACORN affiliate that Dale Rathke, brother of founder Wade Rathke, managed at the time he stole nearly $1 million by charging the nonprofit's credit cards for items unrelated to his work.
Inman and another board member, Marcel Reid, filed suit in August seeking the disclosure of records kept by that affiliate, Citizens Consulting Inc. Both are members of an interim management committee that was established to set the nonprofit's affairs in order after Wade Rathke was removed as ACORN's chief organizer when the scandal became public over the summer.
But others who sit on the 51-member national board accused the pair of overstepping their authority and asked to have the suit dismissed. At the meeting Friday, the board will determine whether Inman and Reid should in fact represent the entire board in the pursuit of audits and other financial records.
James Gray, an attorney representing them, said Thursday that a New Orleans civil district court judge had already indicated the records kept by CCI should be preserved and released to board members who want to inspect them. The judge will hold a status conference Nov. 7 to discuss the outcome of Friday's national board meeting.
At the Thursday news conference, Inman said she was concerned that Wade Rathke continued to lead a human rights group called ACORN International, even though the board moved over the summer to sever all ties with him. While the Rathke family has previously said the group is a separate organization, Inman said it keeps offices in the same Canal Street building that ACORN does. She believes Rathke continues to exert influence over the nonprofit as a whole.
Although Dale Rathke stole the money more than eight years ago, his brother never revealed the theft to the board, instead setting up a schedule by which his brother could return the funds without a mess. Board members found out about the theft this year after a prominent ACORN donor questioned whether its donations had been misused, and many were furious that Wade Rathke family had kept them in the dark.
"Our motion was to have him eliminated from all ACORN affiliates," Inman said.
The New York Times reported this week that ACORN's interim chief organizer had met with Wade Rathke to find a place for him in one of several dozen of the nonprofit's affiliates. Inman said such negotiations represented an end run around the board.
After Inman spoke, a representative of the Louisiana ACORN chapter took the podium to defend Wade Rathke. Lanny Roy, the state chapter's vice president, said the board members who wanted Rathke removed were new arrivals who did not understand his long record of social justice work.
"Wade Rathke has done nothing wrong," Roy said. "They crucified him."
(nola.com)
ACORN's best and brightest
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Union-backed social justice activists honor diversity
An Ohio man who cast an illegal early ballot after being caught registering to vote several times with ACORN is a longtime scammer who was arrested last year for fraud - as a woman. The bizarre tale of Darnell Nash - a k a Serina "Sexy Slay" Gibbs - came to light after Cuyahoga County officials accused him of voter fraud and this week turned him/her in to prosecutors.
Related: "How ACORN frauds-up Ohio"
It turns out Nash, 24, who has a criminal record as a man, is a transsexual escort who claims to make $150 an hour turning tricks as the self-proclaimed "Queen of Cleveland Gender Benders." Last month, Nash - working as "Sexy Slay" - was busted for scamming local college students in a fake loan-program scheme that allowed him access to the kids' checking accounts. His plot was exposed by Cleveland's Channel 19 Action News.
Just months earlier, Nash had caught the attention of election workers after he submitted multiple voter registration cards - using somebody else's address - through ACORN canvassers.
Election officials told him to stop registering. But he apparently ignored the warning.
On Sept. 30, officials said, Nash showed up at the election offices and reregistered to vote, again using a phony address. He then cast a ballot.
Eagle-eyed election workers recognized Nash's name and flagged his paper ballot.
On Monday, the election board said the vote would be tossed - and the case is now in the hands of local prosecutors.
ACORN, a left-leaning group whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, has come under fire this year for its voter drives.
Also today, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox charged ACORN canvasser Antonio Johnson, 23, with six counts of forgery after he allegedly turned in bogus voter-registration cards.
Johnson is accused of filling out, signing and submitting six voter applications, using names of local residents without their knowledge.
(nypost.com)
Union-backed social justice activists honor diversityAn Ohio man who cast an illegal early ballot after being caught registering to vote several times with ACORN is a longtime scammer who was arrested last year for fraud - as a woman. The bizarre tale of Darnell Nash - a k a Serina "Sexy Slay" Gibbs - came to light after Cuyahoga County officials accused him of voter fraud and this week turned him/her in to prosecutors.
Related: "How ACORN frauds-up Ohio"
It turns out Nash, 24, who has a criminal record as a man, is a transsexual escort who claims to make $150 an hour turning tricks as the self-proclaimed "Queen of Cleveland Gender Benders." Last month, Nash - working as "Sexy Slay" - was busted for scamming local college students in a fake loan-program scheme that allowed him access to the kids' checking accounts. His plot was exposed by Cleveland's Channel 19 Action News.
Just months earlier, Nash had caught the attention of election workers after he submitted multiple voter registration cards - using somebody else's address - through ACORN canvassers.
Election officials told him to stop registering. But he apparently ignored the warning.
On Sept. 30, officials said, Nash showed up at the election offices and reregistered to vote, again using a phony address. He then cast a ballot.
Eagle-eyed election workers recognized Nash's name and flagged his paper ballot.
On Monday, the election board said the vote would be tossed - and the case is now in the hands of local prosecutors.
ACORN, a left-leaning group whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, has come under fire this year for its voter drives.
Also today, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox charged ACORN canvasser Antonio Johnson, 23, with six counts of forgery after he allegedly turned in bogus voter-registration cards.
Johnson is accused of filling out, signing and submitting six voter applications, using names of local residents without their knowledge.
(nypost.com)
Union-backed ACORN under scrutiny
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
As a major voting fraud scandal explodes, the mainstream media seem intent on ignoring it. Given the seriousness of the charges, maybe a formal federal investigation is in order.
The charges involve ACORN — the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now — for which Barack Obama once served as a lawyer and as a trainer.
In recent months, a picture has emerged of ACORN as a group run amok — with ACORN accused of registering thousands of bogus voters using such names as Mickey Mouse, Veronica Mars and Pat Tillman, plus names from the Dallas Cowboys.
Why care? As documented by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, Obama has ties to ACORN that are numerous, irrefutable and go back years. Initial denials by the Obama campaign of links to ACORN have been shown to be false.
Obama at various times during his 1990s career as a "community organizer" served ACORN in several roles, including as a major conduit of funds. And the ties continue. This year, Obama's campaign has delivered $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Obama has also vowed to give ACORN a big role in his administration.
ACORN's links to the Democratic Party are deep, extending back to its 1970 founding. By its own reckoning, ACORN this year has registered 1.32 million voters in 18 states — many in swing states that could have an outsized impact on the outcome of the election.
Nothing wrong with registering voters, except that ACORN has been accused of voter fraud activities across the country. At least 12 states have started investigations against ACORN.
ACORN also has been implicated in the subprime mortgage meltdown. But it still gets millions in taxpayers' dollars. Something is seriously wrong here.
Yet the media seem curiously incurious about it — just as they refuse to look deeply into Obama's longstanding ties to terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, or ACORN's own radical ties.
ACORN, as it turns out, was co-founded by Wade Rathke, a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS spawned the terrorist Weathermen — of which Ayers and Dohrn were members.
The media show no interest. They're in the bag for Obama, big time. A study of the Big Three networks' election coverage released Tuesday by George Mason University's Center for Media & Public Affairs found that, from Aug. 23 to Sept. 30, 61% of their stories about the Democratic Party were positive; just 39% of the stories about Republicans were positive.
With widening evidence of massive voter fraud nationwide, we can't leave it to a biased media to investigate. ACORN's alleged voter fraud crosses all jurisdictions, and is now federal in scope.
So why hasn't the Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation? Or the Federal Election Commission?
And why isn't Congress up in arms over this attempt to steal our republic?
(ibdeditorials.com)
As a major voting fraud scandal explodes, the mainstream media seem intent on ignoring it. Given the seriousness of the charges, maybe a formal federal investigation is in order.The charges involve ACORN — the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now — for which Barack Obama once served as a lawyer and as a trainer.
In recent months, a picture has emerged of ACORN as a group run amok — with ACORN accused of registering thousands of bogus voters using such names as Mickey Mouse, Veronica Mars and Pat Tillman, plus names from the Dallas Cowboys.
Why care? As documented by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, Obama has ties to ACORN that are numerous, irrefutable and go back years. Initial denials by the Obama campaign of links to ACORN have been shown to be false.
Obama at various times during his 1990s career as a "community organizer" served ACORN in several roles, including as a major conduit of funds. And the ties continue. This year, Obama's campaign has delivered $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Obama has also vowed to give ACORN a big role in his administration.
ACORN's links to the Democratic Party are deep, extending back to its 1970 founding. By its own reckoning, ACORN this year has registered 1.32 million voters in 18 states — many in swing states that could have an outsized impact on the outcome of the election.
Nothing wrong with registering voters, except that ACORN has been accused of voter fraud activities across the country. At least 12 states have started investigations against ACORN.
ACORN also has been implicated in the subprime mortgage meltdown. But it still gets millions in taxpayers' dollars. Something is seriously wrong here.
Yet the media seem curiously incurious about it — just as they refuse to look deeply into Obama's longstanding ties to terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, or ACORN's own radical ties.
ACORN, as it turns out, was co-founded by Wade Rathke, a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS spawned the terrorist Weathermen — of which Ayers and Dohrn were members.
The media show no interest. They're in the bag for Obama, big time. A study of the Big Three networks' election coverage released Tuesday by George Mason University's Center for Media & Public Affairs found that, from Aug. 23 to Sept. 30, 61% of their stories about the Democratic Party were positive; just 39% of the stories about Republicans were positive.
With widening evidence of massive voter fraud nationwide, we can't leave it to a biased media to investigate. ACORN's alleged voter fraud crosses all jurisdictions, and is now federal in scope.
So why hasn't the Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation? Or the Federal Election Commission?
And why isn't Congress up in arms over this attempt to steal our republic?
(ibdeditorials.com)
ACORN break-in: Inside job suspected
Related series: "What did Barack Obama teach ACORN?"
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Union-backed voter fraud group in cover-up?
The Boston offices of the controversial group ACORN were burgled yesterday and several computers stolen, the same day it was learned that the FBI is investigating whether the activist group helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.
Chris Leonard, one of the men who runs the Boston branch, said he left their Fields Corner office about 9 p.m. Wednesday with the group’s director.
When staff returned yesterday at about 10 a.m. he said the office was a shambles, five of their desktop computers were stolen, their Internet lines and phone wires were ripped from the wall, and the alarm system appeared to be functioning, but for some reason had not alerted police.
Leonard said it was too early to say if the break was politically motivated.
“I think it could be. We don’t know enough to say for sure,” Leonard said. “Certainly the timeing is very suspicious . . . It’s been building up around ACORN, there’s been all these false accusations.”
The FBI is looking at results of inquiries in several states, including a raid on the left-leaning group’s office in Las Vegas, for any evidence of a coordinated national voter fraud effort.
Two spokesmen for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, yesterday said the FBI has not contacted the group.
“ACORN has not been notified that we are the target of an investigation by any authorities - nor should we be,” spokesman Kevin Whelan said in a statement.
Republican accusations about the group were raised during Wednesday’s presidential debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain.
ACORN says it has registered 1.3 million voters, but some employees have been accused of submitting false registration forms - including some signed ‘Mickey Mouse.’ On the campaign trail, presidential candidate John McCain said the group could be on the verge of “destroying the fabric of democracy.” Obama, who has represented ACORN as a lawyer, downplayed his ties to the group and mocked McCain for bringing it up.
(bostonherald.com)
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Union-backed voter fraud group in cover-up?The Boston offices of the controversial group ACORN were burgled yesterday and several computers stolen, the same day it was learned that the FBI is investigating whether the activist group helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.
Chris Leonard, one of the men who runs the Boston branch, said he left their Fields Corner office about 9 p.m. Wednesday with the group’s director.
When staff returned yesterday at about 10 a.m. he said the office was a shambles, five of their desktop computers were stolen, their Internet lines and phone wires were ripped from the wall, and the alarm system appeared to be functioning, but for some reason had not alerted police.
Leonard said it was too early to say if the break was politically motivated.
“I think it could be. We don’t know enough to say for sure,” Leonard said. “Certainly the timeing is very suspicious . . . It’s been building up around ACORN, there’s been all these false accusations.”
The FBI is looking at results of inquiries in several states, including a raid on the left-leaning group’s office in Las Vegas, for any evidence of a coordinated national voter fraud effort.
Two spokesmen for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, yesterday said the FBI has not contacted the group.
“ACORN has not been notified that we are the target of an investigation by any authorities - nor should we be,” spokesman Kevin Whelan said in a statement.
Republican accusations about the group were raised during Wednesday’s presidential debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain.
ACORN says it has registered 1.3 million voters, but some employees have been accused of submitting false registration forms - including some signed ‘Mickey Mouse.’ On the campaign trail, presidential candidate John McCain said the group could be on the verge of “destroying the fabric of democracy.” Obama, who has represented ACORN as a lawyer, downplayed his ties to the group and mocked McCain for bringing it up.
(bostonherald.com)
ACORN: Bogus voter registrations in Arizona
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Another state joins a growing list as election-fraud plague roils America
Problems with apparently bogus voter registrations turned in by ACORN, a group now under investigation by the FBI for voter fraud, haven't been a problem in Maricopa County, says Maricopa County Elections Department director Karen Osborne.
Even if the group had turned in bad registrations here, Arizona's voter identification law -- approved by voters in 2004 -- would stop them cold. Whatever concerns people had about Proposition 200 in terms of disenfranchising voters who couldn't produce valid ID, the law does do a good job of preventing problems that ACORN is now accused of, Osborne says.
However, the group seems to have caused a different sort of problem lately, turning in about old 150 voter registrations on October 6. Many of them were back-dated to early 2007, Osborne says. That means dozens of people who thought they were registered may have voted in the primary election or municipal elections -- but their vote didn't count, she says.
Osborne says the county is trying to enlist the help of attorneys with ACORN to find the person responsible for failing to turn in the 150 registrations in a timely way.
Still, the problems with ACORN seem better than they were about five years ago, when registration drives by ACORN produced numerous forms with "a lot of scribbled writing," Osborne says. "We'd track the addresses -- they'd end up in the middle of Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field)."
No one answered the phone Thursday afternoon at the Phoenix ACORN office.
(blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com)
Another state joins a growing list as election-fraud plague roils AmericaProblems with apparently bogus voter registrations turned in by ACORN, a group now under investigation by the FBI for voter fraud, haven't been a problem in Maricopa County, says Maricopa County Elections Department director Karen Osborne.
Even if the group had turned in bad registrations here, Arizona's voter identification law -- approved by voters in 2004 -- would stop them cold. Whatever concerns people had about Proposition 200 in terms of disenfranchising voters who couldn't produce valid ID, the law does do a good job of preventing problems that ACORN is now accused of, Osborne says.
However, the group seems to have caused a different sort of problem lately, turning in about old 150 voter registrations on October 6. Many of them were back-dated to early 2007, Osborne says. That means dozens of people who thought they were registered may have voted in the primary election or municipal elections -- but their vote didn't count, she says.
Osborne says the county is trying to enlist the help of attorneys with ACORN to find the person responsible for failing to turn in the 150 registrations in a timely way.
Still, the problems with ACORN seem better than they were about five years ago, when registration drives by ACORN produced numerous forms with "a lot of scribbled writing," Osborne says. "We'd track the addresses -- they'd end up in the middle of Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field)."
No one answered the phone Thursday afternoon at the Phoenix ACORN office.
(blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com)
That depends on the meaning of the word 'ACORN'
More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here
Union-backed candidate will say anything to get elected
Twice in the last week, Barack Obama has said his relationship with ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- began and ended with legal work he did for the group in 1995. The Democratic presidential candidate made his remarks in an effort to distance himself from the low-income advocacy group, which is under investigation for voter fraud in several states.
But that assertion is subject to debate. Obama conducted training sessions for ACORN workers a decade ago, and his campaign also recently paid an ACORN subsidiary for canvassing efforts. Plus his work with a group called Project Vote back in 1992 raises questions about whether he was involved with ACORN back then.
Project Vote was one of Obama's earliest political successes. As director of Illinois Project Vote, Obama helped register 150,000 new voters in Chicago, and he was heralded for his efforts in local media.
ACORN was also registering voters at that time, and its relationship with Project Vote casts some doubt on Obama's statement that his involvement with ACORN didn't begin until three years later.
Obama's campaign Web site -- in a section called "Fight the Smears" that is devoted to shooting down harmful rumors about his candidacy -- states as "fact" that "ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."
The site also states, "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN."
But accounts from the 1992 voter drive suggest the two groups were at least working alongside each other, if not together.
A blogger for Obama's campaign Web site in February wrote: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer ... Senator Obama said, 'I come out of a grassroots organizing background. ... Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.'"
Also, Chicago ACORN organizer Toni Foulkes wrote in the 2003 edition of the journal Social Policy that the two groups were working to register voters when Obama led the effort in Illinois.
She wrote that Obama and Project Vote made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win her Senate seat in 1992, and that "Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
But ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg told FOXNews.com "there was no work done between Project Vote and ACORN" during the 1992 Chicago drive.
"There was no financial intermingling," he added.
Goldberg said the groups, rather, conducted "parallel" efforts to register voters.
Asked about the 1992 project, the Obama campaign referred FOXNews.com to a July letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal from Sanford Newman, who was director of Project Vote in 1992.
Newman wrote that Obama worked for his organization, not ACORN, and that "it wasn't until after Mr. Obama's tenure had ended that it began to conduct projects more frequently with ACORN than with other community-based organizations."
He wrote that Project Vote "remains a separate organization today."
Goldberg also told FOXNews.com the two organizations are still separate, even though they now work together on voter registration.
On that issue, the two organizations seem to have maintained a close and open relationship in recent years.
Project Vote announced last week that together with ACORN they registered over 1.3 million people to vote. Project Vote is listed on the ACORN Web site as one of many "allied organizations." The two organizations also share an office address in Arkansas and Washington, D.C. According to ACORN, the office-sharing is a cost-saving move done for "convenience."
But as to Obama's statement that his ties to ACORN are contained to his legal work, it has already been widely reported that his campaign paid more than $800,000 to a group called Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN subsidiary, to "augment" Obama's grassroots organizing efforts in the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.
His campaign maintains those efforts were for getting voters to the polls and not for voter registration, which is the sticking point of ongoing ACORN probes.
Goldberg also confirmed to FOXNews.com that Obama gave two training sessions over the course of three years in the late '90s. He said each session lasted an hour or less.
Republicans say Obama can't deny his relationship with ACORN.
"[Obama's] relationship with ACORN is well-established," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "His comment is a fabrication."
But Obama's carefully worded statement regarding ACORN training on his "Fight the Smears" site appears to be true.
The statement says ACORN never "hired" Obama "as a trainer, organizer or any type of employee."
And Goldberg said that, in fact, "Barack was not paid."
Diaz noted that Obama changed his Web site to reflect the training sessions -- it previously said the Illinois senator was never an ACORN trainer. The word, "hired," was added later.
(elections.foxnews.com)
Union-backed candidate will say anything to get electedTwice in the last week, Barack Obama has said his relationship with ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- began and ended with legal work he did for the group in 1995. The Democratic presidential candidate made his remarks in an effort to distance himself from the low-income advocacy group, which is under investigation for voter fraud in several states.
But that assertion is subject to debate. Obama conducted training sessions for ACORN workers a decade ago, and his campaign also recently paid an ACORN subsidiary for canvassing efforts. Plus his work with a group called Project Vote back in 1992 raises questions about whether he was involved with ACORN back then.
Project Vote was one of Obama's earliest political successes. As director of Illinois Project Vote, Obama helped register 150,000 new voters in Chicago, and he was heralded for his efforts in local media.
ACORN was also registering voters at that time, and its relationship with Project Vote casts some doubt on Obama's statement that his involvement with ACORN didn't begin until three years later.
Obama's campaign Web site -- in a section called "Fight the Smears" that is devoted to shooting down harmful rumors about his candidacy -- states as "fact" that "ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."
The site also states, "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN."
But accounts from the 1992 voter drive suggest the two groups were at least working alongside each other, if not together.
A blogger for Obama's campaign Web site in February wrote: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer ... Senator Obama said, 'I come out of a grassroots organizing background. ... Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.'"
Also, Chicago ACORN organizer Toni Foulkes wrote in the 2003 edition of the journal Social Policy that the two groups were working to register voters when Obama led the effort in Illinois.
She wrote that Obama and Project Vote made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win her Senate seat in 1992, and that "Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
But ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg told FOXNews.com "there was no work done between Project Vote and ACORN" during the 1992 Chicago drive.
"There was no financial intermingling," he added.
Goldberg said the groups, rather, conducted "parallel" efforts to register voters.
Asked about the 1992 project, the Obama campaign referred FOXNews.com to a July letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal from Sanford Newman, who was director of Project Vote in 1992.
Newman wrote that Obama worked for his organization, not ACORN, and that "it wasn't until after Mr. Obama's tenure had ended that it began to conduct projects more frequently with ACORN than with other community-based organizations."
He wrote that Project Vote "remains a separate organization today."
Goldberg also told FOXNews.com the two organizations are still separate, even though they now work together on voter registration.
On that issue, the two organizations seem to have maintained a close and open relationship in recent years.
Project Vote announced last week that together with ACORN they registered over 1.3 million people to vote. Project Vote is listed on the ACORN Web site as one of many "allied organizations." The two organizations also share an office address in Arkansas and Washington, D.C. According to ACORN, the office-sharing is a cost-saving move done for "convenience."
But as to Obama's statement that his ties to ACORN are contained to his legal work, it has already been widely reported that his campaign paid more than $800,000 to a group called Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN subsidiary, to "augment" Obama's grassroots organizing efforts in the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.
His campaign maintains those efforts were for getting voters to the polls and not for voter registration, which is the sticking point of ongoing ACORN probes.
Goldberg also confirmed to FOXNews.com that Obama gave two training sessions over the course of three years in the late '90s. He said each session lasted an hour or less.
Republicans say Obama can't deny his relationship with ACORN.
"[Obama's] relationship with ACORN is well-established," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "His comment is a fabrication."
But Obama's carefully worded statement regarding ACORN training on his "Fight the Smears" site appears to be true.
The statement says ACORN never "hired" Obama "as a trainer, organizer or any type of employee."
And Goldberg said that, in fact, "Barack was not paid."
Diaz noted that Obama changed his Web site to reflect the training sessions -- it previously said the Illinois senator was never an ACORN trainer. The word, "hired," was added later.
(elections.foxnews.com)
IAM-Boeing striker blasts union
IAM-Boeing stories: here • strike stories: here
"Nation gets a preview of Barackonomics" • "Trickle down strike-onomics"
Union's militant stance not helpful to members
I will not be popular with what I'm about to say ... I have been with Boeing 30 years. I am one of those 2,000 workers the union is trying to protect. The issue of "outsourcing" the delivery of parts to the factory has been around in one form or another for 12 years. No one has lost their job because of it.
There is ample opportunity for members like myself to move to other jobs, with training provided by the company, provided the employee wants to learn something new. The contract offer that was put forth by the company was a good offer, not a great one, but it was the best that I have seen in my many years.
The union leadership manipulated the "newbies," telling "untruths" (the survivor benefits) and skillfully using scare tactics to get the vote to go their way. In this day, there is no longer such a thing as a "free lunch" when it comes to medical insurance.
The union leaders need to pull their collective heads out and look around. The economy is the worst it has been in many. many years. Many of my fellow workers are losing their life savings, some may even be close to losing their homes.
I encourage everyone to do what they feel is best for their families, and not what is best for the union leaders. Remember, the last time I looked, our pay checks where signed "Boeing," not IAM. The IAM leadership is looking to bring down the "big bad corporate giant, Boeing" so they can brag about it at the next international convention.
There have been three "strikes" in 12 years, Boeing will come to realize that they will be better off in a "right to work" state, and where will any job security be? The IAM leaders are not doing what is in the best interest of their members. It is time they got off their collective butts, and tell Boeing it is time to talk.
Richard Peterson, Granite Falls
(heraldnet.com)
"Nation gets a preview of Barackonomics" • "Trickle down strike-onomics"
Union's militant stance not helpful to membersI will not be popular with what I'm about to say ... I have been with Boeing 30 years. I am one of those 2,000 workers the union is trying to protect. The issue of "outsourcing" the delivery of parts to the factory has been around in one form or another for 12 years. No one has lost their job because of it.
There is ample opportunity for members like myself to move to other jobs, with training provided by the company, provided the employee wants to learn something new. The contract offer that was put forth by the company was a good offer, not a great one, but it was the best that I have seen in my many years.
The union leadership manipulated the "newbies," telling "untruths" (the survivor benefits) and skillfully using scare tactics to get the vote to go their way. In this day, there is no longer such a thing as a "free lunch" when it comes to medical insurance.
The union leaders need to pull their collective heads out and look around. The economy is the worst it has been in many. many years. Many of my fellow workers are losing their life savings, some may even be close to losing their homes.
I encourage everyone to do what they feel is best for their families, and not what is best for the union leaders. Remember, the last time I looked, our pay checks where signed "Boeing," not IAM. The IAM leadership is looking to bring down the "big bad corporate giant, Boeing" so they can brag about it at the next international convention.
There have been three "strikes" in 12 years, Boeing will come to realize that they will be better off in a "right to work" state, and where will any job security be? The IAM leaders are not doing what is in the best interest of their members. It is time they got off their collective butts, and tell Boeing it is time to talk.
Richard Peterson, Granite Falls
(heraldnet.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
