Jobless jolt expected in February

More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Enactment of fascistic labor 'reforms' heralds end to the Era of Prosperity

As the election approaches employers are becoming increasingly nervous about the very real prospect that the Employee Free Choice Act ("EFCA") will be signed into law next year. Smart money says that some form of EFCA will be one of the first bills Obama signs — perhaps as early as February.

EFCA is arguably the most profound change in labor law in 70 years. Most of the focus has been on the "card check" provision. That provision substantially dispenses with secret ballot representation elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. Instead, unions need only present authorization cards signed by a majority of bargaining unit employees to be certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative.

Obviously, this makes union organization far easier. The number of unionized workers has declined significantly over the last 50 years. In the mid-fifties 39% of private sector workers were unionized. By 1980, the percentage had shrunk to 23.6. Presently, only 7.5% of private sector workers are unionized. That figure promises to jump appreciably after EFCA is enacted. It's not unreasonable to project that union organization rates could return to 1980 levels.

As nervous as employers are about card check, it's EFCA's first contract mandatory arbitration provisions that have businesses ordering antacids by the truckload. Under EFCA, if the company and union fail to reach agreement on a contract within 120 days after the union requests bargaining, the matter will be referred to an arbitration panel that will actually write the contract. That contract is binding for two years. I've negotiated more collective bargaining agreements than I can remember, but I can't remember too many times when an agreement was reached on an initial contract in four months. It sometimes takes that long just to agree upon the shape of the table.

What if an arbitrator mandates a wage scale that makes the employer uncompetitive? What if the arbitrator puts the company into a pension plan that renders the company unmarketable? Can the arbitrator require interest arbitration in exchange for a no-strike clause? The questions are interminable.


Most voters now expect Dem fraud

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Union-backed ACORN has gotten its message across

The majority of Americans believe that the November 4 presidential election will see widespread fraud, according to an opinion poll carried out for Fox News. The poll showed that 60% of respondents think that voter fraud is either "very" or "somewhat" likely. 35% said it was unlikely.

Of those respondents who said that they believed voter fraud would take place, 47% said it would favor the Democrat party, while 35% said the Republicans.

Five percent of respondents said fraud would favor both parties equally.

The poll was carried out by Opinion Dynamics for Fox News on October 20-21 and involved 1,100 registered voters, with an error margin of 3%.

The results come amid a row involving ACORN - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

According to the Associated Press, the FBI is investigating possible evidence of an attempt by ACORN to commit voter registration fraud. While ACORN has endorsed the Democrat presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, his campaign is not working with the organization in the run-up to the polls. It did however hire an Acorn affiliate to help with voter registration during the primaries.

Arizona Senator John McCain said during Wednesday's presidential candidate debate: "We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

Obama's campaign has called the allegations "frenzied and pathetic." A Fox News poll taken on October 20-21 gave Obama a lead of nine points, with 49% to McCain's 40%.

Allegations of voter fraud were widespread after incumbent president George W. Bush's narrow victory over Senator John Kerry at the 2004 presidential elections.


Finance meltdown laid on social-justice radicals

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

ACORN, Obama cited for Bailout - mortgage finance crisis

"You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house."

So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective poor and minority home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left "community organizers" called ACORN for assistance.

Of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes was madness. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Through both funding and personal leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, by intimidating banks to make high-risk loans, played a major role in precipitating the sub-prime crisis in Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac and the sub sequential financial meltdown on Wall Street and Main Street America.

- Ken Worley, Yuma


Obama bares fascistic fangs for ACORN

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Obama Wants Government to Silence ACORN Critics

Crushing free speech through government intimidation and lawsuits is what Barack Obama’s campaign is trying to do those who dare to bring up ACORN and voter fraud issues.

Fort Worth, TX (WiredPRNews.com)— In a move that should scare everyone, attorney Robert Bauer with Obama for America asked the Department of Justice to start an investigation into statements made by Sarah Palin, John McCain and campaign surrogates.

An October 20, 2008 article by Amanda Carpenter that appeared at Townhall.com shows the seven-page letter that Bauer sent to Attorney General Robert Mukasey asking that the DOJ infringe on the first amendment rights of those who have spoken out against ACORN’s fraudulent voter registrations.

The well-publicized stories about illegitimate voter registrations in Ohio, Nevada and several other states have prompted increased of scrutiny of ACORN’s methods to register voters. After state election raided ACORN’s Las Vegas, Nevada office, they discovered fraudulent voter registration cards that had the names of the starting line up of the Dallas Cowboys.

Similar attacks upon free speech, sponsored by democrats, have happened in the past. In the 2004 presidential election, the Kerry/Edwards campaign threatened 20 television stations if they aired a controversial ad produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The attempt to revive the misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is another example of their anti-free speech tactics. Cloaked under the name ‘Media Reform Ownership Act,’ or MORA, House Bill 3302 sponsored by Maurice Hinchey of New York (D-NY) would mandate that government monitor broadcast media channels to determine the level of fairness, diversity and competition.

Of course, there is plenty of diversity and competition in the media but that’s not what this bill is about. The effect of this Stalinist legislation would be to silence talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. After this, the Internet will certainly be regulated along with broadcast TV, creating a state-run media system similar to communist China’s.



NYT rips ACORN over charitable $$ for politics

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Union-backed voter fraud group's ethics reflect poorly on Barack Obama's standards

Faced with a number of investigations and countless reports of wrongdoing as well as a RICO suit by the Buckeye Institute of Ohio, an ACORN lawyer's report critical of the organization's operations somehow made it to the New York Times.

Pardon my skepticism, but it looks to me like an effort to pawn off countless incidents of wrongdoing as the result of just sloppy work or the misdeeds of a handful of officers. It's nutty. Even nuttier to think that the report could be passed off to a sympathetic press who'll write it up as a series of ghastly but inadvertent errors not worthy of further scrutiny:
An internal report by a lawyer for the community organizing group Acorn raises questions about whether the web of relationships among its 174 affiliates may have led to violations of federal laws.

The group, formally known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has been in the news over accusations that it is involved in voter registration fraud, charges it says are overblown and politically motivated.


The June 18 report, written by Elizabeth Kingsley, a Washington lawyer, spells out her concerns about potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among the affiliates; and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates, among other things.
The report is an eye opener nevertheless. From it we learn that over the weekend the organization -- a recipient of millions and millions of tax dollars -- for the very first time just appointed an audit committee and set up good governance procedures. The report concedes that it's impossible to establish that the tax funds the organization's Project Vote received had been used -- as the law requires -- for non partisan purposes.

It's conceded that ACORN cannot prove that tax exempt funds weren't used illegally for partisan considerations, indeed the targets chosen for their work suggest clear partisan motivation.

Board members for the Project Vote portion of the operation who were interviewed by the reporters didn't appear to be at all familiar with the operations.

ACORN/Project Vote looks like a three-card monte game with the taxpayers playing the mark.


ACORN for Obama

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Obama's courtship with voter fraud: HAVA

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Help ACORN Mess with Votes Act

In 2002, the federal government enacted the Help America Vote Act. The law, designed to prevent election fraud, set standards for voter eligibility, and its importance is obvious given the recent ACORN vote-fraud scandal. But thanks to a Supreme Court order issued Friday, Ohio’s Democratic secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, doesn’t have to follow it.

The Republican party sued to force Brunner to comply with Section 303 of HAVA. This section requires state election officials to “verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration” by comparing it to other databases such as drivers’-license or Social Security records. The secretary has freely admitted that she is not complying with the law — she analyzed the data and found 200,000 mismatches, but has not forwarded the information to county election officials.

After a district court order issued a Temporary Restraining Order forcing her to comply, the secretary of state appealed to a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the district court. However, on October 14, the full Sixth Circuit overturned its own panel and once again ordered Brunner to comply. She filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the TRO. The Court expressed no opinion on whether Brunner was following Section 303 — it threw the case out on the grounds that the Republican party didn’t have the right to sue to force compliance.

Once you work your way through all the legal language in the briefs and orders, Brunner’s defense basically boils down to two arguments. The first is that the HAVA statute does not create any private right of action (that is, the right of a private entity like the Republican party to sue her). In fact, only the United States attorney general is specifically authorized in the statute to enforce its provisions.

What is amusing is that this very issue came up in 2004, when the Democratic party filed the first lawsuits under HAVA — against then-Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell, a Republican. It was an effort to force the state to count provisional ballots from individuals who voted outside their assigned precincts. Of course, the Democratic party was arguing then what the Republican party is now — that a private right of action for HAVA exists.

A federal district-court judge agreed with the Democrats. On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (where I was working at the time) filed a brief arguing that there was no private right of action. The liberal civil-right community attacked the brief, and in my confirmation battle for a seat on the Federal Election Commission, my critics cited it as a reason I should not be confirmed.

Just a week before the 2004 election, the Sixth Circuit held that states are not required to count provisional ballots cast outside of assigned precincts. However, the court also held that there is a private right of action under HAVA.

So in 2008, when the Ohio Republican party took advantage of the precedent set by the Ohio Democratic party, the Democratic secretary of state echoed the arguments of the former Republican secretary of state. Can we expect to see protests by the civil-rights community to criticize her stance? Or to apoligize for its past criticisms? Don’t hold your breath.

Brunner’s second argument is essentially that she is just too busy, and that it will cause massive disruption to her election preparations, to comply with federal law. Of course, some might say that making sure voter registrations are accurate is an essential part of preparing for an election. She also claims that the state was carrying out the verification process, but was stopped by her predecessor. Of course, she was elected in 2006, so even if that is true (and there is some doubt about that), it is obviously no excuse. She could have easily done that when she took office.

You might ask, Where has the U.S. Department of Justice been in all of this? After all, they are supposed to be enforcing HAVA. Why didn’t they sue the Ohio secretary of state themselves? Why haven’t they sued the Wisconsin Board of Elections, which is also not complying with Section 303? (The Wisconsin state attorney general was forced to file such a suit, a suit that may now be in jeopardy due to the Supreme Court’s holding.) Only Michael Mukasey knows whether DOJ will finally starting enforcing the law and search for ACORNs in Buckeye country, or allow potential fraud to go completely uninvestigated.

- Hans A. von Spakovsky is a visiting legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation. He is also a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice.


Union front-groups co-mingle funds

More ACORN stories: here WFP: hereVoter-fraud: here
Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

ACORN fraud scandalizes Empire State

Republican members of the state Board of Elections were seeking an emergency meeting yesterday to investigate a charge that the Working Families Party may have illegally funneled nearly $32,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group accused of voter fraud in several parts of the country.

The allegation was outlined in a letter to the state board by a Republican activist, Philip Monthie, who cited a legally required campaign expenditure report from the WFP listing $31,700 as having been expended for "cash."

Monthie's complaint contended the listing was a "facial violation" of the state Election Law, which requires that the names and addresses of the recipient of expenditures in excess of $50 must be disclosed.

"The obvious question is what did the Working Families Party do with $31,700 of cash on primary day?" wrote Monthie, noting that the party's legally required filing also "shows clear connections" with ACORN, which received $8,000 for "consulting."

The union-backed Working Families Party and ACORN have often coordinated activities and both have offices at 2 Nevins St. in Brooklyn.

The board's two Republican members, James Walsh and Gregory Peterson, have urged an "emergency meeting" to consider the charge but the two Democratic members, Douglas Kellner and Evelyn Aquila, have refused. A majority vote of three is needed.


Dems, Obama to eliminate worker-freedom

More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Fascistic impulse is hidden from voters as Election Day nears

One issue separating Republicans and Democrats that will be presented at the next Senate session, following the 2008 election, is a controversial proposed amendment to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

The legislation, which passed the House of Representatives in 2007, but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate, is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). It is also known as "card-check," referring to the method by which employees communicate their approval or disapproval of a union representative. This is done by checking off a box on a card instead of by a secret ballot of employees, as is the current practice.

But its critics refer to it as the Employee "Forced" Choice Act. They say it removes freedom rather than foster it.

"It forces employees to disclose their vote which opens them up to coercion from those who are organizing the collective bargaining unit," said Mark McKinnon, representative of the Workforce Fairness Institute, an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and elected officials about issues affecting their workplace.

The provision in the bill that would eliminate the secret ballot for employees voting on union representation makes EFCA controversial. The first few sentences of Congressional Research Service summary of the proposed bill describes the controversial element this way:

"Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) ... "

Business owners are concerned that the elimination of the 73-year-old secret ballot provision of the National Labor Relations Act will result in intimidation of employees to vote in favor of unions when they do not want to do so.

They are not the only ones who are concerned. Opposition to this is coming from an unlikely source - former U.S. Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., who is a longtime prominent Democratic Party politician who was a champion of labor in his day. Mr. McGovern, who was the Democratic Party's 1972 presidential nominee, is an acknowledged liberal icon.

"I am concerned about a bill in Congress that would effectively eliminate an employee's right to a private vote when deciding whether to join a union," Mr. McGovern said in a YouTube video.

Mr. McGovern said he cannot understand how politicians would be in favor of a law that "would deny millions of employees the right to a private vote." He thinks modern union leaders are rejecting solid democratic principles.

EFCA's advocates see the problem very differently. The AFL-CIO sees it as the protection of a fundamental right of workers to organize. A right they feel has been denied them despite federal government protection.

"Unfortunately, in this country, as workers try to form and join unions they are met with employer interference, intimidation, harassment," said Arlene Holt-Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, also in a YouTube video. "Often times 25 percent of employers will fire workers illegally for just trying to have a voice at work."

Ms. Holt-Baker said the passage of EFCA would permit workers to bargain for higher wages and better benefits. She said worker's rights are not enforced.

Union membership has been on the decline in the United States since World War II when one-third of employed people in the United States belonged to unions. Union membership decreased to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979. By 2007 it was 12.7 percent.

The AFL-CIO wants to reverse this trend and thinks EFCA would accomplish this. There is reason to believe it could.

The exact opposite occurred in the United Kingdom. Britain's 1980 Employment Act changed the procedure for recognizing unions from a public voice vote to a secret ballot. Those who did not want to join a union complained of harassment and physical intimidation.

As soon as the secret ballots were implemented, workers began rejecting unions. Union membership was 50.7 percent of the British workforce in 1980. Ten years after the Employment Act was enacted, membership in British unions declined to 39.3 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

- Michael P. Tremoglie


Obama secret-ballot ban threatens workers

More EFCA stories: here

Obama, Dems want to eliminate secret-ballot union recognition elections

Claire Berlinski isn’t an expert on labor unions, she’s an expert on Margaret Thatcher. So why am I writing about her? Because of her great article in the City Journal regarding Thatcher’s 1980 Employment Act. Berlinski writes:
When Thatcher was elected in 1979, Britain had just endured a winter of discontent—a season of strikes and trade union agitation so severe that the nation stood effectively paralyzed. Food supplies were interrupted, whole industries choked, and exports fell. “We don’t want to increase our trade with you,” said the Soviet trade minister to his British counterpart. “You’re always on strike.” Rubbish piled up on the streets that winter; at one point, so did human corpses. This was what had become of a nation that was once the world’s greatest trading power.

For obvious reasons, Thatcher put reform of the trade union law at the top of her agenda. Among the key provisions of Britain’s 1980 Employment Act was a change in the way government would recognize unions. At the time, workers voted to join unions—or not—in public, by voice vote. Dissenters suffered harassment and physical intimidation. Henceforth, Thatcher decided, new union membership agreements would require approval by means of a secret ballot in order to protect rank-and-file workers from bullying by union organizers. If allowed to vote secretly, she believed, ordinary workers would not vote for policies against their long-term interests—such as pay raises so incommensurate with production as to render British businesses uncompetitive, or strikes so prolonged as to make even the Soviets unwilling to buy British goods.

Police use secret ballot to reject Teamsters again

Related: "The 28 labor-states" • More Teamsters stories: here

Workers show why union bigs need "Employee Forced Choice Act"

A second effort to unionize Hutchinson’s police officers has failed because the 18 officers and sergeants split right down the middle for an 9-9 tie in a vote conducted by the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services.

“Based on these election results, it is certified that Teamsters, Local 320, is not the exclusive representative for the employees falling within the appropriate unit...” according to a certificate statement signed Wedesday by BMS Commissioner James A. Cunningham Jr.

The latest failed effort to have officers represented by the Teamsters follows a more convincing 12-7 defeat four years ago.

Following an August hearing, the bureau ruled in late September that the four sergeants were not supervisory under state guidelines and should thus be part of the bargaining unit and included in the vote. The Teamsters did not object to the inclusion of sergeants in the vote four years ago, but did oppose it this time.


Workers oust SEIU 1199 in secret ballot rout

More SEIU stories: here

No comment from Denis Rivera about dues hit

The union is out at the United Helpers Canton Nursing Home. Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union had represented the 140 workers at the nursing home for the past six years, but no more.

A decertification petition signed by an overwhelming number of workers asking the union to leave was filed with the National Labor Relations Board. With only 21 union members in favor of keeping the union, SEIU Vice President Kathy Tucker says the union decided not to hold another vote and instead filed a disclaimer of interest and just walked away.

While the union had been in place at the nursing home, it operated as an open shop.


SEIU 1199, Rivera raid FMPR

More SEIU stories: here

Obama critics silenced by communist tactics

More ACORN stories: herecollectivism: here

The enemies of free speech are on the march

"Our time has come...I can see a role for the Communist Party USA in the next period." Those words from Libero Della Piana, an operative speaking at the headquarters of the Communist Party USA and eagerly anticipating an Obama presidency.

Communist morale high

In an interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP), Piana (viewing the Obama campaign, coupled with the economic crunch) declares, "We can afford to be less defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of the greed of the few." (Thus echoing the age-old Marxist theme of class hatred — often mimicked by Obama and others in prominent ranks of today's Democrat Party.)

The significance

Herbert Romerstein — a veteran intelligence professional and expert whose insight is from time to time consulted by this column — offers us this perspective on the Communist Party USA's endorsement of Barack Obama's quest for the White House:

"The Communist Party itself will not have influence, but those whom they influence will — the new left, the terrorists from the Weather Underground, the Committees of Correspondence — all are involved in the Obama campaign one way or another. The Communist Party itself has very few members [estimated at 3,000 to 3,500] most of them quite old. But the influence they've had in the past on the so-called progressive movement still continues."

In fact, Romerstein adds, "There's actually a group that calls itself Progressives for Obama that was announced in the ultra left-wing Nation magazine some months ago. And they turn out to be the same people from the Committees of Correspondence, from the SDS — all the anti-American organizations that have operated here for the past forty years. So although the [official] Communists are very small, they really are very representative of this kind of thinking — of destroy the United States economically and politically and militarily."

Note 1 — The SDS is Students for a Democratic Society That is the radical group that spawned the Weather Underground, whose unrepentant terrorists and Obama friends Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn plotted and carried out bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol, and police headquarters in the seventies.

Note 2 — The Committees of Correspondence advocates socialism and has defended Castro's Communist Cuba.

Out and out endorsement

Agence France-Presse made one erroneous statement in its coverage of the U.S. Communist Party headquarters: "There is no communist running for the White House and the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama."

Romerstein begs to differ on the last point, citing Joelle Fishman, a high-ranking Communist Party official and spokeswoman. In an article in the Communist People's Weekly World, Fishman wrote that "[l]eft and progressive voters will push for a stronger break from corporate control," and that "[a] landslide vote that is organized to stay in motion after the elections can challenge the demands that Wall Street and military interests will make on the new administration. Obama has shown he is ready to listen."

Why communists (with or without the capital "C") like Obama

Not only is Barack Obama "ready to listen" to the siren call of Marxism, he and his minions have already employed Stalinist tactics to shut up anyone who has the goods on the candidate.

A case in point is that of Stanley Kurtz, whose investigations of Barack Obama have been publicized by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) here in Washington.

Kurtz had to overcome multiple legal and tactical stonewalling thrown in his path by the Obama campaign, which tried to block his access to very telling documents housed in Chicago's Richard J. Daley Library. Once he overcame those barriers, the researcher found a goldmine of information detailing the Illinois senator's close collaboration with Ayers when they worked together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

(BTW — Obama, when questioned about his and Bill Ayers' connections with CAC, disingenuously replies that the late Walter Annenberg — founder of CAC — was a friend of Ronald Reagan's. So what? Not only the Annenberg group, but the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, are prime examples of mischief wrought by those who succeeded them and who ultimately steered the philanthropies in political directions never intended by the founders. More recently, some founders of philanthropic causes have shut them down prior to their deaths, lest they be misused after they're gone.)

Poisoning the minds of the kids

The intended purpose of the CAC program (to the tune of over $100 million) was to reform Chicago schools.

Kurtz found solid evidence that Obama and Ayers had worked as a team to steer that bounteous funding instead to involving the kids and their parents with hate America radicalism. Ayers defined himself as a radical "small 'c' communist."

Applications to advance kids' knowledge in math and science were turned down. Instead the emphasis was on such subjects as Afrocentricity and bilingualism. Money was steered to Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to his overall political agenda.

Acorn again

Some of the money — over $200,000 — went to ACORN operations, now hip deep in charges of trying to steal this year's election and under investigation for conspiracy to commit voter fraud in at least a dozen states.

The Obama campaign denies having more recently shifted $800,000 to ACORN. But investigators have uncovered the incontrovertible evidence.

ACORN — let it not be forgotten — played a leading role in the housing credit collapse — having strong-armed banks into making bad loans to people who were unable to repay them.

Inquiring minds want to know

These and other interesting discoveries by Kurtz caught the attention of the producers of the Milt Rosenberg Show on Chicago's WGN-Radio. So they invited Stanley Kurtz to appear on the call-in program in late August.

Of course, in keeping with the program's policy, its producers also invited the Obama campaign to appear on the program with Kurtz and refute the charges. If the Obama campaign — headquartered right there in Chicago — had nothing to hide, its people would have dispatched someone to take a very short walk to the studio to participate. But do you think the Obama people would accept that? No way.

The Stalinist strong arm

Instead, they sent out "alert" e-mails to their supporters, complaining that a "hatchet man" and "slimy smear merchant" was about to drop a bomb on their hero, and urged them to bombard the station with telephoned demands that the interview be canceled. The minions followed through on that, demanding Kurtz be barred from the airwaves.

When Rosenberg did not heed the threats from the Obama Politburo, the campaign jammed the phone lines so that after the host had interviewed his guest and invited calls from listeners, they got nearly 90 minutes of angry demands that the conversation be ended. The callers did not even seem to understand the issues — instead coming up with such sweeping demands as "We just want it to stop" and "Everything he [Kurtz] said was dishonest." Not until the very last part of show were genuine unprogrammed listeners able to get through with some relevant questions.

Back to square one

This experience is but one example of the Stalinist tactics used by operatives for the Obama campaign to try to shut up its critics. If they will resort to the jack boot before the election, one can imagine what they'll do once they actually gain power.

"Our time has come," crowed the spokesman for the Communist Party USA. So it would seem.


Union pressure silences ACORN whistleblower

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

It’s been an exciting presidential campaign.

A rookie United States Senator with no military experience, no service in the Peace Corps or Vista, no executive governmental experience and no major legislative accomplishment (Obama) ran on "the fierce urgency of now," hope and change and beat a former two term First Lady of the United States and a re-elected United States Senator (Clinton) for the 2008 Democrat presidential election.

But after the national conventions, the Republican ticket (McCain-Palin) took the lead in the polls.

Then the financial crisis reversed that and again McCain’s presidential aspirations were pronounced dead by many.

It would take three strikes to strike out Obama under the circumstances.

There have been two: (1) Obama came to Joe the Plumber’s neighborhood and ad libbed a response that revealed where he comes from—an admission that he wants to use tax policy to redistribute, or spread, the wealth, and (2) Obama’s running mate (Biden) assured the world that if Obama became president, there would be a generated crisis within six months.

Americans aren’t socialists and Americans don’t want a president who will invite generated crises.

But with much of the mainstream media in the tank for Obama, a third strike is needed.

Say, an ACORN whistleblower who will not only expose ACORN, but ACORN’s ties to Obama and the Obama campaign.

I posted an article titled "Blame Obama’s ACORN for the Financial Crisis' at the end of September and followed up with more articles on Obama and ACORN.

Enter ACORN whistleblower, from Stage Left.

This person had read articles of mine on ACORN and Obama at www.webcommentary.com, set up an email account under an alias and emailed me this message on October 7, 2008: "I worked at Project Vote and ACORN for years and can provide inside information on the connections with Obama and FEC violations, IRS 501 (c)3 violations and the threats and intimidation that ACORN has used to keep me quiet. I am willing to submit to a polygraph and turn over Obama's 2nd quarter donor list with was obtained by Project Vote Development Director Karyn Gillette directly from the Obama Campaign. I also have a DNC list that was forwarded to Project Vote along with donor lists for Kerry and Clinton."

The idea that ACORN really is an arm of the Democrat Party and the Obama campaign was far from inconceivable to me, but was this a hoax or for real?

I immediately emailed back:

"I'm paying attention and looking forward to checking any illuminating material.

"What did Project Vote do with the lists?

"Please identify yourself and provide contact info and proof of your Project Vote and ACORN history. If you have a resume, please send me a copy.

"Please tell me specifically what you can prove as to Obama that the voters should know."

The next day, the person responded:

"I am a little nervous about sending you my resume. I have been black listed by ACORN, fired from my new job for bogus reasons and threatened daily. I turned to you because with whistle blowers, sometimes the media is the best protection. I am not sure how you would protect your sources.

"Project Vote used the list in violation of FEC rules for fundraising. Obama is in very deep with ACORN and Project Vote and I have knowledge of meetings between the campaign and Senior ACORN members."

I immediately responded:

"Thanks for emailing me again.

"I was worrying that you had set up a gmail account to pose as a legitimate source and trap me into posting bogus info.

"I was fooled into posting the substance of a bogus email once and it's not something I intend to have happen again.

"Apparently your name is in your email, so you don't ordinarily hide, which is encouraging to me.

"Here's my contact info….

"If you haven't googled me, please do."

The person replied:

"David is not my real name, just my alias. I am looking for help and did not know how else to contact you. I did google you and I was happy to see that you are a lawyer. I do have a lot of internal docs for ACORN and Project Vote. I took a call from the Obama campaign while working there and was privy to a meeting where information between the two camps was discussed. I was told by PV that we were working with them and that I was to de-dupe the Obama 2nd Quarter list and get to work contacting donors. We also received help from the DNC, Clinton and Kerry (in 2004). I will take a polygraph and turn over what I have. I am in DC. Obama's camp was contacted by the NYT about the documents and they claim that PV got it online from published document and more questions led to a screaming match between the reporter and the campaign. Two days after that PV began contacting old references and friends in an effort to discredit me. That's why I agreed to the polygraph because I am not lying, they are."

I focused on this part—"Project Vote used the list in violation of FEC rules for fundraising. Obama is in very deep with ACORN and Project Vote and I have knowledge of meetings between the campaign and Senior ACORN members"—and emailed, "The sooner this is demonstrated, the better. If Obama wins, he will appoint the next United States Attorney General."

But I lacked confirmation, so I also emailed:

"I think you are sincere and your information is newsworthy. As an anonymous person with an Internet alias, I can't check you out. You would have to contact me. Time is short. Please call me tonight."

Minutes later, I read this: "Anita MonCrief. Google me. Please do not use my name with anyone until we connect. I also emailed Michelle Malkin but she scares me."

I responded: "I googled that name and hope it's the real you. If it is, you should have plenty to prove that should be publicized. Please call me at or after 9 PM: 631-757-9452. I will be home by then and free to talk."

Anita emailed: "I am really terrified. When I say threats and intimidation, I am not kidding. We (my 2 year old) are moving and I have had union pressure to make me be quiet. I am on linked in. If you still have doubts add me and I will confirm you."

I checked Linked In and then emailed:

”One, call me at or after 9 PM.

“Two, and more importantly, email Martha.J. Raddatz@abc.news.com. As you probably know, Martha is ABC's Chief White House correspondent. You can google her if you are unsure about her. I think you'd be more comfortable with her that Laura Ingraham or Stuart Taylor, others to whom I might have referred you. I chose based on what I thought would be best for you. I have NOT told Martha your name, since you wanted it treated confidentially, but I got her permission to have my ‘source’ email her and her commitment to deal with you totally off the record if that is what you want. Use you alias email account first, but you have documents for Martha to examine, so the two of you are likely to get together and the more you reveal, the more credible you will be. Andthe sooner, the better.”

Anita’s response was to mail me her resume.

It shows that Anita is a University of Alabama graduate who focused on political science and history and won a University of Alabama faculty and staff award for academic excellence.

It shows that in 2002, she interned in Washington, D.C. with the American Bar Association Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative as a legislative assistance and research program intern early in 2002.

It shows that later that year Anita served as an election observer with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in which capacity she assessed the conduct of the election in the context of domestic legislation and international standards and practices, interviewed members of local election commissions and executive bodies regarding the conduct of the election and documented human rights abuses, media-related incidents and vote fraud during and after the campaign period.

No wonder ACORN recruited Anita!

The resume shows that Anita simultaneously joined ACORN and Project Vote in Washington, D.C. in October 2005. With ACORN, she was a strategic writing, research and design consultant. With Project Vote, she was a development associate. She designed ACORN’s 2005, 2006 and 2007 political operations year end PowerPoint presentations.

Anita did not call at 9 PM that night, but she called later that night and provided many documents.

It had to be very hard for a “progressive” who supported Obama to come forward.

But before Anita emailed Michelle Malkin and me, she had been working with New York Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom, but what ended up published as Ms. Strom’s ACORN articles were so “watered down” that Anita decided to turn elsewhere.

Wisely so.

Yesterday, Anita advised me, Ms. Strom apologetically canceled a meeting for today and explained that New York Times policy was not to publish what might be a game changing article this close to the election.

I think that should be in a footnote to The Times’ “All the news that’s fit to print” motto.

Joe the Plumber was attacked to distract from Obama’s revealing answer to his respectful and relevant question about taxes.

If Anita is accused of being a racist, I invite anyone who thinks it’s true to google her and especially to check her art posted online, with some text, before this year.

To the list of Obama's "A" problems (Alinsky, Ayers, ACORN), add Anita.

- Michael J. Gaynor


Probe ACORN, Obama

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Obama's apologists put lipstick on union-backed fraud pig

Birds of a feather flock together. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Sure, these are clichs, but there's truth in them.

The Association of Community Organizers For Reform Now (ACORN) has been linked to rampant voter registration fraud across the nation. This organization is the one with close ties to Barack Obama. ACORN is the organization where Obama worked and trained leaders as a "community organizer."

In the Cleveland area, the Cuyahoga County Elections Board is investigating ACORN, because several witnesses came forward saying ACORN hounded them to register to vote. One person registered 72 times.

An Aug. 22 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review analysis of the Obama Federal Election Commission report indicates that Citizen Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, had been paid over $832,500 by the Obama campaign for "get out the vote" projects from February to May. In July of 2007, felony charges were filed against seven ACORN executives, charging them with perpetrating voter fraud.

His supporters and associates seem willing to stoop to whatever measures to get him elected president. In Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri, 11 ACORN workers were indicted on voter registration fraud charges, involving more than 35,000 false registrations. AP reports that ACORN claims to have registered 1.3 million people nationwide for the Nov. 4 election and has encountered even more complaints in New Mexico, Michigan and North Carolina. I don't know about you, but this concerns me. I simply do not trust Barack Obama's credibility and cannot see him fit to be president of the United States.

- Cindy Hill, Hagerstown


Editorial: Ohio Gov. wrong about ACORN

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Cover-up termed 'little more than a political ploy'

Virtually everything that is said by any politician during the weeks leading up to an important election is, well, political. It is to be expected - but not always accepted.

During a campaign stop on behalf of Sen. Barack Obama last week, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland downplayed reports of voter registration fraud involving ACORN - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Strickland called allegations against ACORN "overblown and exaggerated."

That isn't accurate - and Strickland knows it. Allegations that ACORN submitted voter registration forms that contained false information have been made in at least a dozen states. Some of the most serious reports have been received in Ohio. One man in Cleveland admitted that he had submitted more than 70 fraudulent registration forms, through ACORN operatives.

But ACORN is an ultra-liberal organization. It supports Obama for president, and so does Strickland.

While in Martins Ferry on Saturday, the governor said allegations against ACORN are "little more than a political ploy" by supporters of Republican Sen. John McCain, who is running for president against Obama.

What Strickland didn't say is that ACORN has made no secret of the fact that its voter registration drive targets people more likely to vote for Obama than for McCain. The McCain campaign has solid grounds on which to question ACORN's activities - and authorities in several states have uncovered evidence of improprieties by the organization.

The impact of fraudulent voter registration forms submitted through ACORN is difficult to gauge, of course. But questions about its activities are legitimate. Strickland is doing the public a disservice by attempting to dismiss the issue. In fact, the governor's own comments clearly are, well, "little more than a political ploy."


Congress asks Bush to stem ACORN

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Dem-friendly lame duck Prez likely to ignore House GOP stunt

House Republican leader John Boehner on Wednesday urged President Bush to block all federal funds to a grass-roots community group that has been accused of voter registration fraud.

"It is evident that ACORN is incapable of using federal funds in a manner that is consistent with the law," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote Bush, saying that funds should be blocked until all federal investigations into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now are completed.

ACORN, a group that has led liberal causes since it was formed in 1970, this year hired more than 13,000 part-time workers to sign up voters in minority and poor neighborhoods in 21 states. Some of the 1.3 million registration cards submitted to local election officials, using the names of cartoon characters or pro football players, were obviously phony, spurring GOP charges of widespread misconduct.

ACORN has said it was its own quality-control workers who first noticed problem registration cards, flagged them and submitted them to local election officials in every state that is now investigating them.

To commit fraud, a person would have to show up on Election Day with identification bearing the fake name.

Local law enforcement agencies in about a dozen states are investigating fake registrations submitted by ACORN workers and the FBI is reviewing those cases.

Boehner said his office had determined that ACORN had received more than $31 million in direct federal funding since 1998. He said the group had likely received far more indirectly through federal block grants to states and localities. "Immediate action is necessary to ensure that no additional tax dollars are directed to ACORN while it is under investigation," he wrote Bush.

Boehner said he and other Republicans were also asking the Justice Department to investigate ACORN's connections to the home mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying ACORN "appears to have played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that led to the current financial meltdown."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has asked if ACORN, which he accused of perpetuating voter registration fraud, was "destroying the fabric of democracy." ACORN and other advocacy groups have suggested that Republicans are exaggerating the issue to keep the underprivileged, who tend to vote Democratic, from casting ballots.

Related Posts with Thumbnails