Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Get set to get rammed!

September 29, 2009

No, I’m not talking ancient naval warfare, or homosexual proclivities either. Although some may believe that what is about to happen in the Senate is in fact akin to the latter for some of the poor souls in various Graybar Hotels.

In broader terms, the big task for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to get 60 votes in the Senate in order to block a Republican filibuster. But Reid could also implement a legislative option known as reconciliation, which would only require 51 senators.

By that method the gangsters in the Senate can get passed the opposition, and get your butt in their sling. Such shenanigans, akin to Harry Reid posing as a Second Amendment supporter in Nevada are pure dirty politics that are designed to further the political agenda of elitist, not supportive of what you, the American people want, need, or should have foisted upon them. Read about that in it’s entirety HERE.

For my part I am looking forward to “Judgment Day” 2010. They big government “Better than Thou” type’s are in for yet another wake up call. Hopefully followed by  a complete Tar & Feathering of the programs that they have forced upon this nation.

Some people just never learn. It’s a fact friends. Hence;

“‘Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.’ I’m not sure if this is another example of the left’s wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they’re seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN. According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: ‘In 1994, Democrats’ dysfunction over fulfilling a new president’s campaign promise contributed to the party’s loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress.’ That’s not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn’t want it. … But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times’ own coverage of the 1994 congressional races. Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the ‘Contract With America,’ which, according to the Times, promised ‘tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment.’ Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were ‘unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots.’ These claims were immediately followed by … oh, what was that word again? Now I remember … LANDSLIDE!” –columnist Ann Coulter

So? What should a hard left Democrat be doing in these trying times in preparation for what awaits them? Invest of course!


Obamonomics 101

September 26, 2009

I was no big fan of George Bush, but this takes the cake!

It was only four years ago that Democrats stopped George W. Bush’s plan to reform Social Security (a case in which the word “reform” actually did mean making it better). At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claimed, “Social Security, if we don’t do anything, [is] safe for approximately the next 50 years.” But time flies when you’re spending other people’s money. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that Social Security, for the first time since 1983, will have a cash deficit next year, though even that assumes overly optimistic payroll growth. By 2016, it will be running permanent deficits.

That being said, according to CNS News, “President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year — 2010 — more than the Bush administration spent on [the] war in Iraq from the first ‘shock and awe’ attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.” During the campaign, of course, Obama used the federal debt as a bludgeoning tool against his opponent. “Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” Obama warned in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.” The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl estimates, “President Obama’s budget will likely produce $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years — nearly $4 trillion more than forecast.” That’s about 10 times Bush’s last deficit.

Obama also complained about the cost of Iraq — “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war” — but this doesn’t compute either. As another report from The Heritage Foundation indicates, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.” Witness liberal “compassion.”

SOURCE

The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress

September 26, 2009

Here we go yet again. Figure it out politicos, the American people are against this.

NumbersUSA
310 Sixth Street, SE  Washington, DC 20003  (202) 543-1341  http://www.numbersusa.com
The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress
(S. 729 and H.R. 1751*)
In-State Tuition for Future Illegal Aliens
• The bills retroactively repeal the federal ban on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, thus
nullifying the lawsuits already decided in favor of the federal ban, but currently under
appeal.
The Amnesty
• To qualify for lawful permanent resident status, an applicant must be inadmissible or
deportable and must:
• Have been physically present in the US for the five years preceding the date of enactment
(the bill does not specify how aliens are to prove this, or even whether they have to prove
it);
• Have been under the age of 16 upon entry into the US;
• Be a “person of good moral character,” but only AFTER the application is filed;
• Not have been convicted of an aggravated felony or more than two misdemeanors (though
being charged with such crimes is fine);
• Not be a known terrorist or national security risk;
• Not be a known/convicted smuggler or human trafficker (all other immigration violations
are fine, and this one can be waived for humanitarian or family unity purposes);
• Not have abducted a child and taken the child to a different country (in the Senate bill only);
and
• At the time of filing an application, have been admitted to an institution of higher
education, or have a high school diploma or a GED.
* The House and Senate versions of the DREAM Act are almost identical, with four important
exceptions:
 H.R. 1751 would allow illegal aliens of any age over five (since they have to have been present
in the United States for five years) to apply for amnesty, while S. 729 requires applicants to be
under the age of 35.
 H.R. 1751 does not disqualify from amnesty international child abductors or aliens who have
received final orders of removal or exclusion, while S. 729 does.
 H.R. 1751 limits the availability of waivers of the requirements for amnesty to cases of “extreme
hardship,” while S. 729 makes waivers available for humanitarian and family unity purposes, as
well as for the “public interest.”
 S. 729 authorizes fines and up to five years in prison for “willfully and knowingly” falsifying or lying
on an amnesty application; H.R. 1751 includes no such penalties.
NumbersUSA 2
The Senate version also requires that applicants:
• Have never received a final order of removal or exclusion unless the alien successfully
played the legal system and found a way to remain in the US under color of law, or the
final order was issued before the alien turned 16; and
• Be under 35 years of age as of the date of enactment.
• Neither bill includes a requirement that an amnesty applicant produce either
documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria listed
above.
• There are no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and
they cannot be counted against any existing immigration cap.
• There is no end date on the application period, so there is nothing to stop illegal aliens who
enter the country in the future from applying if they are willing to lie about when they
entered.
• No alien who files an amnesty application may be removed from the United States before
the application is adjudicated completely. There are no exceptions to this, so as long as an alien
files an amnesty application before he flies a plane into the World Trade Center or goes on a killing
spree in the local mall, he cannot be removed from the country until USCIS (hopefully) denies his
application and he has exhausted all appeals.
“Conditional” Permanent Residence
• Aliens granted amnesty would be given conditional permanent resident status for six
years. This conditional status could only be terminated if DHS determines that the alien:
• Is no longer a person of good moral character;
• Has been convicted of an aggravated felony or three or more misdemeanors;
• Is a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
• Has become a public charge (there are no regulations defining this term in immigration
law, so this provision is not currently enforceable); or
• Received a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge from the military.
• Should an alien’s conditional status be terminated, the alien would return to whatever
immigration status he or she had prior to getting amnesty. This means the alien would
have to be put through removal proceedings and exhaust all available appeals before being
removed, even though the alien admitted to being inadmissible or deportable in the
application for amnesty.
The Path to Citizenship
• When the amnestied aliens complete their six years of conditional permanent resident
status, they can petition USCIS to have the conditions removed and become regular lawful
permanent residents. The petition may be filed any time within the six months leading up
to, or the two years following, the end of the six-year period. Each amnestied alien must
indicate in the petition that he or she:
• Has demonstrated good moral character since filing for amnesty;
• Has not been convicted of disqualifying crimes;
• Is not a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
NumbersUSA 3
• Has not been absent from the US for more than 365 days during the six years (or he/she
can explain such absence and why it doesn’t indicate abandonment of US residence); and
• Has completed at least ONE of the following:
• A degree from a US institution of higher education or at least two years toward such a
degree; or
• At least two years of military service and, if discharged, was honorably discharged.
• For those aliens who have not completed two years of college or service in the military
during this six-year period, DHS may waive this requirement and remove their conditional
status if the alien:
• Satisfies the other requirements;
• Demonstrates “compelling circumstances for the inability to meet the last requirement; and
• Demonstrates that his/her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or lawful
permanent resident.
• Alternatively, upon “a showing of good cause,” DHS may extend the six-year period of
conditional status to give the alien more time to complete one of these requirements.
• While amnestied aliens must successfully petition to have their conditional status removed
before they may naturalize, their six years of conditional residence counts toward the
naturalization requirement. Thus, these aliens will be able to apply for naturalization
immediately upon the removal of conditional status.
• Since conditional permanent resident status can only be terminated for one of the reasons
in the section above, and since neither bill includes either a requirement that amnestied
aliens petition to have their conditional status removed or a provision that terminates the
legal status of aliens who do not seek to have the conditions removed, there is nothing to
prevent an alien from simply remaining in conditional status permanently. This would be
especially helpful to aliens who would not meet the criteria for removal of the conditions.
The only major benefit they would be denied would be the opportunity to naturalize.
Handling the Additional Workload
• USCIS would bear the brunt of the massive amnesty workload this bill would generate.
The bill’s authors undoubtedly are aware that USCIS announced a few years ago its
successful completion of the Backlog Elimination Program, which was instituted before
DHS was even created, to address the rapidly growing backlog of immigration benefits
applications processed by USCIS. USCIS reported that the backlog had reached a high of
almost four million applications by January, 2004. Then-USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
announced on September 5, 2006, that the backlog had been reduced to 140,000. (Of course,
most of that reduction was achieved by redefining the word “backlog,” and the rest was
the result of shortcuts on security checks.) The bill’s authors also are undoubtedly aware of
the fact that USCIS recently raised immigration fees by unprecedented amounts so that it
would have the resources to stay current on applications. Perhaps the bill’s authors are
even aware of the fact that USCIS reports that it had 3.2 million applications pending as of
January, 2009, despite the alleged success of the Backlog Elimination Program and the fee
hikes.
• This could explain why the bill gives exclusive jurisdiction to DHS (meaning USCIS) to
grant or deny amnesty applications, except where an alien is put in removal proceedings
either before or after filing an amnesty application. In these cases, the Attorney General
NumbersUSA 4
would have exclusive jurisdiction. While this likely would result in lawsuits alleging
disparate treatment of applications by the two agencies, at least is will spread the workload
around a bit, assuming there are still some enforcement efforts that result in illegal aliens
being placed in removal proceedings.
• The Attorney General also would be required to stay removal proceedings for all illegal
aliens who appear to meet the requirements for amnesty, are at least 12 years old, and are
enrolled full time in school.
Americans Need Not Apply
• The good news for illegal alien students is that if their removal proceedings are stayed,
they are automatically authorized to work in the US, regardless of whether they apply for
and are granted amnesty. This is in addition to all the illegal aliens who are actually
granted amnesty and automatically given work authorization with their conditional
permanent resident status.
Law Enforcement Provisions
• Under the Senate bill, “willfully and knowingly” lying on an amnesty application is
punishable by a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
• None of the information provided by illegal aliens in their applications may be used for
any purpose except the adjudication of the application, with two exceptions:
• The AG or DHS must provide such information if a law enforcement agency is
investigating or prosecuting a criminal or terrorism-related offense that would make an alien
inadmissible, and such agency requests the information in writing; and
• Coroners attempting to identify the dead are the only others granted access to the
information.
Moving to the Front of the Line
• Both bills require USCIS to adjudicate all amnesty applications on “an expedited basis” but
prohibit the agency from requiring a higher fee from amnesty applicants for such
expedited processing. This means that every illegal alien who applies for amnesty would
move to the front of the line, ahead of the millions of people who are in line to come to the
United States the right way.
Bonus Reward for Illegal Students
• Amnesty beneficiaries would be eligible for certain student loans and federal work-study
programs.
Assessing the Damage
• Within seven years after enactment, the GAO would be required to submit to Congress a
report on the number of aliens amnestied, the breakdown of approvals versus denials, and
the number whose conditional status had been removed.

SOURCE

Fire and Fury in the Rocky Mountain Empire?

September 24, 2009

I once listened to a somewhat famous politician call the Rocky Mountain West an Empire. He cited, among other things, fierce independence and an outright distrust of Government.

“Leave us well alone!” was the title of a fellow student that was in a Political Science course that I took, and yes, her thesis was on western politics as opposed to far western, as in West Coast, and Eastern, as in the eastern states that make up New England. Is it just regional pride? Possibly, but, I have another hypothesis.

Before the United States was founded a group of men came west. Those men are generally referred to as “The Mountain Men.” Most were, shall we say “social outcasts?” They came from places like Georgia, and Alabama, and notably Tennessee and Kentucky. They too were a fiercely independent group of men. They fought with, and often joined Native American tribes taking wives, and eking out a living in a very unforgiving place, and time in history. They were rebels simple, and pure. Some time later there was “The War of Northern Aggression.” Which was followed by a great migration of people to Oregon, Washington, and California. Most of those people came from places such as New England. Others came, and stayed, and tamed the harsh environment. Those people,for the most part, were from the Confederation, and they brought with them the same streak of courage and independence that the Mountain Men had brought. Texan’s settled Montana. The Mormon’s sought freedom in Utah, and so on. The underlying theme being a quest for freedom and liberty. In that most free of earthy nations.

Today while surfing the net I came across an essay worthy of classical journalism. The kind that is just not seen these days. It is indeed a long read. As tomes should be! Read it at…

Dems lose footing in the Rocky Mountain West

Ammunition Salesman of the year award!

September 24, 2009

As noted here on this blog, and picked up as a cliche across the internet and even a few MSM outlets Barack Obama is Gun Salesman of the year. Now, we are happy to tag him as “Ammunition Salesman of the Year” as well. For all the destruction of the American economy that he has heaped onto this nation there are two portions of the economy that are doing quite well. Firearms sales, and ammunition! Now, that is economic stimulus that really has meaning!

NEW ORLEANS — Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can’t keep up with the nation’s demand for ammunition.

Shooting ranges, gun dealers and bullet manufacturers say they have never seen such shortages. Bullets, especially for handguns, have been scarce for months because gun enthusiasts are stocking up on ammo, in part because they fear President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass antigun legislation – even though nothing specific has been proposed and the president last month signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.

Full Story

Czar Wars: FCC promotes racism

September 23, 2009

Remember, you heard it here that the new FCC Comisar was, and is, a clear and present threat to the American way of life. Not only does he have a completely warped understanding of the First Amendment he is solidly in the left’s corner when it comes to racism. Only whites can be racist…At least that is what his ilk appear to believe.

Mark Lloyd is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar. And he has in a recently discovered bit of archive audio goodness detailed his rather disturbing perspective on race, power and the American system.

(Audio located below the fold, courtesy of Breitbart.tv and Naked Emperor News)

This is of course in addition to Lloyd’s rather disturbing perspective on the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

And Lloyd’s rather disturbing perspective on Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez’s “incredible…democratic revolution.” To go with Lloyd’s bizarre admiration for the thuggishly fascistic manner in which “Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

We have said repeatedly that Lloyd is a man myopically focused on race. What is revealed here is more than just that. Listening to excerpts of his offerings at a May 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice reveals a man that finds great fault with our nation’s power structure – as he defines and sees it. And in his racially-warped, finite pie worldview, too many white people sit alone in the too few spots atop the heap. They’re “good white people,” mind you, but …

SOURCE

The Dog and the bone: obama…

September 23, 2009

“Many years ago, as a small child, I was told one of those old-fashioned fables for children. It was about a dog with a bone in his mouth, who was walking on a log across a stream. The dog looked down into the water and saw his reflection. He thought it was another dog with a bone in his mouth — and it seemed to him that the other dog’s bone was bigger than his. He decided that he was going to take the other dog’s bone away and opened his mouth to attack. The result was that his own bone fell into the water and was lost. At the time, I didn’t like that story and wished they hadn’t told it to me. But the passing years and decades have made me realize how important that story was, because it was not really about dogs but about people. Today we are living in a time when the President of the United States is telling us that he is going to help us take that other dog’s bone away — and the end result is likely to be very much like what it was in that children’s fable. Whether we are supposed to take that bone away from the doctors, the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies or the insurance companies, the net result is likely to be the same — most of us will end up with worse medical care than we have available today. We will have opened our mouth and dropped a very big bone into the water.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“The dilemma … is between the democratic process of the market in which every individual has his share and the exclusive rule of a dictatorial body. Whatever people do in the market economy is the execution of their own plans. In this sense every human action means planning. What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner’s own plan for the plans of his fellowmen. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.” –Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

“As the president’s approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label ‘racist’ could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won’t work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority. Racism has always been a one-way street for the Left. … According to liberal doctrine, black people can never be racist because they are members of a victim class created by white liberals as a kind of modern plantation to keep blacks voting for liberal Democrats. … The president’s race would be a factor only if Americans shied away from criticizing him because of it. That they are not is a triumph of Martin Luther King Jr.’s hope that people be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Some opinion polls show that Obama’s character is being judged and found wanting by a rapidly growing number of Americans, at least a small percentage of whom are black. With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, including significantly wide margins in Congress, isn’t there a better explanation than racism for why the president is having difficulty with some of his proposals? … There is a better explanation for the growing opposition to President Obama. It has less to do with his ethnicity than it does his credibility. Character, after all, is colorless.” –columnist Cal Thomas

SOURCE

Income Redistribution: A Tale of Two Americas

September 18, 2009

We in our humble shop have discovered that John Edwards was right after all: There are two Americas. However, we don’t believe this story was quite what he had in mind.

An analysis by Chris Edwards (no relation to the former senator) of the Cato Institute found that federal civilian employees are a group not exactly hit hard by the recession. They now have an average compensation package (wages plus benefits) that doubles the average compensation package found in the private sector. Furthermore, it’s an overall disparity that’s increased over the last eight years.

In relating his findings, Edwards notes, “The result [of a lack of fiscal restraint during the Bush administration] has been an increasingly overpaid elite of government workers, who are insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector.” While federal employees tend to complain about their pay scale — which is “only” about 60 percent higher than the private sector’s — it’s telling that they quit their jobs much less often than do those in the private sector. Obviously few are forced out because the federal government never shrinks in size, and, as the data show, federal employees are loath to give up their gold-plated benefit packages.

It’s a trend that will only increase with the proclivity of Barack Obama to expand the highly unionized government workforce and create additional bureaucracy. After all, someone has to push pencils for the dozens of czars Obama has appointed to supplement the already burgeoning workforce in place under those Cabinet department heads.

However, there is a chance this difference may be erased soon. With the proposed addition of thousands more workers to referee cap-n-tax and ration our health care, our growing government may finally leave no private sector jobs to be compared. That seems to be the desired result of this administration’s policies.

SOURCE

Guns, Crime and Prison Population

September 18, 2009

According to new data released by the FBI, violent crime in America continued its downward trend in 2008, proving once again that criminals — not more guns — are the problem. While murder, manslaughter and rape have all been on the decline since an all-time high in the early ’90s, killings dropped 3.9 percent between 2007 and 2008 alone, even with millions of guns purchased during that time — especially those scary “assault rifles” that give liberals such heartburn. “These are rates we haven’t seen since the 1960’s, even though the change from year to year has been rather small,” said Alfred Blumstein, a criminal justice professor at Carnegie-Mellon University.

Of course, despite the drop in crime (or the fact that none of these crimes even require a gun), liberals continue to push for stricter gun control laws in the interests of our “safety,” and the Leftmedia (expectantly) points out that crime usually rises during recessions and that the bulk of this data was gathered before the height of the economic crisis.

While government is trying to deprive us of our Second Amendment rights, courts are advancing the rights of criminals. When presented with a class-action suit brought by California inmates, a three-judge district court panel found that prison overcrowding is robbing them of their constitutional rights and decided to free 46,000 criminals in order to make incarceration more comfortable. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay on the ruling, arguing that the safety of Californians would be at risk if the prisoners are released, but the Supremes refused.

So, if the Left has its way, we should all turn in our firearms and pray that Big Brother will protect us from the thousands of newly released criminals prowling the streets. Another attempt to pay lip service to the Constitution while trampling it.

SOURCE

ACORN — A Tough Nut to Crack

September 18, 2009

ACORN: Organizing the community one prostitute at a timeACORN — A Tough Nut to Crack

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as “the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people.” Its mission is typical leftist activism — anything from advocating for a higher minimum wage and the type of home loans that precipitated the housing crisis to ballot initiatives and voter registration. We know that ACORN has also submitted fraudulent voter registration forms filled out by “Mickey Mouse” and other fictional characters. But, hey, “get out the vote” knows no bounds. Also, Barack Obama worked alongside ACORN during his own “community organizing” days.

This week, news broke that the Census Bureau, which had planned to partner with ACORN in next year’s census, severed all ties with the organization. Then the U.S. House and Senate each voted to deny the group access to further federal housing funds (though who knows what will happen in Conference Committee). Even the Obama White House “distanced” itself from this taxpayer-funded organization.

So why all the fuss? If inquiring minds read only The New York Times, they might be in the same blissfully ignorant boat as ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, who, when asked about the ACORN scandal, claimed, “I don’t even know about it.”

The story began when two young conservative activists, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking advice on obtaining a loan for a home to use as a brothel, evading income tax on the young woman’s income and claiming as dependents underage El Salvadoran girls they wanted to employ. In five different ACORN offices (Baltimore, DC, New York, and San Diego and San Bernardino, California), workers bit on the story, hooker, line and sinker, freely giving pointers without so much as batting an eye on how to get illegal loans and evade taxes. The videos are posted on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. None showed concern for the obvious implication of child abuse.

The Times, however, with the motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” didn’t find anything fit to print until days later, and then only with the laughable headline, “Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn.” As Charlie Gibson condescended, “[M]aybe this is just one you leave to the cables.”

The truly unfortunate thing is that ACORN has received more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars since 1994 and was set to receive $8.5 billion in “stimulus” cash. Most Democrats are feverishly turning off the funding spigot before this scandal drags their own political skeletons out of the closet. For the record, however, seven senators voted to continue funding this criminal enterprise, and, not surprisingly, they’re all Democrats: Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Dick Durbin (IL), Roland Burris (IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and self-proclaimed socialist independent Bernie Sanders (VT). In addition, 75 (yes, seventy-five) House Democrats voted to continue throwing our money at the group. Space doesn’t permit us to list the names of these disgraceful twits, but BigGovernment.com has them for all to see.

One of the ACORN workers did tell O’Keefe, “Honesty is not going to get you the house.” Perhaps she meant “House” with a capital “H.” In any case, O’Keefe and Giles deserve a medal.

On Cross-Examination

“Good thing I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read the Politico headline about Team Obama trying to run away from ACORN: ‘W.H. distances from activist group.’ Choking. Up. With. Laughter. Barack Obama can no more disown ACORN than he could disown his own shadow. He IS ACORN. And ACORN is him. The ‘accountability’ that White House flack Robert Gibbs says they take ‘extremely seriously’ doesn’t extend to Team Obama itself — and the accountability they have evaded for pouring more than $800,000 into an ACORN front group for campaign advance work that was mysteriously re-classified as ‘get-out-the-vote’ work. As for the ACORN ‘advisory committee’ that will ‘audit’ the group’s illicit activities, I repeat: Choking. Up. With. Laughter.” –columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

“The truth remains that thousands of New Yorkers who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations like Acorn for assistance.” –Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

But as Investor’s Business Daily argues, “The fact is that this ‘charitable organization’ helped precipitate the mortgage meltdown that shattered the economy. It was Acorn, under the cover of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), that intimidated banks through mob action into making risky loans in the name of ‘fairness’ to people who could not afford them. The tactics, taken straight from the pages of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ were used by Acorn as early as 1991, when it took over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.”

SOURCE