Shutdown “Gestapo Tactics” Help Make the Argument Against Obamacare

Sen. Mike Lee ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT. The Obama administration’s petty tyrannies during the first week of the government shutdown neatly illustrate the problem with giving politicians too much power–they’ll use it.

There is really no excuse for the president’s petty, spiteful actions this past week. At every turn, the president has gone out of his way to make the government shutdown as painful and disruptive as possible. The administration has left Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” website active while affirmatively making many others inaccessible. [Note that these other sites are still up, they’ve just redirected to shutdown pages. That means that there is no reduction in expense, as the site is still being paid for, only that it has been purposefully made unusable.]

The president has allowed the otherwise-closed National Mall to be used by his close union allies in SEIU for a political rally in favor of illegal immigration, while stiff-arming everyone else, including WWII veterans and other Honor Flight participants. And lest you think you might not be getting the straight story on that, Nancy Pelosi herself went out of her way to thank the president for making the Mall available for the lefty rally.

The president has also blatantly caused private residences and private businesses to be needlessly shut down, as my colleague Jeanine Martin has noted. Furloughed federal workers have been ordered not to work, even voluntarily, resulting in innumerable manufactured hardships, such as a forced shutdown of religious services on military bases.

Folks, the words arbitrary and capricious mean nothing if they don’t describe what the president and his people have been doing with federal power over the last week. But I can’t explain that nearly as well as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) did:

“The Obama Administration’s behavior during the first week of the shutdown has been the best argument against Obamacare anyone has ever made,” said Senator Lee.

“The American people do not want Obamacare, and they are demanding that Washington act to protect them from the harmful effects of this unfortunate law. The president’s response has been to ignore them, allow the government to shutdown, and then use his power to close national parks and monuments, stop paying veterans’ benefits, and cut off cancer research.

“This is exactly why we should not expand the government’s power over our health care choices. What power the government has, it will use – and misuse – to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing the American people along the way.

“The message behind the Administration’s shutdown bullying is the same message sent by his IRS’s abuses of political opponents: do what I say, or else. This is the abusive, partisan, unaccountable bureaucracy that, under Obamacare, will soon be running America’s health care system.

“President Obama is not just using the vast powers of his office as leverage against Republicans – he is abusing his powers as leverage against the American people.

“The scenes of World War II veterans being shut out of a monument built in their honor should be a bright red flag warning the American people what an out-of-control federal government is capable of. Each day brings a new and more vivid example of why it is critical that we not allow Washington to reach even further into our most personal and intimate decisions.

“We now see how determined the president is to expand the power of the federal government and his willingness to use that power to harm the country to get what he wants. Congress cannot allow this to stand and should continue to work to end the shutdown and protect the American people from Obamacare.”

Exactly so.

Cross-posted to TheBullElephant.com

Our Laws Are Perverse

The law in this country has been perverted. A human being needs to be safe in his person, he needs to be able to able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and he needs to be free.  Free to speak, to travel, to work, and to associate as he sees fit. Protecting these three elements is the proper purview of the law. All people have the right to use force to defend themselves from theft, assault and enslavement. When the law expands beyond the community’s protection of the individual’s rights, it becomes an instrument of plunder and oppression.

Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of perverting the law. The only difference is that in the ranks of the Republican Party are those who wish to reverse this trend. The Democrat Party seeks to further expand the role of government through even greater perversion of the law, with some statist Republicans going along as willing accomplices.

When the Law is used to abridge personal freedoms, as in the case of our current drug laws, the result is the rise of a black market and with it a criminal class.  The failed experiment in prohibition should have reversed this trend.  It has not.  Progressives, like Woodrow Wilson, pushed through a series of laws starting with the Harrison Act to curtail drug use.  This was the beginning of our 100-year odyssey in Federal social engineering.  Our abject failure in this arena is more than obvious; it is tragic.  Today close to 1.5M people are in the prison system because of possession charges.  Like alcohol prohibition, the only lasting impact is that the citizenry loses respect for all laws.

When the law is used to codify the plunder of one group at the expense of another, the result is not equality.  Three familiar forms under which this plunder will occur are crony capitalism, socialism, and communism.  In the first form, crony capitalism, a favored industry or company is handed a monopoly through the erection of tariffs against competition, or the industry is subsidized through the taxation of the general public.  Under communism, the state directly seizes all the means of production at every level and the end result is a planned economy.  The Great Leaps Forward of 1950’s China and the Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union are object lessons in the misery and death spawned by such state sponsored plunder of private property.  Socialism serves as the bridge from the statism of the Crony Capitalist to the statism of the Marxist.  State sanctioned plunder is a betrayal of the citizen and eventually leads back to the feudalism we witness today in places like North Korea.  Too-Big-to-Fail is but one of our steps down this path.

State sponsored plunder serves only to balkanize the nation.  Those whose property is plundered resent the beneficiaries of this wealth transfer.  Those who receive this plunder develop a festering resentment, as they justify this largess as their deserved recompense for the structural inequities of society.  The political class plays upon these resentments.  When plunder has been codified long enough, the citizens are reduced in stature from being freemen who elect public servants, to dependents of a political overlords patronage.

Republican Party statists seek to criminalize every vice and Democrats seek to make every virtue a requirement.  These impulses are perverse, for they employ the overwhelming force of the state to crush the free will of the individual.  A man has the right to ruin his health and turn his back on his neighbor.  A man has the right to be ignoble. The state becomes monstrous when it usurps the conscience of a man.  A people, if it is to remain free, must refrain from the base impulse of using the law to right past wrongs or use the law for social engineering; the result is always a spiral of violence, poverty, and reprisal.  The 20th century is a testament to this folly and the millions of graves are a rebuke to those who would play God, which is the ultimate perversion.

How conservatives view today’s political debates, Part I

Fmr. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hit the ball out of the park with this op-ed piece in the WSJ today.

There are so many good points, it’s hard to know where to begin.

As always, I would begin with the Constitution: Engrained in it is the “pursuit of happiness”, listed as one of the unalienable rights. I would define this pursuit as “Economic Freedom”, and argue that it is as important to our Republic as Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Press, etc.

Why?

We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

Yes, exactly Governor- We forgive people who say dumb things in the name of freedom of speech for everyone. Why don’t we forgive those who have the cajones to take a risk and fail?

This is precisely what is wrong (and, I would argue, fundamentally un-American) about the current Administration and its allies in Congress. They think it’s their duty to ensure outcomes- essentially, to outlaw risk. That is certainly been the underlying premise behind most of their legislation and regulations- from the Stimulus to Dodd-Frank to the EPA.

And what kind of leaders do we really need?

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand “Do something . . . anything.”

As Florida’s governor for eight years, I was asked to “do something” almost every day. Many times I resisted through vetoes but many times I succumbed. And I wasn’t alone. Mayors, county chairs, governors and presidents never think their laws will harm the free market. But cumulatively, they do, and we have now imperiled the right to rise.
Precisely. Too many politicians take a knee-jerk reaction thinking it’s their job to fix every problem. It’s not. The foundation of our country was people fixing their own problems.
 
So, what is our choice in 2012?

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.

Yes, this. 2012 is almost here. Game on.

“Hey! Where’s My Free Obama Care?”

That seems to be the question inundating insurance companies according to this article.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage.

. . .

“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.

I’m sure this lady is one of the people who was calling looking for a government handout.

I wonder if she still doesn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage.

MSNBC – “not a real news network”

From Jim Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot:

MSNBC Surrenders, Chooses Not to Cover Election Night. No, Really.

It is pretty darn astounding that with all of the insistence from the White House that Fox News Channel is “not a real news network,” that their preferred channel, MSNBC, did not have live coverage at 10 p.m. Eastern on ELECTION NIGHT. They re-ran Olbermann’s 8 p.m. coverage, which was, of course, two hours out of date.

No, really, when you stop covering the news, people can legitimately say you’re not a news network. That has nothing to do with percieved bias or ideology (although we can speculate as to why Olbermann disappeared from the 10 p.m. coverage, as previously expected) but because you’re not actually bringing any new information to viewers.

In fairness, they had Chris Matthews and the glue huffing idiot Ed from the Ed Show on at Midnight. I am a sick, sick person or perhaps I was engaged in my semi-regular hobby of wallowing in epicaricacy, but I watched MSNBC from around 7:30 last night (with an interlude of sleep and a switch over to Fox News when they repeated Countdown) until 8:00 am this morning (concluded with an unhinged Larry O’Donnell-I recognize that is a redundancy – screeching at Michael Steele on Morning Joe).  Here are a few short observations:

1. Ed Schultz is the single dumbest human being on television. He is so
stupid that even Chris Matthews — who along with Jim Moran is living proof that my Jesuit alma mater is superior to Riley’s Jesuit alma mater — winces in pain every time Ed opens his mouth.

2. I don’t get Rachel Maddow. What is the angle here? She isn’t funny and for all her alleged intelligence, she has a hard time stringing coherent sentences together. Also, from a sex appeal standpoint, they should have gone with a lipstick lesbian–I would definitely turn into that show everyday. It would have been hot to be berated everyday by a marxist sapphic babe. It is not hot to be berated by an incoherent bizzaro-world dude looks like a lady, who is a doppleganger for my middle school shop class teacher.

3. Watching Olbermann is really confusing when you first turn him on. I keep expecting Chris Hansen to walk out from off camera and instruct Olbermann to “have a seat, I have some questions for you.” Aside from that, if I were George W. Bush, I would probably get a restraining order against Olbermann as Olbermann is definitely straying towards Glenn Close/Fatal Attraction level of obsession with the former President. You can slice the homoerotic tension with a knife. It is almost like watching the “volleyball scene” from Top Gun.

Pravda Editorial Says U.S. Descending Into Marxism

OUCH! When the Russian newspaper Pravda starts saying you’re entering Marxist territory, that means something…

American capitalism gone with a whimper

. . .

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

. . .

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

What does the US and Venezuela have in common?

Both countries both give cheesy state gifts in the wrong format.

Recently, the US gave the UK Prime Minister 25 DVDs of American movies. Besides its cheesiness, they were in the US format, not the UK format.

Now, the tyrant of Venezuela has given the US President a widely available anti-West book, but it’s in Spanish and the US President does not read Spanish.

A good state gift is the kind of thing you would want to display in a presidential library museum. It should not be something you can buy in a mall. I’ve been to the Reagan Library and there are lots of cool displays of unique treasures.

A Time for Candor of Complicity

George Will today shines a welcome light on where we’ve been as a party.  Before moving to the next election, a confession is in order: the party has not just fallen short of its moral ideals; it has repudiated them.  If you think about it, John McCain was the logical choice of a party that has lost its bearing and gone adrift.  Our reenagement ought to begin with candor of our complicity in where we are today – as Will so eloquently puts it.

‘Socialism’? It’s Already Here.twist

By George F. Will,   Washington Post
Sunday, November 16, 2008; B07

Conservatism’s current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket’s end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government — verily, “socialism” — would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would “spread the wealth around.”
America can’t have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans — whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson‘s Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; and a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm — and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called “the private sector” has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be “spread around.”
The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.
Probably as temporary as New York City’s rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War and are still distorting the city’s housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.

The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution — the federal government — will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government — meaning politics — allocates them. Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least — Congress — will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate “socially responsible” spending — an infinitely elastic term — by the favored companies.

Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, “Please, sir, I want some more.”

McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most of what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious — destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading by government “socialism,” that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain’s health-care plan depended.

Read the rest of the article here.

 

Obama Calls Wanting To Keep Your Own Hard-Earned Money “Selfish”

Get this.  Barry Obama, following up on his “spread the wealth” and “redistributive change” remarks has now labeled opposing giving more of your hard-earned money to the government as a form of “selfishness.”

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

I’m fed up with this guy’s ignorant remarks.  First, I know how to spend the money that I earn better than the government does.  Second, I would contend that the charitable giving that I decide to engage in is more cost-effective than anything that the government could do with it.  Third, there is this aspect from the ABC News article:

It’s unclear if this was a nod to the Ayn Rand book “The Virtue of Selfishness,” with all that the invocation of Rand implies

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand’s work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as “selfish.”

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

Obviously the reporter is passingly familiar with Rand, but not enough to get the final sentence contextually correct.  In fact, Obama is behaving just as the government in “Atlas Shrugged” did which led the achievers of the world to stop producing (they “shrugged” off the weight of the world) and all leeches were left to their own devices.  As you can imagine, pretty soon civilization fell apart.

But I wouldn’t expect that Obama has ever actually read any Ayn Rand.  If he had, he wouldn’t hold the views that he does.  But I wouldn’t be surprised if he had read Bill Ayer’s book “Prairie Fire” that Ayers dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Bobby Kennedy’s assassin.

Obama Camp Finally Removes “Marxists – Socialists – Communists for Obama” Group From Their Website

Back in May, we here at Virtucon told you about the group on Barry Obama’s official campaign website entitled Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.  Periodically since then, we’d check back and note that this group was still there and active.  Well, now it seems the campaign has finally gotten around to removing it after this has become an issue in the campaign and — Suprise! Surprise! — Marxists, Socialists and Communists haven’t proven to be that popular with middle America.  The Obama camp apparently also blocked the Internet Archive from cataloging such pages:

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We’re sorry, access to http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

Similarly, the Google search engine does not have a cache of that page, either.

Fortunately, we did a screen capture back in May.

Under Group Profile it reads:

This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx’s writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialistic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virtually no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-proclaimed “Marxist States.” They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!

Well, you get the picture.  (Another good screen cap, this one of the group’s blog, can be found here.)

So why did the campaign wait until just recently to remove this group page?  Probably because they saw that the Socialist label was starting to stick and hurt Barry in the polls.  Sort of like how Obama stuck with Rev. Jeremiah Wright until he started to cause problems in the polls.

I’m certain that members of this group took great joy and solace when they heard Obama start to talk about redistribution of wealth.  Perhaps they can find a more socially acceptable name like “Obamunists” — those who believe in the economic theory of wealth redistribution known as “Obamunism.”

 

Obama Carefully Chose To Associate With Marxists

Don’t take our word for it. Read Barry Obama’s own words.

Obama’s affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

Obama’s interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called “the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union.”

Orwellian

This is purely Orwellian. What are we, China or North Korea now?

“Obama Kids Sing for Dear Leader”

Here’s the beautiful part of this. Turns out this “grassroots” video was produced by NBC News head honcho Jeff Zucker.

The likes of Jeff Zucker, Holly Schiffer, Peter Rosenfeld, Darin Moran, Jean Martin, Andy Blumenthal, and Nick Phoenix rearranged schedules to participate.  Holly Schiffer was able to get three High Definition cameras (Panasonic HVX250’s), and an AVID editing facility.  When Jeff Zucker went to pick up the camera package, Ted Schilowitz happened to be there and offered a RED camera set up on a Steadi Cam.


UPDATE:
Seems that Team Obama is trying to hide this now. Fortunately, Google has a cache of the page saved.

Anatomy of a Financial Crisis – The CRA and ACORN

There can be little doubt that the current financial crisis in this country can be attributed to the collapse of the housing market. But what created the conditions that allowed the whole subprime mortgage industry to flourish?

Familiarize yourself with the Community Reinvestment Act as revised in 1995.

First a little background from the Federal Reserve:

Concerns about the deteriorating condition of America’s cities, particularly lower-income neighborhoods, led to the enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. Many advocates for the passage of this new law believed that this deterioration was fueled by, among other things, limited credit availability. Some blamed the lack of credit availability on mainstream depository institutions, and charged that they were willing to accept insured deposits from households and small businesses in lower-income neighborhoods but unwilling to lend or invest in those same neighborhoods despite the presence of creditworthy consumers.

A number of factors, including an undeveloped secondary mortgage market, the lack of a comprehensive national credit reporting system, more costly credit evaluation methods, and unlawful redlining were all put forward to explain why credit to lower-income neighborhoods was limited at the time of the CRA’s passage.

. . .

In passing the CRA, Congress reaffirmed the long-standing principle that insured depository institutions must serve “the convenience and needs” of the communities in which they are chartered to do business, which included meeting their credit needs.

. . .

The CRA is actually one of several laws intended to reduce credit-related discrimination, expand access to credit, and shed light on lending activity. The CRA itself focuses on the provision of credit to low- and moderate-income communities.

. . .

The debate surrounding the passage of the CRA was contentious, with critics charging that the law would distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit. (emphasis added)

. . .

The CRA regulations were substantially revised again in 1995, in response to a directive to the agencies from President Clinton to review and revise the CRA regulations to make them more performance-based, and to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden. This directive addressed criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies’ implementation of them through the examination process, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results. The agencies also changed the CRA examination process to incorporate these revisions.

In other words, objective standards went out the window and this law became “performance-based”  — i.e. outcome based.  Now, here is where “community organizers” come into the picture:

Public Involvement
To ensure a broad and balanced CRA assessment, examiners routinely conduct interviews with local business people, government officials, housing and consumer advocates, realtors, trade association representatives, and many others. The purpose of these interviews is to obtain information about, among other things, general credit needs of the community, the availability or the lack of availability of credit, and how different institutions respond to those credit needs. The comments of these individuals are factored into the examiners’ CRA rating. (emphasis added)

The community also has other opportunities to participate in the CRA evaluation process. The public can offer comments on an institution’s CRA performance and those comments are publicly available. Examiners review the institution’s public comment file and take comments into account when evaluating an institution’s overall CRA performance. To assist the public, and to encourage public comments, the agencies inform the public every calendar quarter of upcoming CRA examinations.

Yes, this is the sort of thing that community organizers involve themselves in, particularly under the guise of fighting “red-lining.”

Red-lining is wrong and this is a legitimate area for community organizers to be involved. No community should ever be denied access to credit on a blanket basis. However, that does not mean loans should have been granted to people without the financial ability to meet their obligations.  Unfortunately, the CRA, particularly after the 1995 revisions, led to such lending practices not only by CRA-regulated institutions, but to the adoption of such practices industry-wide.

Why?  Well, groups like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) would do the following for example:

The 1990 ACORN convention in Chicago focused on the fast-breaking housing campaign. It featured a squatting demonstration at an RTC house. Later, ACORN members demanded cooperation from banks about providing loan data on low- and moderate-income communities and compliance with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

ACORN fought weakening of the CRA in 1991, staging a two-day takeover of the House Banking Committee hearing room. It also established ACORN Housing Corporation to service people moving into homes under the housing campaign, rehabilitated hundreds of houses addressed by CRA.

The ACORN convention in New York in 1992, called the “ACORN-Bank Summit”, was organized to make deals with giant banks. When Citibank, the nation’s largest bank, did not participate conventioneers protested at its downtown Manhattan headquarters, and won a meeting to negotiate for similar programs.

By filing a CRA complaint or simply threatening to file such a complaint, community organizers from groups like ACORN could force banks to issue risky loans and mortgages. Such complaints could hold up regulatory approval of mergers and acquisitions for the lending institutions involved, so it was to their advantage to go along with whatever the community organizers wanted.  Call it legalized extortion if you prefer.

So, did I mention that Barry Obama worked as community organizer for ACORN in both NYC and Chicago?  Well, he did.  Yes, the same ACORN that has engaged in widespread voter fraud in many swing states (with some of their employees being convicted) and just yesterday was accused in the Detroit Free Press of engaging in such activity in Michigan.

ACORN is just one more shady association in a long line of them for Barry Obama ranging from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Bill Ayers to Tony Rezko.  But not until today did I ever consider the role that community organizers have played in the housing crisis.  Perhaps if some of these financial institutions had stood up to the likes of ACORN and not buckled, we wouldn’t be in this mess.  There is plenty of blame to go around and no involved party should be discounted.

Obama Supporters In Full Meltdown Mode

I recently saw something comparing the frothing at the mouth rabid supporters of Barry Obama to the kook fringe that became associated with George McGovern’s losing presidential bid and helped turn mainstream America off to him.

Here’s some of the latest examples of the sort of meltdown that Obama supporters are in:

“You want to know the honest truth? I think she’s like a bad actor from a B-list sex movie,” said Paula Vanbuskirk, an Obama-supporting independent, whose contempt for the Alaska governor and self-styled “hockey mom” was shared by almost everyone questioned by the Financial Times.

Wow.  She’s not at all bitter, is she?  Then there’s this…

“I just do not trust the American people,” said Eleanor Shavell, 58, a computer programmer, who, along with several others, joked she would move to Canada if Mr Obama loses. “I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we’re headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it’s like at school, there’s always got to be a bottom 50 per cent.”

Yes, and obviously you’re in that bottom half, Ms. Shavell.  Enjoy the Great White North.  I hope you like hockey.

Then there’s the hero of the Ohio left, Paul Hackett writing on the DailyKooks who suggests that the Obama campaign run this as an ad:

Sarah Palin?  Can’t keep her solemn oath of devotion to her husband and had sex with his employee.  Sarah Palin? Accidentally got pregnant at age 43 and the tax payers of Alaska have to pay for the care of her disabled child.  Sarah Palin? Unable to teach her 16 year old daughter right from wrong and now another teenager is pregnant. Sarah Palin? Can you trust Sarah Palin and her values with America’s future?  John McCain? Divorced from his first wife one month and marries a billionaire influence peddler and convicted felon.  John McCain, a record of rash and impulsive decisions.  That’s not change that’s more of the same.

Never mind that there has never been any credible allegation of infidelity and this particular charge was quickly debunked days ago.  Never mind that no one has ever said that Gov. Palin’s recent pregnancy was an accident.  Never mind that the taxpayers of Alaska are not paying for the care of her child (unless you twist the fact that she receives a salary as governor into this.)  Never mind that listening to a liberal preach on sexual morality and divorce is a complete joke — this is the party of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and . . . (Oops!  Almost let the cat out of the bag on the next shoe to drop.)

And from the head Kook himself (obscenities censored):

I’m not about to revert to writing puff pieces about Obama thinking that his magic “new politics” bull$#!t will carry us to victory. He may or may not believe that crap, but I don’t. We’re going to win this thing the way campaigns are won — by playing hardball. Politics is a blood sport. Republicans understand this and never flinch from flinging the $#!t. We won’t win until we learn to fight back in kind. And I’m more than happy to get down in the mud with our friends on the Right so Obama doesn’t have to.

This is all the Obama supporters have to offer.  They can’t define any particular “hope” or “change” that Obama will actually bring about, so now they lash out in meanspirited ugly ways.  His entire campaign was predicated on ending the war in Iraq, but the war is now wrapping up and we won — something that never entered his vocabulary.  Obama stands for nothing and his supporters will fall for anything.  These mindless Obamabots are now on a rampage that will continue to alienate mainstream American voters.  All I can say is, KEEP IT UP!!!

UPDATED: Apparently Obamabots really do have no soul.  Those who have taken to asking whether “Trig Palin will be known as the First Retard” have even set up a Cafe Press shop to sell t-shirts that read, “Trig Palin – Down With The Syndrome.” (H/T The Write Side of My Brain)