The Constitution requires that all of us living in this country be counted every ten years; this is the “census.” The results are extremely important because the number of congressional representative for each state is determined by the final count and that number remains in place for the following ten tears until the next census. Distribution of the largess from the federal government on everything from roads to schools is also determined by the numbers so states with more people counted get a bigger piece of each and every pie baked by Big Brother. Until now the Department of Commerce was authorized to conduct the census which because of its importance is supposed to be objective; in other words as accurate a count as possible.
Over the years it has become a tradition for “social-minded” people to complain about the census conducted during Republican administrations by claiming it undercounts segments of the population expected to receive government benefits and therefore vote Democrat. These people include the “homeless”, illegal aliens and, in many cases, fictitious people with the “correct” political voting affiliation.
Taking a census of everyone here is a large task so people are hired to make the nose count and visit every “home” (it is not clear if this includes cardboard boxes under overpasses or not). Forms are also sent out for voluntary completion on a random basis to collect data that is used to fudge the numbers in the interests of accuracy in the realization that not all residential noses will be actually counted.
In the real world there is a truism “who controls the purse strings controls the world.” Something similar maybe said about the census – “who controls the census controls the country.”
There is a school of thought that some people are more honest and trustworthy than others. Therefore in some administrations it is more likely than in others that there will be an honest count. A measure of what can be expected as a good faith effort to achieve as accurate a count as possible is to see who is in charge of the census for a given decade. The Commerce Department is generally considered less partisan than other government agencies so their census results are least controversial.
However when you have a neo-socialist government in charge, anything is possible and nothing is too outrageous. For example, an administration intent on skewing census results would move responsibility for the census from the Commerce Department to the White House and placed under an unscrupulous extremely partisan operative. Another tactic that will enable the desired census results to be achieved is to make sure those conducting the nose count and reporting results are chosen from among dependable party supporters and if they are also unscrupulous, so much the better. In this way the administration can be assured the “best” possible census results to control politics for at least ten more years. To determine whether the “right” people will be doing the job, it is important to consider if they have bent the rules in your favor in elections, and best of all, if they are dependable practitioners of voter fraud.
“The Census (Bureau) is a nonpartisan, non-political agency and we’re very dedicated to an accurate account,” bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner told FOXNews.com. “We have a lot of quality controls in place to keep (out) any kind of systemic error or fraudulent behavior to affect the counts.” Buckner also said 140,000 census taker jobs must be filled to complete the first phase of the effort. Each applicant must take a basic skills exam and is also subject to an FBI background check.
However despite the assurances of Mr. Buckner, the facts belie his representation. How else can you explain that ACORN will be assisting in the hiring of census workers around the country?
It is a fact that "ACORN has been accused of voter fraud, embezzlement, and more yet this is a group that the federal government wants helping with the census. Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA asks “how can this group be used to conduct the census?”
ACORN has come to public attention in connection with voting irregularities. For example, in 2007 Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 fraudulent voter registration forms. However ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson told FOXNews.com, “ACORN as an organization has not been charged with any crime and concerns that the organization will unfairly influence the census are unfounded.” Is this indeed a recommendation of ACORN or does it simply mean no law enforcement agency has seen fit to make the necessary investigation to indict the organization who, after all, functions only through its employees and associates?
Here is what Stanley Kurtz had to say about ACORN and President barrack Obama:
“What if Barack Obama's most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you'd know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I'd wager, does Barack Obama.”
“This is a story we've largely missed. While Obama's Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal 'motor-voter' bill. In fact, Obama's Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama's role as an Acorn 'leadership trainer' is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama's ties to Acorn” (and ACORN to Barack Obama).
Writing for the Wall St. Journal, Steven Malanga said of ACORN:
“No one should be surprised, for this organization grew out of some of the most counterproductive ideas of 1960s radicalism. Acorn's roots are in the National Welfare Rights Organization, whose leader, George Wiley, believed he could use poor, unwed mothers to foment a revolution. … When Wiley's welfare strategy reached a dead end he moved on to other ventures, including sending some of his troops to form a new community organization in Arkansas, infused with the same radicalism. It was a brilliant stroke: By the early '70s billions of dollars in federal and state aid was streaming to these local groups, spurred by Republicans in Washington who reasoned that it was better to fund nonprofits than create giant federal bureaucracies to run burgeoning antipoverty programs. Little did the GOP understand that the money would finance a nationwide network of organizations that for decades have mobilized urban residents against the party's candidates and agenda.”
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, and expanded by President Bill Clinton, prompted banks to lend money in underserved communities and allowed community groups to file complaints that could hold up or even scuttle bank mergers. To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed applications, lending institutions had an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations like ACORN.
Again from Mr. Malanga:
“Acorn became among the most successful at exploiting the law, especially after the Clinton administration set up tough new CRA standards. In 1993 Acorn crafted a $55 million, 11-city lending program administered by it and financed by 14 major banks eager to avoid CRA woes. In 1998 Acorn activists disrupted Federal Reserve hearings on the proposed Citicorp merger with Travelers, waving red umbrellas, a corporate symbol of Travelers, and then later protested Citigroup's acquisition of Associates First Capital Corp. Eventually Citigroup signed an agreement to provide mortgages through Acorn counseling centers, including home loans to undocumented aliens in California. In 2000 a U.S. Senate subcommittee estimated that such CRA deals had directed at least $9.5 billion through nonprofits, making the CRA the second-most important funder of social advocacy groups next to the government itself.”
As another example of their successful action, ACORN persuaded Baltimore to require city government contractors to pay salaries substantially above the federal minimum wage but after the Gingrich “revolution” ACORN was stalled in Washington so Acorn decided instead it would work city by city, starting in the most liberal places, to enact local wage legislation. Some 125 municipalities have since passed living-wage legislation. But how about this; when California regulators sued Acorn for not paying its own workers the minimum wage, ACORN argued that “this would endanger its mission—because it would have to hire fewer workers?” Some of ACORN’s living-wage efforts have gone a motive-revealing step further pressing for laws that specifically exempt unionized companies from adhering to the new wage standards.
ACORN now operates in well over 125 cities and has just been given by Obama billions of dollars to do their work in support of Obama and those of similar beliefs.
Sol Stern's 2003 City Journal article, "ACORN's Nutty Regime for Cities." explains that ACORN “is the key modern successor of the radical 1960's "New Left," with a ‘1960's-bred agenda of anti-capitalism’ to match.” Acorn practices confrontational 1960's-style tactics and prefers to fly under the national radar. They organize locally in liberal urban areas - where, as Stern observes, “local legislators and reporters are often slow to grasp how radical ACORN's positions really are." According to Stern, Acorn's radical agenda sometimes shifts toward "undisguised authoritarian socialism.”
Want more evidence of how ACORN operates, ACORN's tactics are openly "in your face?" Just recall Code Pink's well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you'll get the idea. ACORN protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. ACORN protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers' dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors to the mayor's home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.
Obama’s home town Chicago is one of ACORN’s strongest chapters and Obama was himself an agent of ACORN.
What has Barack Obama got to do with ACORN, plenty? In his pre-law school days Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. Not many people know just what a "community organizer" does. A Los Angeles Times article about Obama's early Chicago days tells a touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago's "Friends of the Parks," so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play (but when the L. A. Times returned, it found the park he'd helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs). This is the image of Obama's organizing we're supposed to accept but it's not the whole story about Obama. As the L. A. Times describes it in an otherwise flattering story, "Obama's task was to help far South Side residents press for “improvement" in their communities by organizing demonstrations, just like radical groups like ACORN do. Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago ACORN, was so impressed by Obama's organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.
ACORN continues to allege it is non partisan but a 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, "Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?" includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn. According to Bechtle, "It's clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome"; there work in the 2008 elections prove their worth as a national political machine for socialist causes and in the election of like-minded people in high places.
ACORN is now a “national partner” with the U.S. Census Bureau. They will provide Obama with 1.4 million workers to canvass for the country’s 2010 census. ACORN “community organizers” will knock on your door for your intimate household data, and they will be paid for it...with your taxpayer money.
What do you suppose will be their objective as they count the folks?