Earmarks: An Efficient and Economical Form of Corruption

By Jerry McDaniel

Congress is scheduled to return to Washington on Monday for its 2010 “lame duck” session. It is shaping up to be one of the most watched sessions in recent memory as everyone will be waiting to see whether Congress “got the message” sent by the voters on November 2. Next to the health care bill and tax increases, the practice of earmarks is likely to be one of the more contentious items on the agenda.

Earmarks have for decades been the safest, most economical and efficient form of the political art of corruption practiced in Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike will attempt to defend earmarks based on the relative low costs when compared with the overall budget. That is a good argument if we ignore the purpose of earmarks and do not measure it against the “gold standard” for Congressional actions, the Constitution.

Earmarks are the most efficient way for incumbents to “buy” the votes of their constituents without running afoul of election laws. One of the anomalies of American politics is the contradiction between the low approval level of Congress and the percentage of incumbents returned to Congress in election after election. Voters have been conditioned to judge their elected officials on their ability to “bring home the bacon”. When talking to voters, one of the most frequently given reasons why they like their own Congressman or Senator while disliking Congress as a whole is the perception they have of what their representatives have done for the state or community. That perception is primarily based on earmarks slipped into appropriation bills.

Next to the practice of allowing lobbyists to craft specifications for items purchased by the federal government that favor their own production capabilities at the expense of their competitors, earmarks are one of best methods for acquiring large campaign contributions. Contractors that supply the goods and services paid for by earmarks are always the primary beneficiaries of government largess. Earmarks for projects that utilize union labor give the politicians the most “bang for the buck”. In return, unions provide millions of man-hours to their political benefactors at election time for “get out the vote” drives, in addition to the millions in direct and indirect campaign contributions.

Last but not least, earmarks provide an efficient method for wealth redistribution among states and communities as elected officials compete for their slice of the pie. Doing away with earmarks would upset a system painstakingly built up over the years by the political parties for protecting the jobs of their incumbents. That may mean that politicians, in order to continue to enjoy salaries and perks unmatched anywhere in the world, would have to resort to actually keeping their oath of office and being faithful to their constituents and the Constitution.

Advertisement

Democrat Scheme to Steal 2012 Election

Democrats attempt to bypass Electoral College in Presidential Elections

The most devious and cynical attempt to date for undermining our Constitution is taking place just below the radar, totally unknown to the average American. I am talking about the ongoing effort to nullify the Electoral College and circumvent the requirements of the Constitution through state law. The most recent state to join in the effort was New York, when its Senate on Wednesday, passed the National Popular Vote Bill 52-7.

The effort was started by a California based group called the National Popular Vote (NPV).  NPV was organized in response to the 2000 election when, they contend, Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George Bush did, yet the Electoral College gave the victory to Bush. The purpose of NPV is to bypass the Electoral College and elect the President strictly on the results of the nationwide popular vote. The allure of the idea is that deciding the winner of the Presidential race by popular vote seems more democratic.

According to NPV, “The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation’s voters for President of the United States.”

The plan is quite simple, Get enough states with combined Electoral College votes amounting to more than 270 to pass a state law allocating their state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most national popular vote. The plan would make the Electoral College irrelevant without the messy requirement to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).”  ~NPV Website

Thus far, the bill has been signed into law in five states, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. New York will be number six when passed by the lower House and signed by the Governor. These six states account for 92 of the 270 electoral votes needed to put the plan into effect. An additional 30 legislative chambers representing 20 states have already passed the bill and are awaiting action by the other state chamber and/or the Governor’s signature.

At first glance, most Americans do not see anything wrong with the plan since it does make the election of the President more democratic. For most of us, attempting to understand the Electoral College and its importance, causes our brain to go numb and our eyes to glaze over. Nevertheless, since it is the Electoral College that protects us from “a tyranny of the majority”, we need to have at least a fundamental understanding of how it works and why.

When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was considering the method for selecting the Chief Executive, they were faced with two choices. One, elect the President by the popular vote of the people or two, elect him by a vote of the national legislature. To understand why this choice is important we have to remember that to the Founders, who were students of both history and human nature, the thought of a pure democracy was anathema. Another important fact is that the Federal Government was intended to represent the states, and the people only indirectly through their state governments.

The Electoral College plan was a compromise between the two choices. In the compromise, states were to be divided into districts and voters in each district would choose electors who in turn would vote for the President. The rise in power of political parties modified this plan somewhat but we still follow the general practice required by the Constitution, in form, if not in substance. The most important point to consider is that the NPV bill is in direct opposition to the Founders desire to avoid the election of the President by popular vote. Participants in the Constitution Convention considered that option and rejected it as being too prone to corruption and abuse.

In the NPV plan quoted above it is claimed that, “the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes.” This is an outright misrepresentation of the clear text and intent of the Constitution. Article II section 1, gives the states the authority to “appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors,…” The state Legislature only has the authority to determine the manner in which electors are appointed. It does not have the authority to determine how they will vote. Neither does it have the power to “allocate” those votes to anyone other that the person for whom they were cast.

This is shown by the carefully thought out procedures for protecting the integrity of Electoral College votes and transmitting them to Congress. Both Article II and the Twelfth Amendment place the same requirements for protecting the integrity of the vote. In legal terms, it is called the “chain of custody”.

Article II: “And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.”

Twelfth Amendment: “and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;”

Even IF the states were allowed to “allocate” the electoral votes as they saw fit, there are still some major ethical questions to be considered. The “watchdog” over the Electoral Votes is the National Archives and Record’s Administration Office of the Federal Register. (NARA) In its instructions to the states, the NARA requires each state to submit a “Certificate of Ascertainment” immediately after the General Election as soon as the votes are counted and certified.

• Each Certificate must list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received.
• Each Certificate must list the names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received.
• Each Certificate must be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State.

The Certificates of Ascertainment, are to be prepared “as soon as election results are final” and submitted to NARA. This step is usually completed in early November. The Electors do not meet until mid-December. In order for the scheme of NPV to work, many electors would have to vote  contrary to the pledge they made to the voters who elected them in the General Election. While this may be legal, no one can claim that it is ethical.

Another Constitutional hurdle the NPV must overcome is found in Article I, Section 10 that requires the approval of Congress before a state can “enter into any agreement or compact with another state”.

Based on the rate the bills have been moving, it could well be in place for the 2012 elections.Why, you may ask, are the Democrats so eager to get this scheme in place as quickly as possible?  To answer this question, we only have to look at the geographical layout of country.  Under this scheme, the President could be elected by just the voters of the most populous states. The majority of the voters in those states are located in large metropolitan areas. Nineteen of the twenty-five largest cities in the U.S. have Democratic Mayors and are dominated by Democratic political machines, many of them almost as corrupt as the Chicago machine that gave us Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Tony Rezko.  These large Metropolitan Centers are strategically located to maximize Democrat votes.

On the East Coast, there is New York that has a Democrat/Republican/Independent Mayor. The rest, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Washington all have Democrat Mayors. In the Midwest, Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee all have Democrat Mayors. On the West Coast, there are Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Once the NPV plan is in place campaign money and effort need only be concentrated in the large population centers. By coincidence, it is these large population centers, controlled by Democrats that are most susceptible to voter fraud, especially with organizations like ACORN, and similar groups conducting “get out the vote“ campaigns.

It is likely that the only way Obama can win reelection in 2012, unless things change, is by massive voter fraud. The NPV plan is designed to facilitate just such an outcome. It is doubtful that the National Popular Vote Bills can pass Supreme Court muster. However, by the time they  get to the Supreme Court it will be too late for the 2012 election.

It’s Time For Another Revolution

The Senate Passed the 2,000 page healthcare bill at one a.m. Sunday morning; this in spite of the overwhelming opposition of voters.  Obviously, we no longer have a representative government.  The rallying cry for the patriots in 1775 was “no taxation without representation”.  This bill will add millions of dollars in new taxation without “representation“.  It is time for today’s patriots to ban together and launch a new revolution.  We have the weapon, and we have the ammunition.

Our weapon is the Constitution and our ammunition is the vote.  It is time  American citizens stop participating in the corruption that has permeated every facet of our political system.  When Senators like Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) or Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are bought off with gratuitous federal spending in their states in order to secure votes, it cannot be called anything else but corruption.  At the same time we voters can no longer ignore our own participation in this corruption by consistently, in election after election, voting for the Congressman or Senator who “brings home the bacon”. We are indeed selling our heritage for bowls of porridge. It is time to stop the wholesale destruction of our Constitution and way of life.

That can only be done by “we the people“.  It should be obvious by now that we cannot depend on our elected officials and we cannot depend on the Supreme Court to protect the Constitution.  Its only real defenders are the patriotic voters of America.  The only way to succeed in returning to a constitutional government is to vote out of office elected officials who do not honor their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and Domestic” and replace them with someone who will.

A month ago, we launched a new grassroots organization to do just that, the Illinois Conservative Action Network (ICAN).  ICAN differs from other groups in that its focus is directed solely to reestablishing the Constitution to its rightful place as the final authority in determining how far the government can go in directing our lives and infringing on our liberty.  We are not tax exempt therefore; we can openly target individual elected officials for defeat, ridding our government of those who habitually and consistently violate their oath of office.  At the same time we can openly campaign for candidates who will honor their oath.  We are not a third party; therefore, we can participate in the primary elections of major parties where the real change must take place.  By the time the general election comes around it is often too late to make much difference.

We and our membership, supports most conservative grassroot organizations like those involved in the fiscally conservative Tea Party Movement, and the socially conservative right-to-life organizations, we also support many of the 501(c)(3) organizations like the Heritage Foundation—our favorite—, Open Secrets and others.  Without government or party restrictions, our membership can participate in election campaigns for or against any candidate from any party. We seek to fill an important nitch that has been sorely neglected for too long.

We presently view our immediate tasks as (1) helping conservatives take back the Republican Party that has historically been their home, (2) educating citizens and elected officials on the requirements of the Constitution and our founding principles. (3) Identifying incumbents who refuse to honor their oath of office and work to defeat them at the polls.

It is our firm belief that when we return the Constitution to its rightful place in government, we will have solved most of the fiscal and social problems that plague us today. We are new and we are growing. You can do your part by adding your name to our membership role.  Elected officials only respect numbers.  The more rapidly our membership grows the quicker we can begin to make a difference.

We are currently developing an on-line, interactive tutorial to help interested citizens better understand the requirements of the Constitution and our founding principles.  Hopefully we can announce its going on line within the next week. We are also working on other tools to help our members take action to stop our headlong rush into socialism and return our country to a constitutional republic.

Please share this post with at least five friends.

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference

Curbing Government Corruption

Illinois’ Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich gave the American People the best example of how our government really works that I have seen in my lifetime.  In return, he was fired by the Illinois Legislature for airing the family laundry in public.  The corruption we saw in Illinois may be extreme, but in substance it is little different from that practiced in state houses across the nation as well as in Washington D.C.  In fact, Washington has literally become the D.C. Stock Exchange of Power.  Leading politicians are not called “power brokers” for nothing.

As Thomas Jefferson warned in 1822, “…If ever this vast country is brought under a single government it will be one of the most extensive corruption….”  Corruption is the inevitable consequences of power, so it is axiomatic that the larger a government becomes, the more corrupt it gets.  It is not a coincidence that the Executive Orders signed by Barack Obama thus far, primarily benefit those who supported his election or that the “pork” bill masquerading as a “stimulus package” primarily benefits supporters of the Democratic Party.

The answer to limiting corruption in government is to limit its power.  This fundamental truth was recognized by the Founders in framing the Constitution.  That is why they established the doctrines of “enumerated powers“, and the “system of checks and balance”.  A certain equilibrium is maintained in the balance of power within the government because of competition between the three branches.  The same cannot be said for the doctrine of enumerated powers.  Here the contest is not between the three branches of government, but between those branches and the people.

We are in a period of exponential growth in government.  That growth will continue until the people realize the dangers involved and take the necessary steps to correct it.  Unless a correction is made, we cannot survive as a free people.  With the latest expansion of government, we are headed even faster in the direction of socialism.  Socialism is antithetical to liberty and freedom since it can only be administered through dictatorial control over the daily lives of its people.

If we are to avoid the destruction of free market capitalism and its replacement with a monolithic socialist state dictating every segment of our personal and private lives, we must take immediate steps to halt the growth of government.  Conservatives have been heartened in recent weeks by the seeming reawakening of the Republican Party.  The unanimous vote of the House Republicans against the destructive and irresponsible spending bill passed by the Democrats last week is an encouraging sign, but the reasons given publicly for Republican opposition do not indicate they yet understand the underlying problem.

According to the Associated Press, Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained about the excessive spending for Democratic programs and that the bill will not sufficiently stimulate the economy or produce enough jobs.  In addition, according to reports by AP, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, says the bill must be stripped of its unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cuts if it is to gain Republican support.  Other Republican lawmakers voiced similar views.

Meanwhile, Republican Governors are stepping up pressure on their Senators and Representatives to get the bill passed as soon as possible.  The National Governors Association has called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.  Even Governor Sarah Palin has trekked to Washington to press McConnell for Alaska’s share of the package.  Governors Charlie Crist, of Florida, Jim Douglas of Vermont and other Republican governors plan to make their support of the plan known in Washington this week.

This plan is shaping up to be a repeat of last year’s stimulus plan, which gave some $160 billion in “tax rebates” to citizens, many of which paid no income tax in the first place.  That bill was first defeated in the House but later passed both Houses with bipartisan support after some tinkering and compromises in conference that tossed some “goodies” to the Republicans.

The elephant in the room that is being conveniently avoided by both parties is the fact that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to pass any part of the plan for the purposes stated.  Lawmakers on Capital Hill have always been reluctant to defend their positions based on the enumerated powers doctrine embodied in the Constitution.  Unless they recover from their shyness and take a principled position in defense of the Constitution this plan will become law.

There has been a bill brought before every Congress since 1997 by Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.  The bill known as “The Enumerated Powers Act”, has gotten little support from Shadegg’s colleagues and no notice at all in the national media.  It would require that “all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.”  As Congressman Shadegg points out on his website, “This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.”

Some type of effort along this line is our best hope for reducing the size of government and putting it back under the control of the people. When it becomes common practice that a routine part of the floor debate on any bill includes a debate on its constitutionality we cannot help but see a vast improvement in the legislation brought before Congress.  However, Congressman Shadegg’s effort will not succeed without the focused support of citizens nationwide.

In addition to supporting the Enumerated Powers Act, we need to hold our individual Congressmen and Senators accountable for any legislation they sponsor, co-sponsor or support.  We can do this by making it a habit to call, write or e-mail our representatives and asking a very simple question; “Which article in the Constitution authorizes the enactment of this legislation?”  If enough citizens take this minimal step, it will force our representatives to consider the Constitutionality of every vote they cast.  If a campaign of this type were continued for a long enough time, we would see the discussion of constitutionality a routine part of Congressional debate, and media coverage as well.

In the end, as the old adage says, we get the kind of government we deserve, either because of neglect, a desire for personal benefits at the expense of our fellow citizens, or a genuine desire to put the welfare of the country and the welfare of future generations before all else.  Our future is up to us.

Welcome To Politics, Chicago Style

After reading all seventy-six pages of the Blagojevich indictment, I am shocked—shocked that anyone would be shocked that politicians engage in politics.  Welcome to politics, Illinois and Chicago style.

What has all the politicos so upset is the crude way in which Blago went about making his deals.  The most outrageous accusation, the selling of a Senate seat was,  for some reason, cut short by Fitzgerald before any crime was committed, thus practically insuring that no prosecution on that charge will be successful.

As for the rest of it, that’s politics as it is currently carried on in America, particularly in Illinois.  If you are shocked by this, you haven’t been paying attention.  Why do you think most large companies and other organizations maintain lobbyists in Capitals all over America, including Washington?  How do you think most government appointments are made?  How do you think most Ambassadors secure their appointments?  M-O-N-E-Y, otherwise known in polite political circles as campaign contributions.

The problem with Blago is that he insisted on putting the cart before the horse by insisting on spelling out the payoff before the deal was made, and in such uncouth language.  Usually the contributions are made first, then comes the favors.  Most politicians who play the game understand the rules, as do the other players.  The number one rule is that you never outwardly express the terms of the deal, especially in public or on the phone.

Normally when a large contribution is made, there is an unspoken understanding that the recipient of that contribution will look favorably on your requests once in office.  Since there is no guarantee the candidate you contribute to will win, most savvy players contribute to both sides.  Candidates, on the other hand, know that the person writing the multi-thousands dollars checks understand that they can expect something from the candidate in return, if elected.

The understanding between the candidate and the contributors form a kind of psychological contract.  That’s why many on the left are so angry at soon-to-be (Dec. 15th) President-Elect Barack Obama.  After kicking in over $700 millions into his campaign coffers, there are signs he might renege on some of his promises, therefore they feel cheated.

There are a number of ways to ingratiate oneself to a politician.  There is the vote.  This entitles you to a polite letter from a member of his or her staff in response to your complaint or request.  You can also volunteer for his campaign.  This may get you a low-level job with the government after election and possibly a visit to his office when you are in town.  It may also entitle you to consideration for a favor or two from his or her local office staff.

The most effective way, of course, is to write a hefty check to his campaign.  Do it at a fund-raiser and you also get to meet others in the inner-circle.  Depending on the size of your check and the nature of your request, you may get a plumb appointment, a contract for your business, favorable tax considerations for your projects or a least a nice little “gift” tucked into a bill, otherwise known as a “pork-barrel” amendment.

All in all, the Blagojevich indictment presents a disturbing but somewhat accurate picture of the underbelly of politics in Illinois, and to an extent, of politics in general.  Politics is an ugly business.  Corruption is a natural bi-product of politics, especially of liberal and socialist politics.  It can only continue however, with the acquiescence of the voting public.

The primary motivation for those engaging in politics is power and, as we know, power corrupts.  If we wish to eliminate corruption from our politics there are some thing we can do.  The founders understood the corrupting power of politics.  That’s why they insisted on limiting the terms elected officials were expected to serve.  Many in that era wanted the President and Senators to serve for life as they did in the English monarchy.

Others, including Jefferson wanted to limit the President to one term of seven years.  The limits finally decided on were two years for Representatives, six for Senators and four for President.  The number of terms each could serve was left up to the voters.  After Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms, a Constitutional Amendment (No. 22) was passed limiting the President to two terms.  Efforts to limit Senators and Representatives have all been in vain.

One of the most effective ways of eliminating or reducing corruption in politics is to simply STOP VOTING FOR THE SAME CLOWNS IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION.  No matter how honest, civic minded and patriotic when elected, very few can resist the temptations of power when they are exposed to it throughout the major portion of their lifetime.

This is not an indictment of all politicians.  At the same time, corruption is too widespread to consider the Blagojevich episode to be an isolated case.  Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the union, most of the corruption starts from the Chicago and Cook County political machines and spreads outward from there.

Every year the cost of office increases in price.  Obama spent almost a billion dollars for his office, Blago was asking a million for Obama’s old Senate seat.  Wealthy candidates often spend millions of their own money to secure a high office.  In the end, it usually turns out to be a good investment, if successful.  Bill Clinton, for example, never earned more than $35,000 per year until he was elected President.  After serving for only eight years, he now gets millions for a single speech.

Those who insist on voting for the same person election after election have no reason to complain about corruption.  For the rest of us, we should work for term limits on all elected offices.  If a candidate does not reach his or her “level of incompetence” (The Peter Principle) in one or two terms they can move up to successively higher levels until they do.  Once reaching their level, they should never be allowed to remain in office for longer than it takes to vote them out.

Another way of limiting corruption is to break the power political parties have over our government.  The political parties as they are now structured are having the same effect on our government the unions have had on Detroit automakers.  The only way to break the unhealthy power of political parties is to return to the non-partisan form of government envisioned by the founders and outlined in the Constitution.

Obama’s Campaign of Corruption

Barack Obama and the Democrats are running one of the most corrupt campaigns in history.  They are getting away with it through the complicity of the media and the hesitation of public figures to speak candidly concerning this election.  Many of us have been writing for years about socialism in the Democratic Party.  However, few nationally known personalities, political or otherwise, have been willing to risk the criticism from the media that follows.  Accusations of “McCarthyism”, “racism”, “gutter politics” and “the politics of personal destruction” are just a few of the terms used to silence those who would speak out.

Only within the past few days has John McCain and Sarah Palin tentatively raised the issue of socialism in their campaign rallies.  Even then it is used only to describe Obama’s plans to “spread the wealth around”.  As democrats like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others become more open about their socialist philosophies, the obvious facts are becoming harder to overlook or deny.  Barack Obama is a socialist in the mold of Saul Alinsky.  He has been tutored and groomed since childhood for the position he now enjoys.

Evidence of these facts is becoming more available daily.  Internet publications such as World Net Daily, Newsmax.com,  CNS News, Right Bias.Com, and Discover the Networks.Org are all well respected sources that publish articles almost daily on the subject.  In my last post, “Getting the Government We Deserve”, I pointed out the fact that corruption is always a basic ingredient in socialism.  In this election it is showing up particularly in fund raising and voter fraud.  In both instances it seems to be either denied, overlooked, or glossed over, even by those who ordinarily are thought of as conservative opinion makers and leaders in the conservative movement.

Voter Fraud

For years socialists have been advocating innovations in voting rules to make it easier for those who have the least inclination and the least understanding of the issues to vote.  It has been universally accepted that the more people who vote, regardless of their level of understanding, the better it is for our democracy.  Millions are spent by campaigns and community organizations to “get out the vote”.  Innovations such as “motor voter registration”, absentee ballots, same day registration and early voting have become commonplace.  Any attempts to establish voting standards to insure that voters are legally qualified to vote are met with accusations of racism or charges of “suppressing the vote”.

The most threatening innovations in voting are “same day registration” and “early voting“.  These almost beg to be abused.  Invariably, these lax voting rules are instigated by the Democratic Party.  They sound so reasonable that they are accepted by most people with little thought.  We are beginning to see the results now, as more reports of fraudulent registrations and fraudulent voting begin to surface.

Spearheading the Democrat’s voter registration drives is the socialist front group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  ACORN is partially funded with millions of taxpayer dollars from earmarks and amendments added to legislation by Democrats in Congress.  During the last several voting cycles the group has come under scrutiny by state and federal prosecutors for election fraud.  They are now under investigation in twelve states, mostly the so-called battleground states.

Barack Obama is no stranger to ACORN.  During the summer of 1992 he was director of Illinois’ Project Vote.  Working in cooperation with ACORN, Project Vote registered 150,000 voters on Chicago’s South Side for the ‘92 election.  His prior relationship with ACORN was from 1985 to 1988 when he worked as director of Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of ACORN.  As Director of DCP he also served as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, an organization that trains Community Organizers.  As a lawyer he represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the State of Illinois to force it to implement “motor voter” registration.

Obama’s experience as a Community Organizer and in voter registration drives has served him well in his presidential campaign.  He has patterned his campaign after the tactics advocated by Saul Alinsky in his book “Rules for Radicals” published in 1972.   Alinsky is known as the father of Community Organizing and his book has become the “Bible” for Community Organizers.  Most of the affiliates that make up the organization of ACORN use the same handbook as the Obama campaign.

Fund Raising

The Obama campaign has raised more than $600 million in donations for the 2008 election, breaking all previous records.   His unprecedented ability to raise funds is regarded with awe by the main stream media as well as many Republicans and conservatives.  The reasons behind his phenomenal success as a fund raiser are mostly overlooked.

Obama represents the best opportunity in the past hundred years for the socialist movement to realize its long sough goal of taking over the government of the United States.  As a result, socialists from all over the world are tempted to contribute to his candidacy.  The Internet not only makes this possible but also makes it easy to hide illegal foreign donations as well as “over the limit” donations from within the United States.

Newsmax.com has published two very informative articles on the subject.  One article deals with foreign contributions and the other with credit card fraud.  While they do not offer conclusive proof, it is hard to come up with alternative explanations for the unorthodox examples they give.  According to Newsmax some 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

One of the clues they give is the number of donations for odd amounts, like $876.09, $388.67, etc.  Donors making contributions to a political campaign invariably make those donations in even amounts: $400, $1,000, or $10 for example.  However if they are making the donations by credit card from a country with currency different than our own, those contributions would show up in the recipients account in odd amounts like the ones above, after being converted to U.S. dollars.

Another gimmick documented by Newsmax for getting around the requirement to report all donations over $200 is the use of “gift cards”.  Gift cards are not linked to any specific name and Obama’s web site is not set up to weed out suspicious donors.  Therefore, a donor wishing to make a $1,000 donation anonymously would only need to purchase ten gift cards for a hundred dollars each and then use those cards to make contributions under the name of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse or any other name.  Since the campaign does not have to report the name of the donor for donations less than $200 there is no way to trace them back to their origin.  Nice gimmick, huh?

There is a good chance that not only will the election be stolen but the government as well.  Unfortunately, if that happens there is very little recourse, since the foxes will be in charge of the entire chicken coop.