Topic category:  Government/Politics

I look forward to the political demise of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but the truth is that he was correct (albeit politically incorrect) when he said that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," and Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

How did "the Senator from ACORN," a rookie United States Senator with no military or executive experience beat a war hero and veteran United States Senator in the presidential race in 2008 and become "the President from ACORN" in 2009 when that rookie Senator was the most liberal United States Senator (according to non-partisan National Journal) and America was a center-right country?

I answered that question in "Why Obama Won and McCain Lost" (November 5, 2008) (http://webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081105), as follows:

"Obama won, because McCain lost.

"McCain lost because (1) the predominantly liberal mainstream media abandoned him for Obama and the campaign coverage of ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC was biased in favor of Obama and against McCain; (2) McCain accepted public funding for his presidential campaign, as he promised, while Obama broke his own promise, refused public funding and outspent McCain hugely, without being blamed for breaking his promise and trying to buy the election; (3) three-fourths of the voters believed (rightly or wrongly) that the country was on the wrong track; (4) the country was eager to elect its first African-American president, with white opposition to Obama suspected as racist and nearly unanimous black support for Obama excused as a fitting expression of racial pride; (5) Obama's clam and polished manner contrasted sharply (and very favorably) with the manners of the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, prior African-American presidential hopefuls; (6) only Fox really scrutinized Obama and many voters never learned important facts; (7) McCain expected to win because he is much better prepared to be President of the United States instead of realized that he could win under the circumstances only by showing that Obama was unfit to be President, (8) for decades Obama's radical allies had prepared the way for him to win this year, instead of setting the stage for the financial crisis that put Obama ahead in the polls after McCain had taken the lead; (9) the mainstream media, led by ABC's Charles Gibson, CBS's Katie Couric and NBC's Tina Fey, made it seem like Palin was unfit to be President instead of Obama, even though she had executive governmental experience and he had none; and (10) the mainstream media, particularly The New York Times, kept a lid on the ugly truth about ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and its ties to Obama, the Obama campaign and the Democrat Party.

"McCain was a liberal media darling when he was the alternative to President Bush and a Republican proponent of liberal versions of campaign finance reform and immigration reform.

"But the liberal media always was ready to attack McCain if a more liberal alternative was available (and The New York Times proved that with scurrilous articles about both McCain and his wife Cindy and whitewashes of Obama's relationships with ACORN and William 'domestic terrorist' Ayers).

"McCain received the endorsement of The New York Times for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, but if he ever expected its endorsement over a more liberal Democrat presidential nominee like Obama, he was fooling himself.

"Ironically, McCain played into the hands of the Left, especially The New York Times, by supporting campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold) and keeping his promise to accept public funding of his presidential campaign.

"Money was a big factor in the presidential election this year, and the Obama advantage was huge.

"ACORN succeeded in making their man, Obama, president, because not enough voters learned what ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief knew, that ACORN is 'a corrupt organization that is preying on the marginalized in this society' and 'the cancerous growth of this election.'"

Surprisingly (to me), National Review editor Rich Lowery is shocked that Obama may not switch course. Lowery: "Even though i'm a cynical ex-Washpost reporter, my jaw drops when i read the leaks that the president may 'double down' on health care 'reform' . . ."

Obama IS that radical! He and the radicals who put him in the White House still will try mightily to impose Obamacare, as Dick Morris and Eileen McCann reported in detail in "Dick Morris: Pelosi and Reid Plot Secret Plan for Obamacare" on January 24, 2010. Morris and McCann:

"Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare 'reform' and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.

"President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

"Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are "flipped" and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.

"Here's what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

"Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

"First, the House will pass the Senate's Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

"How will Pelosi's deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don't like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don't get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the 'rich'?

"That's where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

"Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

"This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate's Democratic caucus that they will make 'fixes' to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama's John Hancock.

"But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn't have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

"According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or 'fixes,' the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law."To pass the fixes, he won't need one Republican; he won't even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

"His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi's House and signed by Obama.

"This plan, of course, is a total subversion of the legislative process.

"Typically, the Senate and House pass their own unique legislation and then both bills go to a conference committee. In conference, the leadership of both Democrat-dominated houses wheels and deals and irons out differences.

"The final compromise bill is then sent back to the full Senate and full House for a vote and has to pass both to go to the president.

"In the House, a simple majority passes the legislation. But under Senate rules, major legislation requires 60 votes to end a filibuster.

"As it stands, the House bill and Senate bill have major discrepancies. Reid does not have 60 votes to pass a compromise bill that would no doubt include some of the radical provisions House members have been demanding.

"But if the House passes the exact Senate bill that passed by a 60-39 Senate vote last month, there is no need for a conference on the bill. It will go directly to the president's desk.

"There is a rub to all of this.

"This secret plan being hatched by Pelosi and Reid requires not only a pledge by 52 Democratic senators to vote later for the House modifications. House liberals must actually believe these Senators will live up to their pledge and pass the fixes at some future date.

"A Senate source cautions: 'Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie.'

"Still, my Senate source and others in Washington believe that the liberals in the House, grasping at straws after the stunning Massachusetts defeat, will go along with the Reid-Pelosi plan to bypass a conference bill and ultimately will vote for the Senate version without changes.

"Among the key 'fixes' House liberals are demanding the Senate pass in reconciliation at some later date include a 'carve out' for unions from the 'Cadillac policy' insurance tax. The Senate plan funds their healthcare plan by heavy taxes on so-called 'Cadillac' insurance plans that provide those insured with exceptionally good coverage including almost unlimited health access with little or no co-payments. The Senate's view was that rich people have such plans and should be taxed for them to pay the less fortunate.

"But many unions have Cadillac plans for their members, and they are furious their members will be hit with the Senate tax. The unions have told their minions in the House to oppose the Senate Cadillac plan tax.

"House liberals also are requiring a fix that increases fines for those who flout the law and don't buy health insurance (the Pelosi-passed plan includes criminal penalties, including possible jail time if a person doesn't purchase insurance). Another fix will raise subsidies for low-income families seeking to buy insurance.

"In the original House bill that passed, healthcare expansion costs would have been paid for by an income tax surcharge on the 'rich.' House liberals are pushing for that fix as well.

"So what is the counter-move? How do opponents of Obamacare stop this?

"Opponents cannot rely on liberal Democrats in the House who might balk at passing the Senate bill with just a 'pledge' from 52 senators. I have no doubt House liberals, despite their skepticism, will fade under pressure from Pelosi and Obama. They will do their duty and pass the Senate bill, whatever their current posturing.

"Instead, the key to stopping the Pelosi-Reid plan lies with conservative or 'moderate' Democrats who voted for the healthcare bill the first time.

"There are 23 of these conservative-leaning Democratic House members who voted for Pelosi's Obamacare back in November, which passed by just five votes, with 39 Democrats defecting to vote against the bill.

"All 23 of these congressmen who did vote for the Pelosi bill are extremely vulnerable.

"Opponents of Obamacare need to climb all over these 23 congressmen with TV ads and advocacy campaigns in their districts to get them to change their vote this time, to vote 'no' to the Senate bill when it comes before the House...."

In 2008 Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a National Review Online contributing editor, was not fooled by Obama and his radical backers. Lowry should have read him and realized he was right.

"The ACORN Senator" is now "the ACORN President" and beholden to the people who paved his path to the White House.

ACORN, SEIU and La Raza are all connected and they want what Obama refers to as "fundamental change," not traditional American values and "incremental change." Thus, they would wreck the world's best healthcare system to enhance government power and their power as the controllers of government.

Obama shill Chris Matthews of NBC and MSNBC is looking for a contemptible racial explanation for Obama's loss of white support in a year, noting that it's the worst fall of such support by any President. But those whites became disillusioned, not racist. If they were racist, they would not have supported Obama earlier. Racially, Obama has not changed. If there is a question of being judging based on skin color instead of character, it is whether Obama's continued hold on black voters is race-based, but Matthews did not discuss that possibility.

SEIU boss Andy Stern was backing Obama for president at least as far back as 2006 and he leads the visits-to-the-White-House list.

Stern knows that his best opportunity to remake America radically and enhance his power is now and he's not about to interpret Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race as a rejection of the radical agenda he advocates and Obama is supposed to implement.

Stern:

"Today’s vote must be a wake-up call that now is the time for bold action. Time to stand up to politics as usual. Time to stand up to Republican scare and stall tactics. And time to speak up for working families.

“The Senate may have squandered the trust the American people gave to Washington in 2008. But now, every member of Congress and the Administration must act with a renewed sense of purpose to show working families whose side they are on and deliver meaningful change to every American. This is not the time for timidity. It is time to show the courage and strength of conviction to move this country forward and bring working families the change they need. It starts by passing health insurance reform and giving Pat and millions of people like her the security and peace of mind they deserve.”

Steve Mustanski, "SEIU Warns Obama: Pass Obamacare or Else" (January 23, 2010):

"With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Obama and House and Senate Democrats are wondering how they can pass any version of Obamacare. Lacking the 60 votes (bought or otherwise) in the Senate leaves Democrats a few very unpopular options such as pretending that Obamacare is a budget bill or having the unpopular Senate version of Obamacare pass in the house without changes.

"Earlier this week, the head of the SEIU warned the President and Democrats that they must pass Obamacare or SEIU would be forced to not focus on getting Democrats elected in November.

"The head of the SEIU is upset about reports that Democrats are considering pursuing a new bill that addresses the healthcare issues that both Democrats and Republicans agree on. A compromise Obamacare bill could get pushed though that addresses life time caps, pre-existing conditions, and portability without costing trillions of dollars and creating a massive new government buracracy.

"SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, warned that Democrats must pass the Senate version of the bill or SEIU members may be forced to focus on local candidates in the November mid-term elections rather that push for national candidates.

"It will be interesting to see if the President and Congressional Democrats fear special interests groups more than the American people."

Obama/Stern/ACORN/SEIU/La Raza will continue to push the radical agenda as hard and skillfully as they can.

Former La Raza National Council member Sonia Sotomayor became first appointee to the United States Supreme Court the Obama way, by posing as non-threatening during her confirmation hearing.

The "moderate" Obama pose that fooled many in 2008 was...a pose.

As I wrote in Beware Obama, “The Senator from ACORN” (October 1, 2008) (http://webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081001):

"How many people will rookie United States Senator and 2008 Democrat presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. still be fooling on Election Day 2008?

"Will the current financial crisis that finally resulted from affirmative action lending and intimidation tactics to which Obama is connected ironically make him the next President of the United States?

"If Obama moves into the White House in 2009, it will be because his involvement with ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was not generally appreciated and NOT because Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a National Review Online contributing editor, did not give fair warning.

"On May 29, 2008, Mr. Kurtz shared his 'Inside Obama’s Acorn, By their fruits ye shall know them.'

"Mr. Kurtz warned in that article, 'if you’re looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama’s network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the "President from Acorn" at his feast.

"Then Obama was implausibly insisting that he had not appreciated what Rev. Jeremiah A. 'God damn America' Wright, Jr. had been saying, even though he had credited Rev. Wright with helping him find God, joined Rev. Wright’s black liberation theology church, had Rev. Wright officiate at his marriage and baptize his children, written a glowing and detailed tribute to Rev. Wright in his first book Dreams From My Father and (albeit without acknowledgement in the book itself) taken the title to his second book (The Audacity of Hope) from the sermon by Rev. Wright that he had claimed to have found so inspiring.

"Mr. Kurtz’s article came too late to stop Obama from securing the Democrat presidential nomination, but it rightly called for scrutinizing and publicizing Obama’s long relationship with ACORN, as community organizer, lawyer and funder in his capacity as a corporate CEO.

"Mr. Kurtz:

'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 [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.'

"Mr. Kurtz would have won that bet.

"Tragically, the biased mainstream media essentially has been giving Obama a pass on his relationship with ACORN.

"Mr. Kurtz:

'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.'

"So Mr. Kurtz helpfully reported as follows:

'To understand the nature and extent of Acorn’s radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, "ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities." (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga’s "Acorn Squash.")

'Sol Stern 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, says Stern, grew out of "one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization." In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force "a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy." Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.

'While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often "slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are." Acorn’s new goals are municipal "living wage" laws targeting "big-box" stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating "predatory lending." Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive "donations" that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.

'According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward "undisguised authoritarian socialism." Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain "exit visas." "How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?’ asks Stern, adding, ‘This is the road to serfdom indeed.’”

"Non-partisan National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal of the 100 United States Senators. That means that Obama beat out Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who honestly identifies himself as a Socialist.

"Mr. Kurtz continued:

'Acorn’s tactics are famously "in your face." Just think of 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. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against 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.

'Acorn, however, defiantly touts its confrontational tactics. While Stern himself notes this, the point is driven home sharper still in an Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled "Enraging the Right." Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply’s avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern’s powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. Do Atlas and Dreier object to Stern’s characterizations of Acorn’s radical plans — even his slippery-slope warnings about Acorn’s designs on basic freedom of movement? Nope. "Stern accurately outlines Acorn’s agenda," they say.

'Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

'But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist "New Party."'

"Obama is 'a savvy and exceedingly effective political player' too. He feigns moderation even as some of his media supporters suggest that he show 'passion.' He is resolved not to appear angry and aggressive, lest he lose swing voters. But his long-term relationshio with ACORN speaks volumes about where his heart is and what a threat he really is.

"Mr. Kurtz related Obama’s relationship with ACORN both in reality and as mentioned by Obama-friendly media as follows:

'What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let’s begin with Obama’s pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a "community organizer" does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama’s early Chicago days opens with the 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. This is the image of Obama’s organizing we’re supposed to hold. It’s far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, "Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement" in their communities. Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.

'Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama’s organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story’s emphasis is to affirm Obama’s important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

'And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.

'Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call "direct action," orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.'

"Obama protests guilt by association, but the truth is that a person’s associations tell others plenty about that person and Obama’s associations with Rev. Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Tony Rezko as well as Madeleine Talbot are disconcertingly telling.

"Mr. Kurtz:

'Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive "direct action?" Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama’s early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn’s "inside baseball" strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they’d be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the "direct action" side of community organizing.'

"Obama’s claim of ignorance of Rev. Wright’s vilest sermons was highly implausible, as would be a claim that he really did not know what ACORN’s agenda is.

"Mr. Kurtz:

'Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.

'To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan "actions" that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a "surprise visit" to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks — but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama’s alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.'

"The real Obama is NOT the Obama the media has been showing America for years!"

Abraham Lincoln was right: “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.”

As the Age of Obama has unfolded, more and more people (most importantly, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief) learned that they invested their hope for positive change in the wrong person or given him a benefit of a doubt he did not deserve.

The real Obama HAS to continue to push Big Government (the political philosophy, NOT the Andrew Breitbart website), Obamacare, amnesty and citizenship for those illegally in America, automatic voter registration, wealth redistribution, judicial activism and anything else that benefits the Far Left and buttresses its power...and don't expect voter intimidation by Black Panthers, or SEIU, or ACORN to be prosecuted.

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.