Occupy Wall Street = Acorn and Other Disgusting Stuff

Occupy Wall Street, the movement hailed by the White House as the voice of the people rising up in rebellion, now has some serious questions to answer.

A news article by Jana Winter of Fox News entitled:

EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

details how the Occupy movement has been organized and funded by Acorn.

Well, let's back up, since Acorn was officially disbanded in 2009, it is not really Acorn, but the New York Communities for Change, (NYCC) that is running Occupy Wall Street. It seems that this community activist group was started in 2009, as Acorn died, by the same people who ran Acorn.

Jana Winters article states:

"NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour. . . "

Additional comments in the article from workers inside NYCC:

"Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures.

“I went to the protests every day for two weeks and made $10 an hour. They made me carry NYCC signs and big orange banners that say NYCC in white letters. About 50 others were hired around my time to go to the protests. We went to protests in and around Zuccotti Park, then to the big Times Square protest,” she said.

“But now they have me canvassing on Long Island for money, so I get the money and then the money is being used for Occupy Wall Street—to pay for all of it, for supplies, food, transportation, salaries, for everything ... all that money is going to pay for the protests downtown and that’s just messed up. It’s just wrong.”

Additionally:

Sources said staff members also collected door-to-door for NYCC’s PCB campaign — which aims to test schools for deadly toxins —but then pooled that money together with cash raised for the teachers union and other campaigns to fund Occupy Wall Street.

So, NYCC has been supporting Occupy Wall Street by not only:

• Hiring protesters
• Hiring fundraisers and canvassers

But also illegally collecting money for:

• United Federation of Teachers
• PCB Testing in Schools
• Reducing home foreclosures
• And diverting the money to Occupy Wall Street.

Incidentally, the UFT has said, "The UFT is not involved in any NYCC fundraising on the PCB issue.”

Little wonder that the rag-tag occupiers in 2011 are reminiscent of the sit-in hippies of the 1960's and not the Tea Party demonstrations. While the hippies scavenged off the urban landscape for subsistence, the occupiers fraudulently collect funds to pay, feed and house their members. The Tea Party activists rallied, demonstrated, clean-up their messes and then went back to work.

The same community organizers (Acorn) that have been secretly sucking funds from the government to promote and maintain poverty and urban unrest for the past decade, are continuing their efforts under a different name, (NYCC), but with the same agenda.

It is no wonder that President Obama has given his backing to this movement. His only real job listing on his resume is that of a community organizer.

Warren Buffet, If You Want To Pay More Taxes, What's Stopping You?

I just found John Hayward's article in Human Events published 08-31-2011 entitled:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes.

In the article he quotes Warren Buffett in a New York Times op-ed piece.

"OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."

Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government also has an article today entitled:

Buffett’s Billion-Dollar Tax Hypocrisy

Here Mr. Wilson outlines the more than $1,005,000,000.00 ($1.005 Billion) Warren Buffett's companies owe the federal government in back taxes. Mind you, these figures come from Berkshire Hathaway's own accounts, not from the IRS or another sleuth tank. So while Warren Buffett pleads for the President to tax him more, he employees hundreds of accounts and lawyers and millions of dollars to keep him from doing so.

My advise to Mr. Buffett and other rich liberal leaning Hollywood types that have asked for a greater share of the tax burden, "Put your money where your mouth is."

If Warren Buffett wrote a check for $1,005,000,000.00, and add an additional $10,000,000.00, the IRS would not even bat an eye. They would accept it graciously. There is no law that says you can't pay more than you owe.

If they didn't feel the Federal Government knew the best way to use these additional funds, they always have the option to donate to worthwhile charities and foundations that will help the poor and destitute. Rather than being listed with the rest of the liberal bunch and known as the stingiest contributers to charities, they could go down as super philanthropists and be revered for centuries.

Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?

Charles Hurt wrote an interesting article in the Washington Times entitled,

"Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?"

In posing the question, Mr. Hurt reminded us how the Democratic Party and Liberal idealists have blatantly attacked both blacks and whites, labeling them racists merely because they disagreed with their own personal philosophies. From Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain, "pulling the race card" has been an acceptable method of operation to divert attention from their failed ideals.

While there are far too many ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded sociopaths in this country that judge people by their appearance or the color of their skin, I have found that most of the population of the United States accepts people for what they do and who they are. We all have apprehension when we are introduced into a new environment such as moving to communities where the dominate religion is not our own or the majority of the people are a different color. This concern doesn't mean that we are racists. It is just the process of being stretched out of our comfort zone. After we have time to acclimatize, we learn to love and appreciate our new home and associations as much as the last place we lived.

In a recent article I wrote, Americans Are Not Racial Cowards, as a rebuttal to the comment by Attorney General Eric Holder where he said that,

. . . in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

I identified who a racist is:

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries.

In an effort to teach the truth of this concept I ended the article with the following analogy.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air or vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all. Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

I supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court because he believed in the principles I uphold in our Constitution. It had nothing to do with him being black and I was not disappointed.

I didn't support Barack Obama as President of the United States because I do not agree with his idea of changing our country into a Socialistic State, an idea that has never succeed in any country in the world, ever. It had nothing to do with him being black and I have been thoroughly embarrassed by him.

I would support Herman Cain if his ideals for this country center around hard work, sound fiscal practices and ethical political leadership whether he was black, white or green. I don't care if our President is White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Male or Female. As long as they are born and raised in this country, have a love of the constitution and the tenacity to defend it, I will throw my support and vote behind them.

If not, I will look for another candidate.

Also of interest, "Wanted, Real Leaders"

Putting Homosexuality into Perspective

There has been so much talk, so many accusations regarding homosexuality, that the basic principles and premises have be lost in the cloud of rhetoric.

On one hand, there are the religious fundamentalists, who, citing God as their resource, condemn not only the action, but all of the participants as well. This non-Christian attitude gives rise to bigotry, gay-bashing, acts of hate and violence and ultimately deprives the promoter of compassion, tolerance and charity, that pure love of Christ.

On the other hand, with the homosexual adherents, there flourishes whining cries of persecution, accusations of homophobia and the irrelevant shouts of the depravation of civil rights. More damaging than these is the promotion of sexual promiscuity and the de-valuation of the family.

Putting aside all the charges and counter-charges, there are a few simple principles that should put the issue into perspective.

1. There is, has been and always will be a difference between the act and the perpetrator. We can and should abhor actions that are wrong, destructive and damaging to mankind, but we always need to separate the revulsion for the act from the participant. When we become disgusted with the person, we alienate and ostracize them from society. Without a tie to society, there is seldom enough motivation for a constructive change to take place. In other words, condemning the person is a death sentence for reformation.

2. There is no such thing as a "hate crime." A crime is a crime, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal. What the two men beating Matthew Shepherd were thinking or what motivated them to act did not lessen or increase his pain, trauma and ultimate death. When a "God fearing Christian" makes derogatory remarks, spits or hits a gay person, it is no different than if they did the same thing to a white, Black, Asian or Jewish person. There is no justification or excuse for such behavior.

3. Relationships between people of the same sex are not only easier, but they are good. They provide common elements, attitudes and understandings that can help each of us to better cope and enjoy life. The problem arises in the misconception that sexual activity is a basic human need that can be satisfied with anyone or anything, in virtually any setting.

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage, never brings the happiness and enduring satisfaction the participants are seeking. Sexual activity stimulates a hormonal change in us that bonds a man and woman together and facilitates a lifelong partnership in addition to perpetuating our species. It is an important element in making a heterosexual relationship endure. In any other setting, sex is destructive and dangerous.

4. Homosexuality is a choice, not chance. As discussed in #3, we by nature develop friendships and relationships with those of our own sex, but having a sexual relationship with them is a choice that is made, not a fate that is executed. There are those who have a predisposition or tendency to a same sex relationship, just as there are those who are predisposed to become adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters or any other negative behavior.

This in no way excuses one from submitting to attitudes and actions that will eventually bring pain, humiliation or death to you or others.

5. Too many times, those who do transgress the social mores, complain that they are not welcome in the company of those they offend. Of course we are not welcome if we promote concepts or attitudes that are contrary to a group. I raise the question, "Why do you care if the ‘opposition’ doesn’t accept you and why would you want to be accepted by those who oppose you?"

If an organization does not believe the same as you, how can you be offended by not being invited to attend? How many Jews have complained that they are excluded from Neo-Nazi groups or how many Blacks have sued the Klu Klux Klan for admission? The only justification for such action is seeking acknowledgement for a behavior they know is wrong, but want to continue.

For that, there is no protection under the law.

Protecting Cross Burning as an American Tradition

Several years ago, the Virginia State Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting cross-burning. As much as I personally feel that cross-burning is divisive, non-productive and a feeble way at best to express ones self, I have to agree with the Court. The right to free speech must always be protected in this country, “no matter how repugnant that speech might be.”

The Court stated, "While reasonable prohibitions upon time, place and manner of speech, and statutes of neutral application, may be enforced, government may not regulate speech based on hostility -- or favoritism -- towards the underlying message expressed."

To abide by the spirit of the Court’s decision, we must evaluate the real issue here, public safety. The reason that people in this country are opposed to cross-burning is that, all too often, someone or something gets hurt. Someone is burned, beaten or a home ends up being torched. So rather than trampling on the civil liberties of American Citizens, here is a very sensible, practical step that municipalities can enact for the public good and safety.

Require cross-burning permits, similar to those presently required by cities and counties across the country for open burning of weeds or trash. These permits would have be purchased 5 days prior to the event and provide the following information:

• Name of the sponsoring organization, including principle officer's addresses and phone numbers
• List the names and ages of all participants
• Location, time and length of the activity
• Provide a signed contractual agreement with the property owner(s) where the event will take place, agreeing to provide the venue, and guaranteeing that the following items are adhered to:
• If the cross exceeds 4 feet in height or the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor or the property owner would have to provide a bond to cover any losses or damages incurred.
• Sponsors must provide a signed permit from the local Fire Chief, citing proof that adequate fire safety measures will be enacted, and detailing such measures, to protect property and participants.
• If the anticipated crowd could exceed 10, the sponsors would have to provide toilet facilities for the participants.
• If the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor would have to provide proof that adequate security will be provided or the local police will provide security and bill the sponsor for any expenses incurred.
• Fire Chief must also inspect the venue 30 minute prior to the starting of the event to ensure that all the above measures were fulfilled. Violations that are not immediately corrected will require the cancellation of the event.
• If alcohol is served, the sponsor or vendors must provide the appropriate licenses and/or permits for the sale and/or distribution of alcoholic beverages as mandated by the current State and County laws.

The violation of any part of the cross-burning ordinance carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail, payment of any damages and a fine of up to, but not to exceed the amount of damages, assessed to the sponsoring organization and any or all participants.