Those disgraceful DEMS: Stimulus to ban religious worship!!

From our friends at WND.com

President Obama’s proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate – and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all.

“This isn’t like a convenient oversight. This is intentional. This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold religious beliefs,” Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today.

His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.

The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: “PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. – No funds awarded under this section may be used for – (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities – (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

 VIEW JIM DEMINT’S SPEAKING ON THE SENATE FLOOR HERE 

 

The wording that specifically targets religious speech already has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House – all GOP members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep the provision targeting religious instruction and activities.

Critics argued schools would accept any money offered, then impose a ban on religious events.

DeMint warned organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious groups would face new bans on access to public facilities that would not apply to other organizations.

“This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I’m outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination,” DeMint said. “Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith.”

DeMint’s comments have been posted online and also are embedded here:

“These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill,” said DeMint.

The senator said the stimulus bill now becomes an “ACLU stimulus” that has the goal of triggering lawsuits “designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation.”

“This language is so vague, it’s not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of ‘religious worship.’ If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America,” he said.

DeMint cited Obama’s statement at the National Prayer Breakfast this week that faith “can promote a greater good for all of us.”

“This provision is an assault against both. It’s un-American and it’s unconstitutional. Intolerant and it’s intolerable,” DeMint said.

The ban on religious organizations is linked to the $3.5 billion intended for “renovation of public or private college and university facilities.”

The ACLJ, which focuses on constitutional law, said the provision “has nothing to do with economic stimulus and everything to do with religious discrimination.”

“The thing is I litigated these cases on these exact issues 20 years ago,” Sekulow told WND. “Not only did we win, two of the decisions were unanimous and the other was 8-1.

“We’re seeing a rollback to the 1970s regarding church-state relations,” he said. “That’s what is troubling. It is a complete rollback that now institutionalizes discrimination through targeting religion.”

Sekulow said he already is drafting a complaint that will challenge the constitutionality of the provision, to be used if it isn’t removed.

He said under current court precedents, it will be a open-and-shut victory.

However, he also warned that the problem is the damage that can be done within the probable four years it would take to get the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and what that court would look like at that point.

Under Obama, he said, “there will be an ideology shift.” New appointments to the bench by Obama, he said, would be “much more left of where Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Stephen) Breyer are.”

 On an online forums page, readers were incensed.

  • “Here comes the assault against Christian churches … Looks like he’s trying to see how much damage he can do in the briefest period of time.”
  • “Obama is the most dangerous man of our times, period. He will seek to overturn everything our nation was built upon, personal freedom, capitalism, even the rock of faith. And he will seek to do it from within, openly, overtly and boldly. Will Christians now respond to this dangerous man in a strong, unified way? Or will Obama succeed in destroying the fabric of the greatest nation in human history?”.
  • “He’s just following the Saul Alinsky rule (in his book, Rules for Radicals) to ‘clothe everything you do in morality’ because this is what most effectively fools the ‘middle class’ into agreeing with what you want to do.”

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

KENYA AA

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both  Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Top grade Kenya AA Coffee Roasted to Order – BUY IT HERE

Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga

Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga

There have been accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombasa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SARAH P. HERLIHY

INTRODUCTION

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1
undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-
for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor

This is very lengthy – read it HERE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

For all those Obama supporters that are employed (probably not many as a percentage): I hope you start to see the light and ask: What in the world did we just do??

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating   401(k)s, IRAs

————-

FundRaisingearn up to 50% Gourmet Tea and Coffee
Are you a PTA member, team manager, Sport Association Board member? Church Member?…..
Gourmet Tea and Gourmet Coffee roasted to order FUND-RAISING OPPORTUNITIES: EARN UP TO 50% WITH OUR program TAILORED just for you, visit us HERE.

____________

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan
accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,”
blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to
conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”   Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only
increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social
Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality
Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to
save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever
for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax
breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions
are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are
available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”   All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying
Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions.
Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts.

For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their owncontributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to
sustain a savings plan.”
She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the
four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government”
was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through
redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of
equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw”
in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file
income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),
” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and
performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an
economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members
were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a
Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in
public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital
markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate
profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure
retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement
accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with
Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says
only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court
justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

D-Day has begun

With your help and the help of almost 50,000 other Americans, we at the National Republican Trust PAC — also known as GOPtrust.com — have begun our TV assault in Georgia against Barack Obama and the left-wing Democrats who want total control over Congress.

Our new TV ad has begun to run across Georgia exposing Obama’s plans.
As you know, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss is fighting to keep his Georgia seat in GOP hands.
It is critical he does so. Chambliss will be the key Senate vote in stopping Obama’s radical agenda.
But Sen. Chambliss faces an incredibly stiff challenge from his opponent Jim Martin.
Just last week Obama, Chuck Schumer and Washington Democrats poured almost $1 million into the state to defeat him.

They are bussing in thousands of “organizers” to snatch this election from the GOP.
This is why our campaign is so vitally important.
Fox News analyst Dick Morris says this election is vitally important to all of us across the country.
Morris says if Obama wins the Georgia seat, he will ram through Congress a radical agenda on taxes, guns, abortion — he can even shut down talk radio!

Dick Morris says we at the National Republican Trust PAC “are leading the fight to save Chambliss and keep Obama from getting a filibuster-proof Senate.”
Dick says this won’t be easy for Chambliss because the Obama camp has more money and they are experts at voter turn-out — the key to winning this race.
But Dick says we can still defeat Martin and Obama.
We need your help today to do it!
Please donate to our cause by Going Here Now

See our new TV ad exposing Obama and Martin — Go Here Now
Thank you.
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

P.S. We now have just two weeks before the December 2nd run-off election. We can leave nothing to chance. We need to raise millions to stop Obama. Please help us today by calling our Donor Hotline at 1-866-957-1467 or Go Here Now
—————————————————————————-
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or
candidate’s committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233

———————————————————————
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable
contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.

Poll gives McCain lead in Fla. early voting

BY JIM ASH • FLORIDA TODAY • October 29, 2008

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Charlie Crist is taking heat from fellow Republicans for a last-minute decision to extend early voting in Florida, but any Democratic advantage might not be as overwhelming as conventional wisdom suggests.

Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early.

“We’re thrilled at the record turnout so far,” said Democratic Party of Florida spokesman Eric Jotkoff. “It’s a clear indication that Democrats want to elect Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ballot so that we can start creating good jobs, rebuilding our economy and getting our nation back on track.”

But party breakdowns for turnout aren’t the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.

And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats’ 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.

Conducted Oct. 25-27, the Los Angeles Times poll gave Obama a 50-47 lead overall in Florida. Only a tiny fraction of the Florida respondents reported voting early, leaving McCain’s lead subject to a wide margin of error. A Quinnipiac University poll, released Wednesday, showed early voters favoring Obama 58-34, another small sample with a potentially wide margin of error.

Meanwhile, some Republicans grumbled that Crist’s dramatic change of heart to expand early voting hours, at the urging of Democratic members of the Florida congressional delegation and House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber of Miami Beach.

Republican operatives said McCain can make up for the apparent Obama surge in early voting through the robust absentee ballot program.

Polls seesaw, but representatives of both campaigns still expect a tight race.

Republican Party of Florida spokeswoman Erin VanSickle declined to comment about early returns.

“Clearly, Gov. Crist continues to put people ahead of politics in Florida, and we commend him for his leadership,” she said. “This type of bold action is why Gov. Crist maintains such high approval ratings among Floridians of all backgrounds.”

Arabs: Obama ‘One of Us’ Farrakhan endorsed Obama and calls him the “messiah.”

Our terrorist enemies LOVE Hussein Obama… so why do so many Americans love him too?While Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama “has tried to push his origins into the background, his ‘Islamic roots’ have won him a place in many Arabs’ hearts.”

That’s the observation of Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri, whose column in Tuesday’s New York Post notes that many Arabs and other Muslims see Obama as “one of them.”

They see that Obama has Arabic-Islamic first and middle names: Barack means “blessed” and Hussein means “beautiful.” His last name is Swahili, an East African language based on Arabic, Taheri writes. His sister is named Oumah, Arabic for “the community of the faithful;” his daughter Malia bears the name of a daughter of the noted Caliph Othman; and his father and stepfather were both Muslims.

Although Taheri did not note it, Obama was raised partially as a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather. While there, he studied at two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim student.

As such he received Islamic religious instruction, studied the Koran, and prayed with other students. He did attend mosque, albeit infrequently, with his stepfather.

Obama’s religious upbringing after Indonesia is somewhat of a mystery until his late 20s. At that point, Obama says he converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago.

Still, Obama has maintained strong support from American Muslims, including Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam movement. Farrakhan has endorsed Obama and has called him the “messiah.”

These factors have made Obama a big hit in the Arab world, where he has received wide praise, including:

  • The Syrian regime has indicated its preference for Obama. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has written: “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the U.S. but for the entire human family.”
  • Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called Obama “a Muslim” and said: “All the people in the Arab and Muslim world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcome him and prayed for his success,” although Qaddafi also expressed criticism of Obama’s comments on the future of Jerusalem.
  • Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said this year: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”
  • Hezbollah’s second in command, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, urged Americans to vote for Obama as a step toward peace with Islam, and pro-Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said there is “no doubt Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency,” according to Taheri.
  • In Saudi Arabia, commentator Hussein Shobokshi wrote that an Obama presidency “would mark an important moral transformation in the superpower and is a healthy indicator of the long-awaited improvement in the international arena.”

Some columnists also have noted Obama’s close ties to several Palestinian radicals, including Columbia University Prof. Rashid Khalidi — former communications director for the Palestinian Liberation Organization — and another Palestinian political activist, the late Edward Said.

The “Arab street” also favors Obama. Recent surveys found that he is the preferred candidate in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Editor’s Note: Check out the explosive new ad linking Obama and Rev. Wright — Go Here Now

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The man who wants to steal the Election: Obama Lied About ACORN

By: Dave Eberhart and Jim Meyers

McCain-Palin campaign manager Rick Davis has accused Barack Obama of lying to the American people about his true affiliation with ACORN.

The allegation came in reaction to court testimony Wednesday from a former employee of an ACORN affiliate disclosing the organization’s ties to the Obama campaign.

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, has come under intense fire for, among other things, registering folks who don’t exist. The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states amid allegations that almost one-third of the 1.3 million registration cards it turned in are invalid.

The testimony of the former worker for an ACORN affiliate “proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN,” Davis said.

“At the last presidential debate, in front of 60 million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved with ACORN.

“We now know that Barack Obama’s campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the FBI and in more than a dozen states.

“In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization.”

Davis based his latest charge on the court testimony of Anita Moncrief, a former employee of ACORN sister organization Project Vote.

She testified in a Pennsylvania court on Wednesday that the organization was provided a donor list from Obama’s presidential in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C., staffer for Project Vote, said her supervisor acknowledged that the list of contributors came from the Obama campaign, according to a report in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Moncrief said she has a copy of a development plan that outlines how Obama contributors who had maxed out under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

She testified further that ACORN and Project Vote are virtually identical.

During the Oct. 15 Presidential debate, here is what Obama said about his ties to ACORN:

“Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they’ve done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us.

“We were not involved. The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.”

Moncrief testified in connection with a case the state’s Republican Party brought, seeking Project Vote’s registration lists.

ACORN’s quality-control efforts were “minimal or nonexistent,” she said, adding that she was distressed by ACORN’s “Muscle for Money” Program, which she claimed intimidated businesses ACORN opposed into paying “protection” money in the form of grants, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund disclosed.

Moncrief joined Project Vote in 2005 and was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the organization’s credit card.

“Anyone [at ACORN] who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy,” she told Fund.

“Just like the mob, no one leaves ACORN happily.”

There has never been a doubt as to which candidate ACORN supports for president. Its Political Action Committee officially endorsed Barack Obama on Feb. 21.

 

 

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.