Be careful what you believe solely by looking for names, I mean, the House, after being caught the first time referring to "community organizers" and "homeowner education" in the first iteration of the 700 billion dollar bailout, to then have the Senate by name ("ACORN")attempt to allocate 20 billion dollars to the Housing arm of ACORN which is meant to help new home owners, does not help anyone believe in these bills being upfront and honest in their statements of allocations.

Of course there is a sensitivity to allocating unheard of sums as it is, this is further exacerbated by doing so to non profit organizations.

In regard to Obama's former clients this is a particularly sensitive area. Rezko is a well documented slum lord that took government funds to "refurbish" buildings but did little refurbishing.

ACORN who also had Barack Obama as their lawyer, according to an article written by one of ACORN's founders and published in Social Policy Magazine. Interestingly, once there was great public interest shown for the article it was made available only to registered users. The article can be found in volume 34 I believe and is available at www.socialpolicy.org.

The lawsuit, that then lawyer Barack Obama brought, was to assure loans would be given to people at no interest, who cannot pay them back, and for no money down, on the grounds it's a civil rights violation if the bank doesn't make the loan.

You can see how the ACORN lawsuit results in great sensitivity to anything even slightly rewarding such groups that hired Obama to carry out such a lawsuit that created loans that are worthless and eventually never saw a penny of return on the money lent. It is this appearance of hand out to ACORN by organizational identification that is in the current bill and which more than suggests a reference to ACORN as a recipient of up to 4.2 billion dollars from the stimulus plan which money would provide no jobs when going to a non-profit as these operate almost entirely on the basis of volunteers.

The 700 billion TARP Bailout, the House Bill (the original of which has been removed from govtrack) was overt in referring to "Community Oranizing" and how 65% of 20% of the funds from TARP loan payback is put into a trust and would go to this particular community organizing function, distributed to non profit groups that assist with housing issues, again describing ACORN, at least according to their historic activity and role in communities. That provision was stricken, and then a new provision surfaced once the Senate picked it up which overtly stated "to provide $20 billion to the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now," which was quickly stricken based on republican objections because ACORN is not a financial institution with troubled assets as the TARP was meant to be used.

With the stimulus bill it appears the democrats learned their "language" lesson and the Republicans found the hole that can be used to create a virtual slush fund for these non-profit groups whose business organization does not provide much, if any, economic stimulus.

Here is the language in the current stimulus that eludes to ACORN by identification of the organization in an area of activity that ACORN's Homeowner Education Group, the principle that funds the ACORN political group, has done historically:

"For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), of which—

“(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]”

“(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance […]”

The use of "consortia of nonprofit entities" is not a reference to many non profit entities. There are few "consortia of nonprofit entities" such as ACORN, and even fewer still that are involved in "stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes" and this is why there is this certainty this language is specifically to assure ACORN an opportunity at these funds that is less scrutinized than the current access they have to other smaller pools of funds at the state and local level that are reimbursed by the federal government. This would streamline the process specifically for entities meeting that "consortia of non profits" identification so they can get their hands on a larger pool of fund without the State and local governments as middlemen.

This access isn't bad, in and of itself, but, a consortia of non profits will suck up the whole 4.2 billion before other non profits will have a chance to even apply for them, especially one that favor has been shown to by the democrats in Congress, FannieMae, FreddieMac, and even George Bush (See below.). And this is besides the point of the money providing little if any economic stimulus.

Also understand that ACORN did receive 17 million dollars under George Bush just before he left office and irrespective of the House Minority leader, Boehner asking him to stop all funding of ACORN until the disposition of the the voter fraud cases pending in 11 states is final.

It appears to me that if there hadn't been an overt attempt by Senate democrats to give 20 billion to ACORN in the 700 billion bailout after the republicans caught the attempt to give 65% of 20% of the Tarp funds to ACORN in the original House Bailout Bill that failed, the republicans wouldn't be scrutinizing so strongly to find the one means in the law by which ACORN can appear to be receiving a special consideration by reference as "a consortia of non profit organizations" which is just to obvious a convenient special provision due to it being in the exact area of public funding that ACORN has pursued in their history of community activism.

Now I can understand not even thinking this is happening, but, I submit that if you pull out your vehicle code and look up almost any portion after the first 100 codes, you'll see that politicians are not direct, even those professing "change." They craft laws to fulfill personal and other special interests without appearing to do so as their daily job.

To emphasize the special interest connection that lawmakers are far more aware of than the general public, President Obama maintained that he had a very minimal relationship with ACORN throughout his campaign. Yet the Social Policy Magazine article I mentioned above, the one by one of the founders of ACORN, with photographs as well, entirely refutes and states otherwise.

This video, doesn't help either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't blame you if you can't see it, they are politicians writing these laws, lawyers studied in "the art of rhetoric" also knows as bullsh**. So I can understand entirely any reservations you have to seeing the connections and apologize for my not being better able to articulate these so you can see them.

Our press who failed to investigate Obama, to investigate ties thoroughly and repeatedly pursued angles that assured Obama would not be vetted...Why?

The Fairness Doctrine.

Obama means that the Fairness Doctrine will be passed.  This means no more conservative talk radio criticism of the Mainstream Media, no more checking their facts, and no more proving when they lied.  The Mainstream Media need this to survive.

However, let us not forget that the Mainstream Media hides behind the 1st Amendment to protect their sources, and, since they are permitted by government to operate as a news agency, with a public purpose their paramount goal, that when these agencies decide not to act in the best interest of the public by unbiased and fair reporting, there is an accountability they invoked in asking for those 1st Amendment protections.

Instead there needs to be a self executing legal standard, so the news agency volunteered to a change in their legal status ("act includes omission").  No longer will these be viewed as a news organization, but, depending on the climate:

1)  They will be viewed as a political organization and have agreed they abandoned their public responsibility; or,

2)  They will be viewed as a social organization, and no longer have any privileged public status or access.  This includes all news organizations including the Associated Press and Reuters, etc.; or,

3)  They will be viewed as an advertising agency, subject to the rules of advertising and publication for advertising purposes; or,

4)  They will be viewed as a domestic terrorist organization if their failure resulted in a negative impact on our society or government and such failure was by mutual agreement of the principals of such organization.


Thus all licenses to distribute their information are subject to review, all access to public news sources such as API, and all communications with their sources are subject to scrutiny, or, these agencies will have committed a misdemeanor to a felony crime against the public.

See if they want to hide behind the protections of the First Amendment then they need to be an unbiased organization from their core outward to the reporter on the ground, seeking out all the information and reporting it without couching and infusing their personal beliefs or opinions.  But of course as liberals they want it both ways, and of course, as conservatives, we make allowance, and over time the people are automatons by habit, and the liberals used this very means to ignore the President-Elect's judgment as an issue, for to do so would mean 4 more years of talk radio holding the biased network media to account for it's lies, for it's made up controversies, and willingness to attack solely on the basis of a reporter and editor's personal bias, nothing else.

A free press can't have themselves being held accountable to genuineness, to fairness in reporting, to the idea of being unbiased in fact, and reserving all opinion for the opinion page, for then it'd be Journalism and not self interested propaganda.

Thank you for reading.

Just like the President-Elect is doing all they can to make their left the "new center" already, with "We may change...." repeated pretty regularly in the celebratory speech, so too the "Fairness Doctrine," which has never been discussed as applicable to print media or television, attempts to redefine what is "fair" or "balanced" or even "centered."

Case in point:  FoxNews.

Many claim FoxNews is "right wing," and "run by a neocon, Murdock, it's all conservative."  And often group after group of organizations which do not lean left in the first place will explain the balance of negative McCain and Obama advertisements, or the balance of democrats and conservatives 31% democrats, 39% republicans, which means 30% independent, which is a far cry from CNN and it's 15% republicans and 51% democrat audience.

The point being that "normal" and its relativity is what's going on here.

CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. cater to their market.  FoxNews caters to it's more balanced market, with a slight edge toward republicans (who tend to be conservative).

Talk radio is mostly listened to by older people, conservatives.  These stations are merely catering to their market, both advertiser and listener.

The Fairness Doctrine therefore is an imposition on and impediment to commerce by interfering with a media business in keeping it's message on point to the needs and desires of it's audience and advertisers.  This appealing to the known audience is done no less than any other media, newspapers, television or cable.  Thus imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine," to be genuinely fair, needs to be upon all media, not just talk radio.  This is because the Fairness Doctrine is imposing on talk radio that they appeal to a market that doesn't listen to them, doesn't care about what they have to say. 

In this same way CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. need to be forced to appeal to those who do not watch them as well.  I watch FoxNews, haven't paid attention to network television for quite a while.  The Fairness Doctrine, to be fair, needs to impose upon these network media the same "other opinion/opposing view" or this law is a certain and specific misnomer.  If the "Fairness Doctrine" is imposed on talk radio alone, it should be renamed the "Suppress Opposing Views Having Their Own Media for Their Own Voice Doctrine."

Until conservative voices are being imposed upon Network News, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the like, there is no one assuring that the views expressed on talk radio, that appeal to mostly elderly people, are expressed or can be expressed anywhere else.  Without this "balance" to assure that the Freedom of Speech rights of conservatism and it's one outlet are not suppressed by an authoritarian American Government under liberal leadership, there is no fairness whatsoever to the "Fairness Doctrine."

However considering President-Elect Obama has an attitude of "what the government must do on your behalf," I am sure the elite authoritarian rule is about to commence, the same one that brought us Eschelon (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml).

Get a clue that government will expand at every opportunity.  The nature and direction of such expansion is what's important, whether it occurs for purposes of national emergency or behind a presidential seal claiming "national security," or worse, merely under the table as the Eschelon program has by being located in Europe.  The latter here oppresses Americans but due to the listening post being on foreign soil of a nation we are not at war with, there is nothing Americans can do about it.  Note also that Eschelon claims 97% of all communications worldwide are stored and reviewed by them, a way of saying that American's aren't being unfairly monitored.  This was before modern technology, before George Bush was even running for President!  Eschelon was entirely funded by the United States of America under Bill Clinton, and once implemented other countries joined in so they could get access to information vital to their country's governments.  Free Speech TV, a Noam Chomsky influenced group, did an entire article on Clinton's use of military intelligence to intercept his rivals advertisements before they aired in the 1996 campaign, to then craft and televise a response before the rival advertisements had shown.  However I guess no one cares about these things since government is out of their control, and thus in control over them, that America died a long time ago, the Fairness Doctrine just a procedural act to demonstrate perfection of government domination over it's people in America.

Here is a link to the proliferation of intelligence agencies.  http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel.html  The number of agencies showing under the military intelligence link has grown of course since 911 however the area of "strategic intelligence" has only grown by a few links in these last 8 years.

So while I know many were well intended please understand that emails and the internet are also about to be taxed.  Now some may find that the issue, but it is not.  What is the issue is that by taxation of these means of communication our personal lives can and will be reviewed by government to assure we are in tax compliance.  Of course any questioning of the tax after the fact will require we produce the items in question and thus government review of them by some bureaucratic taxing authority and their minions.  See it's the message behind the message still too:  This means government doesn't trust us either.  Should we be in that relationship with our government?  How can it be of, by, and for the people, if we are the opposing view to government versus it's director since we are the governed and history has proven that every time government runs for it's own purposes the people are oppressed?

Disagree all you want, I can appreciate your kind heart and genuinely honest motives.  The trouble is that the Fairness Doctrine is a means of government directly violating the First Amendment, unless of course, pursuant to equal protection of the laws (not equal oppression), the Fairness Doctrine is instituted across all media, radio, television, cable, satellite, and those news sources of information on the internet.  Anything less is merely the muting of voices of opposition after an election on the ambiguity of "change," something you expect in Venezuela, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., China, and North Korea, something that happened in Germany some 70+ years ago, not something done in a free society, unless of course those doing it are trying to destroy that free society to assure a "lead boot" authoritarian rule as described in the story 1984.

May the face of humanity not be stomped on in this way, majority rule not assumed to mean all disagreement must be silenced and means to voice opposition destroyed.  Let us just hope the lessons of The Enlightenment that all people are sentient, the inspiration that lead to a nation whose people are trusted to govern themselves called America, that this precious principle of freedom is not destroyed by the return of overzealous government.

I hope we all make sure that "center" isn't redefined and we recognize those acts of government that are using powers reserved to us by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and will assure we aren't oppressed as a people -- Government denying any voice, any philosophy a venue to be heard is oppression.

Liberals should be proud of this sacrifice, of assuring the opportunity of oppression so they can get $500 dollars the government assures them came from someone wealthier than they are.

Thank you for reading.