Sarah wants to be vice-president right? She's on the Republican side too. Alright, I'm ready. I was just clearing that up.

Dear Sarah Palin and the rest of the world reading,

I think that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard someone say when they are in an election. There is a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women??? Might as well say there is a place in Hell reserved for men who don't support other men. Or there is a place in Hell reserved for people who don't support other people.  It is a stupid nonsensical phrase and it is just shows that Palin is a coward. She is pulling out the big imaginary guns. Seriously, if there is a place in hell reserved for women who don't support other women, Hillary should have said that in the first place. She would still be in this election.

I think Palin is panicking. I don't see any other reason for her to bring religion into the election. By the way, I have never heard that ever, not in the bible, not in church, not on the streets and not by our Priest. I find it a panic move. She needed to say that. She knows she's not doing well in the polls. It makes her seem pathetic.

It is a cowards move, in my opinion.

i hear your cries

i  hear you in city to the east

beggin for somethin new

and there are no politics

with open pockets

and no loyalty to the people

they stand with there mask

and there pockets stuffed

they watch us suffer

while they dine

in halls of gold  silver, and marble

they only care for the companies

that offer  temptations

they're lust cant resist

and i hear that city to the east

crying out

for something that The Republic

lashed out against centuries ago

but  even now has a powerful voice

against the corrupt governments

of this new worlds

this universal scale puzzle

that keeps on adding new pieces

and puts together old ones

its unsolvable

but still some believe there is a way

to make it all work together

but  it wont quiet be that way

cause there are so so many pockets being filled

by so many wallets

we believe they're money fed lies

and the masks they put on when they walk out the door

how come your so gullible

take a closer look

but beware

beware beware beware

the truth might take you aback

so take a seat

and open your eyes

but beware

beware beware beware

it might just take your breath away

so look through those lies and masks

look at that demons inside of our goverment

look at the demons

were is the truth

were o were o were?

all see is a firey lies and  money fed masks

show me the truth.

Episode #9 -music,life and wallstreet and news

"I don't think it was rude. That's democracy. In the United States, people demonstrate in front of the White House. It's not like they caused a commotion or started fighting," he said after the party's Hari Raya gathering at the Tarbiyyah headquarters yesterday.

In the incident on the first day of Hari Raya, Hindraf supporters went to the open house at the Putra World Trade Centre and presented a card to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking him to release the organisation' s leaders detained under the Internal Security Act.

The card was delivered by Vwaishnnavi, the 5-year-old daughter of Hindraf leader in exile, P. Waythamoorthy. The group was led by Waythamoorthy' s wife, K. Shanti. About 20 bloggers also turned up at the open house, wearing T-shirts bearing the slogans "No to ISA" and "Free RPK", referring to the two-year detention order on Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

Both groups told journalists their sole intention was to send a message to Abdullah. They have been condemned for being "intimidating, disrespectful and inappropriate" , with Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal saying he would raise the matter in cabinet.

In Pasir Mas, independent MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali called on political parties and non-governmental organisations to stop pressuring the government to release the Hindraf leaders.

He said MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu and Hindraf should not get involved and let the government do its job.

"If the detainees are released following political interference, it will confirm allegations the ISA was being misused. Samy Vellu was a minister and he should know that the ISA is under the minister of home affairs. Even the prime minister cannot interfere."

Ibrahim was speaking at his Hari Raya open house at the Pasir Mas district hall. More than 5,000 constituents attended the event.

He warned that if Hindraf and other NGOs do not stop the pressure, he would use the Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Negara (Perkasa), which he heads, to counter their action.

"If these parties continue, we will organise a demonstration to show our displeasure. We are ready to fight off any interference in the administration of the country."

Education is the safest way to a secure life. That is understood. I know that very well too but it isn't the reason why I am still in school. His main message is take risks, don't play it safe. I know where he is coming from. However, I am not convinced that you have to do something drastic to 'not play it safe'.

Risks depend on a lot of factors. They depend on the people doing the risk, what the risk is and what are the long term effects of this risk. This friend of mine can easily find his way without school but it doesn't mean everyone can. I can't. I know that. However, there are still risk worth taking while in school or in a job you hate( or love/like). There are always risk in anything.

With major national exams coming up next year, I took a risk by applying for the Global Young Leaders Conference 2009, which will be held in 2009 June. People tell me I'm silly and that I need to study if I want to enter my dream school but this will still be worthwhile. I understand why many didn't try out for it, but that doesn't mean I have to follow the crowd.

The path I have planned ahead involves a lot of risk but to name them all would be a waste of space. Main message is that you can take risk, but take the risk you want to take. You will get where you want to be.

`सनातन प्रभात'च्या बंदीचा कुटील डाव म्हणजे राष्ट्र व धर्म प्रेमी वृत्तपत्राचा राजकीय छळ !

`सह्याद्री' वाहिनीने `साडेनऊच्या बातम्यां'मध्ये सांगितलेली माहिती !

मुंबई, ४ ऑक्टोबर (वार्ता.) - `सनातन प्रभात'सारख्या संघटनांवर बंदी घालण्याबाबत सरकार गंभीरपणे विचार करत आहे, असे प्रतिपादन गृहमंत्री श्री. रा.रा. पाटील यांनी केल्याची माहिती नुकतीच दूरदर्शनच्या `सह्याद्री' वाहिनीवरून रात्री `साडेनऊच्या बातम्यां'मध्ये वृत्तनिवेदिकेने सांगितली. (`सनातन प्रभात' ही संघटना नाही, तर ते नियतकालिक आहे ! - संपादक) काल सकाळी `साडेआठच्या बातम्यां'तही ही माहिती वृत्तनिवेदिकेने पुन्हा दिली. कवठेमहांकाळ येथील महाविद्यालयाच्या इमारतीच्या उद्घाटनाच्या प्रसंगी उपमुख्यमंत्री श्री. पाटील यांनी वरील प्रतिपादन केले, असे तिने सांगितले. दहशतवाद्यांच्या विरोधात कारवाई करण्याच्या संदर्भात ते बोलत होते, असे ती म्हणाली. (दहशतवाद्यांच्या विरोधातील कारवाईच्या संदर्भात बोलतांना गृहमंत्र्यांनी `सनातन प्रभात'वर बंदी घालणार असल्याचे सांगणे, हे आश्चर्यकारक आहे. `सनातन प्रभात' नियतकालिक हे केवळ राष्ट्र व धर्म यांच्या स्थितीबाबत माहिती देऊन समाजप्रबोधन करते. त्याचे गृहमंत्र्यांना एवढे वावडे असण्याचे काय कारण ? - संपादक)

  निगडीत वृत्त : सनातनला विरोध

If you ask me(and even if you didn't I am still going to tell you anyways), I think there is something big going on here. Like HUGE! I think China is being framed. By who is unknown. Think about it. If there was melamine in the milk from when countries started importing goods from China, why wasn't there so many reports about infants getting food poisoning and dying? If this was going on right from the start, why didn't anyone say anything about it? I got you thinking now huh?

I knew a while back, something like this was about to happen. China would be blamed for poisoning children. There we have it. Another reason to put China in a spotlight where people do nothing but throw food at you. I hope China can push its way out of that spotlight. Yup I am siding China on this. I don't like seeing them being bullied because they made a mistake and yes it was a major mistake. I want to see them come out of it alive. China is one of the major importers around the world. If we can't trust them, they lose profit and we lose the amount of goods imported. I'm thinking long term. I'm thinking for the good of everyone. There has to be a win-win situation.

I hope there is. All I can do now is hope and wait and watch.

Voting is one of the simplest democratic rights we have and employ that tells the government that we want that right. The world has seen throughout history what the loss of such a simple action does to a country and to its people. Do not let this even be a slight possibility here.

This election is especially interesting as we are entering here with two consecutive minority governments of two different parties who have acted in those minority governments very differently.

While I am trying to remain non-partisan due to my current job as well as my sheer frustration with our political system, I cannot help but be appalled at the Conservatives government cuts to Arts Funding and their continuing dismissal of Social Programs as well as their continual missteps in election campaigns  - there are so many links available here I couldn't list just one, but here are my two favourites: Immigration = crime? and Native Racism.

There are a bevy of ways to learn more and get informed. Check out your nearest Candidate Debate - here in Lethbridge noon in University Hall Atrium on October 7th. Look at reliable news sources  - check out the CBC's Election page and the Globe and Mails Election page and watch the debates. Both the english at ctv.com and french at cbc.ca.

Lastly, voting can be more than just casting a ballot. Strategic voting has become a grassroots intiative that has gained a ton of momtentum in a short peroid of time. Check out votepair.ca for more information and how you can affect change. Also, for all you youth voters check out yvote.org for information on why, how and where to vote.

Last but not least, although Elections Canada has been nothing but useless so far, check out thier website for contact information on where voting stations are posted in your area and what to bring with you.

Out of her league? My god yes.

What we watched last night was a debate- well sort of...

Maybe its because I've been around the theatre for a long time, but when I looked closely, I saw something in Sarah Palin that no one else seemed to mention.

If ever there was a deer in the headlights moment, this was it. The poor woman was downright terrified (as well she should be) through the entire debate. There was virtually no substance to what she said- just plenty of "folksy" style. That grows old quick.

I noticed little things- by the end of the debate, when Pailn talked, they were putting the question on the footer just in case we didn't know what it was anymore. I am thrilled they did so, because I cannot count how many times I sat staring at her thinking "Now exactly what was the question?"

The cuts to Biden were telling as well. Anytime she got off topic, a simple grin spread across his face. Not a smirk, a grin. had this been a real debate, I fear he might have eviscerated her there on stage. Instead, Biden kept his manners- he could of attacked, but was wise enough to know this wasn't abut attacking Palin- it was all about attacking Bush and McCain.

On that side, he was spot on.

My favorite moment? Palin telling Ifill and Biden that she is not going to answer the questions the way they want her to. Think for a moment- what does that mean? I am not going to debate you? I'm going to define this debate on my own terms?

That may work on the seventh grade, but it doesn't in a public policy debate with millions of people looking in. You gotta at least try to answer the questions. At least for me...

But- she sure stirs up the Republican base. For them, it doesn't matter what she knows- she certainly knows enough to get planted on McCain's ticket, and that's good enough for them.

But for the country?

Oh the horror.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” 

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

 

IT GETS BETTER: READ THE WHOLE THING ]]> http://lookattrue.wordpress.com/?p=510 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:24:01 +0000 lookattrue http://lookattrue.id.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/zaid-calls-for-repeal-of-isa-in-open-letter-to-pm/ Datuk Seri Zaid Ibrahim, who quit as de facto Law Minister because he wasn't getting any support for his proposed reforms, has written an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the abolition of the ISA.

Zaid says in the letter that the government has failed the people in repeatedly reneging on Tunku Abduk Rahman's promise that "the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent".

Here is his letter in full:

IN our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.

Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.

The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.

Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution.

Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.

"My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent," was what the Tunku said.

Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry.

The events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.

This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests.

History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day.

Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.

This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.

Even our literary giant, "sasterawan negara" the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security?

I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.

Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.

The only thing that is certain about that period was that Umno was facing a leadership crisis. Isn"t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when Umno is again having a leadership crisis?'

In 2001, Keadilan "reformasi" activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister"s order to detain.

Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined Umno to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem.

At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the menteri besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced.'

The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.

It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression.

In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release.

As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.

However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet, he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.

In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism.'

The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.

How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA.

There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.

I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a "real" threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements.

Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.

They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too.

Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.

In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society.

With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.

I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.

Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.

It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself.

I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less "influential" .

I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia"s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.

This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge.

If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.

If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?

Any doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape.

Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.

Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably.

Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.

Sir, you are still the prime minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all.

Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country.

Yours sincerely,

Zaid Ibrahim

Bloggers, civil-rights groups, nongovernment organizations, and politicians from both sides of the camp have stepped out to condemn the detention of the founder and editor of the blocked Malaysia Today news portal. Raja Petra was detained earlier this month for two years under Malaysia's Internal Security Act, which permits detention without trial.

Raja Petra, in addition to Sin Chew Daily newspaper reporter Tan Hoon Cheng and opposition lawmaker Teresa Kok, were arrested September 12. While Kok and Tan were subsequently released, Raja Petra was remanded in a two-year detention at the Kamunting ISA detention center in Perak state. He also faces charges of sedition and criminal defamation for linking Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife to the murder of a Mongolian woman.

The ISA is a security law, inherited from the British colonial government, specifically to fight against communist terrorists. Civil-rights groups, politicians, and various international bodies have condemned the use of the ISA against bloggers and members of the media.

Zaid Ibrahim, appointed a minister after the March 2008 elections to oversee legal affairs and judicial reform, resigned from the prime minister's cabinet in protest of the arrests.

Galvanizing effect
Various groups and bloggers have been attempting to garner international support against the incarceration of the Malaysia Today editor.

According to blogger Jeff Ooi, who was voted into parliament during the country's March election, Raja Petra's detention will galvanize the country's blogger community to further resist any perceived injustice, corruption, and abuse of power.

In a phone interview with ZDNet Asia, Penang-based Ooi said the government's use of the ISA on bloggers signaled that it has lost the cyberspace battle, resorting to oppressive security laws to silence growing online dissent.

"The government has lost the plot on how best to handle Raja Petra," he said. "For the government to invoke the ISA means that they can't fast-track the legal process, which includes his sedition and criminal defamation cases, to stop Raja Petra."

On the effect on bloggers, Ooi added: "Malaysia has lost a voice of dissent, and it does send a chilling message to other bloggers (who) are asking, 'who is next'? As we move toward freedom of expression, we are now pegged back by the government's action against prominent bloggers like Raja Petra."

Ooi concedes that some bloggers, especially the younger, less experienced ones, may be intimidated by the government crackdown. "But the committed and more matured bloggers won't be," he said. "They will carry on the struggle. The Malaysian blogging community remains committed to fight against injustice, corruption, and government excesses."

Asked if he feared facing similar ISA charges over his blog posts, Ooi said, "If Raja Petra and the reporter can be arrested, I don't think I'm immune to this possibility. However, the government's actions won't deter me; I will continue to write without fear or favor, as always."

Global criticism
The Kuala Lumpur-based Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) also condemned Raja Petra's detention, calling it a "clear abuse of an archaic law." Its executive director, V. Gayathry, said in a statement that the current administration is using the ISA "to safeguard its shaky position."

The CIJ further expressed its concern that Raja Petra's detention would send "a chilling message" to other bloggers, discourage future whistle-blowers from exposing any future wrongdoing, and dampen the fervor of public discussion on critical issues.

The government's action has also raised the ire of international watchdog organizations, such as the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which noted that the blogger's detention sent an alarming message to all critics of the government that dissent will not be tolerated.

"In a time of political instability, a free media is all the more crucial to ensure a proper democratic process," the IFJ Asia-Pacific said in a statement. "Far from setting an example in the region, Malaysia is hurtling down an antidemocratic and authoritarian path." The watchdog asked that the government release Raja Petra, and "cease using the ISA to clamp down on journalism and free expression in Malaysia."

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said online commentators should not be jailed because of their articles. "A two-year jail term imposed at the government's sole discretion against one of its known critics is cause for real concern. We call on the home minister to overturn this sentence immediately, " Bob Dietz, Asia program coordinator from the CPJ, said in a statement:

Lee Min Keong is a freelance IT writer for ZDNet Asia based in Malaysia.

Remember- this position has been compared in the past to a "warm jar of piss."

And so, we get to watch Biden and Palin fight it out for that warm jar of piss.

Of course, it's been analyzed to death by folk more informed than I. But, what's one more squirt into the warm jar of piss-

I have a pretty clear idea of Joe Biden- thirty plus years in the Senate, and lacks the actual qualities to win himself the nomination for the presidency.

Palin? Let's judge her on the scale that she should be judged on-

Like Biden, she too lacks the actual qualities necessary to win the presidency. If this were a campaign, she would have already been done- a laughingstock. Unless I've got it wrong, her life history looks something like this:

Admittedly selfish father packs her up and moves to Alasaka so that he can go hunting and fishing. It's the truth- look it up.

Small town Wasilla, and Sarah's most notable act is playing basketball for a state champion team.

Okay- not every president has a title trophy sitting somewhere.

Next up? Runner-up for Miss Alaska.

Next? Wife and mother. Perfectly legitimate experience.

And next? mayor of Wasilla (after the PTA and City Council). Don't know how many of you have ever gone to a City Council meeting anywhere, but I think we can safely agree that Mayor of Wasilla is more than a little bit different than say, Mayor of Indianapolis.

Now I can't figure out exactly how she pulled the next one off, but she somehow got herself elated Governor of Alaska. okay- that is impressive. Mayor of Wasilla to Governor of Alaska- something nopt a lot of people pull off.

Year and a half into office she gets picked to run with McCain.

And that is where my head starts to spin- the last character to pull of such an unlikely coup was our old friend Spiro Agnew. We know where that got us...

Then the vetting of Sarah Palin- left to the press because McCain didn't have enough time after everyone screamed "NO LIEBERMAN" to him. At first (and only) glance, she must have seemd like a dream come true.

She is, without question, a likable, affable, funny, attractive, and quick witted person.

But that's it.

Each time she is trotted out before the press, there is less substance to what she says. The mindblower?

Well I didn't think it could get any worse than Katie Couric's first interview. I hadn't seen Katie's second yet.

"Name a newspaper. A magazine. Anything you read..."

"All of 'em. Whatever's put in front of me."

And that's the one that scares me.

"Whatever's put in front of me."

Not "I choose not to read the papers."

Even Bush got away with that one.

But nooooooo....

"Whatever's put in front of me."

Think about that for a while....

Done?

Let's get down to the religion question.

Full-bore fundamentalist Christian.

That's a belief structure that, when really followed, denies that the earth is older than six thousand years. that scars the living crap out of me.

But I digress.

Thursday night we get to watch someone who knows what he's talking about debate with someone who, by all possible measures, lacks the ability to play the game.

Advantage Palin.

Oy.

No thanks. I'd rather deal with those decisions myself.

You will get to see a piece of technology that is in my opinion will prove to be very significant.

If you haven't seen this nifty little computer as of yet, then see my first ever youtube:

The unboxing of our demo unit for our free and affordable computer project: The Belco Alpha 400

at this url: http://minilini.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/unboxing-of-belco-alpha-400-demo-unit-for-free-and-affordable-computer-project/. Its the top post on http://minilini.wordpress.com.

Fannie, Freddie get federal grand jury subpoenas

*snip*

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. mortgage finance giants that were taken over by the government this month, said on Monday they were subpoenaed for documents as part of a federal grand jury investigation into their accounting.

The FBI said last week it was expanding its probe of possible corporate fraud related to the U.S. mortgage market collapse to include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and insurer American International Group (AIG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

Let's not forget how this all came about:

2004 Video: Democrats Refuse Freddie and Fannie Reform

Speaking at the opening of the Federal Territory (FT) Gerakan Wanita and Youth delegates conference this morning, Koh said the Gerakan Central Committee would undertake a more objective and rational analysis of the “quit BN” sentiments in the party.

I dare say without much fear of contradiction that if given the opportunity to voice out, it is not just over 60 per cent of the grassroots in Gerakan but also over 60 per cent of the membership in MCA and MIC would want their parties to leave Barisan Nasional – and the percentage will be even higher for many Barisan Nasional component parties in Sabah and Sarawak, easily exceeding 80%.

This is because the UMNOputra leadership, despite the major blow suffered by UMNO political hegemony in the March 8 general election by a multi-racial and multi-religious Pakatan Rakyat, has proved to be utterly insensitive, blind and deaf to the legitimate aspirations of all Malaysians, including ordinary Malays.

Although the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had immediately declared after the March 8 “political tsunami” that he had finally heard the message from the voters and would deliver the many reform pledges which he had failed to implement, things have gone from bad to worse with the widening and deepening of the multiple crisis of confidence in the country in the past seven months.

Recent events have highlighted the worsening multiple crisis of confidence on the political, economic, institutional and nation-building fronts like:

• The 2008 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development World Investment Report that Malaysia’s foreign direct investment outflows surpassed inflows last year - outflows surged by 82 per cent from 2006 to RM38 billion compared to inflows of RM29 billion, up 39 per cent. According to HLeBroking Research, foreign investors are exiting the country “at a worrying rate”, totaling RM125 billion for the first half of 2008.

• The plunge in the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index from an all-time high of 1,524 points in January to 1,157 shortly after the March general election, to a two-year low of 963 on September 18.

• The 10-placing plunge in Malaysia’s ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index during the five-year premiership of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 47 in 2008;

• The recent gross abuse of the Internal Security Act in the arbitrary arrests of Sin Chew reporter, Tan Hoon Cheng, DAP MP and Senior Exco Teresa Kok (both since released) and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin and the continued detention of the Hindraf Five and other ISA detainees.

• Malay chauvinism and communalism rearing their ugly heads – evidenced by the emphasis on ketuanan Melayu in direct conflict with the Vision 2020 objective of Bangsa Malaysia, which should focus on ketuanan rakyat Malaysia and the furore over Ahmad Ismail’s “penumpang” speech at the Permatang Pauh by-election.

With at least 60 per cent of the grassroots in Gerakan wanting to quit BN, is Koh and the Gerakan party leadership going to respect and accept these grassroots sentiments or are they going to ride roughshod over these majority sentiments of the Gerakan grassroots by dismissing them as irrational and emotional?

This is of course a decision which would have to be decided by the Gerakan internally, but Malaysians at large are waiting and watching the outcome of the Gerakan “soul-searching” .

(Speech at the DAP “Abolish ISA” ceramah at Serdang, Selangor on Sunday, 28th September 2008 at 9 pm)

The bank teller had a simple question for the would-be robber: are you serious?

Apparently the sceptical teller's question was enough to spook the female suspect, who fled the Roslyn Savings Bank without getting a dime.

I wish I could ask a similar question to Obama and McCain: are you serious? Are you serious in wanting to become the next President of a country which is in serious economic trouble, and to whose trouble you yourself have contributed? I just wish I could ask that question, but I'm afraid they have so much money backing them (real guns in a bipartisan plutocracy and make-believe democracy), that they wouldn't just be spooked by the question, and leave the presidential post to someone more qualified, and less responsible for our current economic woes.

We, Bank Tellers of the country's Public Trust, have a right to stop yet another bank robber of the country in the form of sectarian political-economic interests (parties), and backed with billions in public and private funds. We have a right to prevent yet another four-year armed robbery of the country's goods, rights, and freedoms.

Yesterday, at the presidential debate organised by the self-defined "Commission on Presidential Debates", I watched one elderly candidate emulate another one, of another era (Ronald Reagan), while a younger candidate emulated yet another candidate of another era still (John F. Kennedy). Both the candidates aped someone else, but what we really need now is someone who can think with his own head, not Reagan's or Kennedy's, not a man for a season, but a man for all seasons.

I don't know about you, but I will not waste my vote on neither of these puppets of special interests, I will vote for an alternative canditate, even though I know he will probably not win, and I will see the existence of these candidates as licence for the further development of the office of the Governor of Independent Long Island.

Man, what’s going on here more banks getting sized by the government! WaMu was sized by the Federal and bought by JP MORGAN CHASS for a whopping 2 billon dollars and it’s going to take them 31 million dollars to fix all the debts , things on wall street aren’t looking to good there.ncc just looked away on major red flags back in march of “06”…. why do you ask ?So is the whole united states ,citizens are asking this same question do we as tax payers need to pay this “NO, WE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY FOR BAD INVESTMENTS THAT SOME ON ELSE MADE!” On the same hand we’ll be forced too this is not right that this happening we all are just trying to make ends meet and dropped on our heads is another thing that “someone wants to get out of paying!”What about the top executives they are live sweet aren’t they make them pay for their bad decisions it’s only fair and if they can’t send them to jail !So only time will tell what’s next in this little “ PASS THE BUCK ON !” Think about it , Real hard people !

By Stanley 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 the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (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.

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.

AN ANTI-CAPITALISM AGENDA
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.”

IN YOUR FACE
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 MEETS ACORN
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.

SURPRISE VISIT
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.

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.

“NON-PARTISAN”
The extent of Obama’s ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, “Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign,” by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn’s National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically “non-partisan” status of Acorn’s get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Before giving us a tour of Acorn’s pro-Obama but somehow “non-partisan” election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama’s ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s “motor voter” case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing “Project VOTE” in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were “old friends,” says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.”

FOUNDATION MONEY

Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, “allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants” to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, “whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.” As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and “non-partisan” arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.

Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its “non-partisan” registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of “non-partisanship.”

Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.

In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, “Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?” which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, “It’s clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,” and reading Foulkes’s case study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help but agree.

RADICAL OBAMA
Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the larger point is that Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.

The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the “progressive” fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have blocked that solution. 

In any case, 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.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an NRO contributing editor.