WE SURROUND THEM!

“IRS Severs Ties with ACORN Over Scandalby Publius
From the Associated Press:



WASHINGTON (AP) – The IRS says it is severing ties with ACORN, the community activist group involved in a scandal after employees were caught on video giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp.

The Internal Revenue Service said Wednesday it would no longer include ACORN in its volunteer tax assistance program. The program offered free tax advice to about 3 million low- and moderate-income tax filers this spring.

The IRS said ACORN, which is short for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, provided help on about 25,000 returns.”

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

This is disgusting propaganda”

“Your surrounded by corruption and you're totally cool with that.....”

“Congratulations strat. One of your guys bagged one.

AP source: Census worker hanged with 'fed' on body

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Census worker found hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.

The law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, did not say what type of instrument was used to write the word on the chest of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and teacher. He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.

The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation. An autopsy report is pending.”

“Looks like a suiside to me. They found his truck and computer nearby, out in the middle of the woods. I see you conveniently edited that little tidbit out.

Besides, I don't have "guys"...that's obviously your department”

“Copperhead Road - Well my names john lee pettimore
Same as my daddy and his daddy before
You hardly ever saw grandaddy down here
He only came to town about twice a year
Hed buy a hundred pounds of yeast and some copper line
Everybody knew that he made moonshine
Now the revenue man wanted grandaddy bad
He headed up the holler with everything he had
Its before my time but Ive been told
He never came back from copperhead road

Rocky Top-
Once two strangers climbed on rocky top,
Lookin for a moonshine still.
Strangers aint come back from rocky top,
Guess they never will.”

“Something else he left out from the article ..

From 1996 to 2006, according to the group's most recent data, violent incidents against federal Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service workers soared from 55 to 290.

What?!? You mean people have been killing feds before the town hall meetings? How is that possible?”

“I hate tha stupid song. I played it a thousand times at gigs and was bored every single time.

Got any Robin Trower?”

“Does Trower have any songs about killing revenuers?”

“Barney Frank.
To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no responsibility for the housing bubble or for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But his record as a member of the House Financial Services Committee tells a different story. As far back as 1991, Frank was pushing Fannie Mae to break its rules, lower its standards, and buy risky loans. As The Boston Globe reported in November 1992, he helped to convince Fannie Mae to make “substantial concessions” on its rules regarding multiple-family-home mortgages, despite data from Fannie itself showing that the “default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings.” During the Clinton years, the time when the foundation was being poured for the financial meltdown, Fannie and Freddie were growing by leaps and bounds. They underwrote more than a trillion dollars in mortgages, and Fannie reported double-digit growth, every year. In assessing what—if any—responsibility the Clinton administration had for the financial crisis, Clinton himself would later tell ABC News’s Chris Cuomo that “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

During the early years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2003, Fannie Mae dropped its lending requirements and began buying zero-down-payment and interest-only mortgages. Warren Buffett told investors that he dumped Fannie and Freddie’s stock because he was worried about potential “icebergs.” The Wall Street Journal criticized Fannie’s financial machinations in an editorial headlined “Fannie Mae Enron?”

A report from the Congressional Budget Office found that 37 percent of the benefits Fannie and Freddie received from their special relationship with the government—some $3.9 billion—went to enriching Fannie and Freddie executives and shareholders rather than reducing the cost of loans for home buyers. A member of the House Financial Services Committee, Richard Baker (Republican of Louisiana), warned that, if Fannie and Freddie’s growth was left unchecked, their combined outstanding debt would exceed the total of all public debt held by the U.S. Treasury in 2005. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warned that Fannie and Freddie were undercapitalized and “posed a fundamental risk to the continuing stability of our financial system.” The head of Freddie Mac, Leland Brendsel, was forced to resign in the wake of a massive accounting scandal.

None of this happened under a rock. It was all covered by first-tier mainstream news organizations. So what was Barney Frank’s reaction to all of this? Was he worried about Fannie and Freddie’s finances? Was he concerned about their unchecked growth? Was he anxious about what would happen if Fannie and Freddie failed, and how it would affect not only the U.S. Treasury but also the pension funds and the mutual funds that held your retirement accounts and invested in Fannie and Freddie’s bonds?

On September 10, 2003, the House Committee on Financial Services met to hear the Treasury Department’s plea for a new, tougher regulator to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In Frank’s opening statement to the committee, he said:

I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government-sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people.

So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel—nor anybody else in the federal government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.

Two weeks later, the Financial Services Committee met to consider a bill that would implement the Treasury Department’s recommendations. Frank voted against it, saying: “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in O.C.C. [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and O.T.S. [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

The bill died in the committee. And in the two years that followed, still more red flags appeared. The Fed released a report finding that Fannie and Freddie had done little to increase home ownership or reduce the cost of mortgages. Franklin Raines was forced out as C.E.O. of Fannie Mae after an investigation found that Fannie Mae was cooking its books to trigger executive bonuses. Alan Greenspan warned that, if Fannie and Freddie’s “expansion continues unabated” there was the possibility of risk to the entire financial system. As the drumbeat of these warnings continued, Fannie and Freddie were still operating under their old regulator. And Raines’s successor at Fannie Mae, Daniel Mudd, began engaging in what would later be described as “an orgy of junk mortgage development.”

So, again, how did Barney Frank react to all of this? In June 2005, virtually every major newspaper in America carried stories warning about the housing bubble. It was the subject of 15 articles in The New York Times alone. Yet here is how Barney Frank saw the world on June 27, when he delivered a speech on the House floor in favor of a resolution celebrating National Homeownership Month:

This is a very important resolution, particularly at this time, because we have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and its role in the economy.

Obviously, speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere.

This is not the dot-com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality and people building fiber-optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you will not see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble.

So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for home ownership.

Four months later, in October 2005, the Finance Committee met yet again to consider legislation that would appoint a new overseer for Fannie and Freddie. As Stephen Labaton reported in The New York Times, the new regulator would “have the authority to set capital requirements, reject new business products being offered by the companies and limit their portfolio holdings.” This time, Frank voted for the bill in the committee, before he voted against it on the House floor.

What caused him to change his mind? Something about finance? Subprime mortgages? A loophole that would allow another set of Fannie and Freddie executives to walk off with yet another round of government-subsidized $90 million paydays?

Alas, the answer to all those questions is no. When the bill left the committee, it contained an amendment stipulating that 3 1/2 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s profits—around $350 million—would go to a fund to promote affordable housing. Nonprofit organizations could apply for the money and receive cash grants.

To be fair, more than 600 nonprofit and religious groups opposed the restrictions, including the N.A.A.C.P. and Catholic Social Services. As Frank mused to his colleagues on the House floor, he would vote against the bill because it “unequivocally says no faith-based institution may apply unless we have a faith-based institution that worships housing.” So what was really going on here? What was really at stake? Eventually, Frank got around to the crux of the matter: “All we are saying is that nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote should be permitted uses, in other words, what the gentleman from Ohio talked about. We had the gentleman from Florida read the ACORN Plan. That plan by ACORN would have made them ineligible to participate in this fund.”

Frank offered to compromise and said he would vote for the bill if the wording were changed to say that affordable housing should be only “one” of the grant applicant’s purposes, as opposed to its only purpose. On the House floor he argued:

Again, voting and residence are very closely linked in America. You vote from your home. In some cases you might vote in your home, if you are in an elderly development… . If you have a housing development, you cannot, under this manager’s amendment, help the old people in the development vote. You cannot invite somebody in to do voter registration. They can come in on their own, but you cannot cooperate. Again, I want to emphasize and I would say to my Republican friends, this is a bill that has a lot of bipartisan support. We have some partisan differences in other areas than housing, but this one got pretty bipartisan.

What happened is this: there are people who do not like affordable housing.

And this, in short, explains how a bill that was supposed to prevent the scandal-ridden Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from causing a system-wide financial crisis somehow devolved into an argument about voter registration.

The bill passed the House by 220 to 196, with 99 percent of the Republicans supporting and 100 percent of the Democrats opposed. The Senate version never got out of the committee. In 2005, government-sponsored-enterprise reform was dead. On January 4, 2007, Frank became chairman of the House Finance Committee. But by then it was too late. The subprime mortgages had been written; the housing bubble had started to deflate. We had long passed the point of avoiding the catastrophe that was to come.

Frank’s defense of his record during the run-up to the crisis can be whiplash inducing. In one breath, he argues that he wanted to pass a bill reforming Fannie and Freddie but was thwarted by Republicans. In the next, he contends that, if the Republicans really wanted to appoint a tougher regulator, they were in the majority and surely could have done it—failing to mention that Republicans didn’t have the super majority necessary to override a party-line vote. Barney Frank believed—and still believes—that home ownership is a fundamental part of the American Dream. We all do. But to say he played no role in the housing bubble and bears no responsibility at all for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is, fundamentally, wrong.



This guy is an enemy of the state. He's never even had a real job. He's so out of touch it's unbelievable.
Stratdewd”

“Give up that race baiting bullsh1t, hyway. It only makes you look desperate and ......stupid.

Let's have an intellectual discussion about the issues instead. One that's based on reality, not fear tactics.....shall we?”

“One less Fed for the psychos to bltch about.”

“strat, what race baiting?”

“"suiside"? Is that how intellectuals spell suicide?


You think he carved "FED" in his own chest before he killed himself? Really?”

“Did Glenn Beckkk goad eliminationists into killing a census worker?”

“You have a really screwed up sense of right and wrong. Like most uber-libs you have no problem lieing, cheating, and stealing your way into whatever slimey rock you want to crawl under. Your fear tactics are truely pathetic. You don't have any intellectual arguments so you have to make up scarey things about those you disagree with, to scare people. Your mental disorder is destructive and just plain psychotic.

and nobody says goad....ever”

“Project much?”

“It seems so, Violin.

Dood, what is it about Barney that turns you on?

Do you just fantasize about being buggered by a fat old slob or do your dreams actually come true?”

“The most probable reason for this murder is that it was done by criminals such as meth producers, drug smugglers, etc and this census worker saw something he shouldn't have. This is not a new phenomenon (it is so common that it is casually sung about in numerous songs) and people like violin who knows this to be the most likely cause still aren't above using it for politically motives.”

“By carving FED into the victim's body it seems that the killer had some sort of anti-government political motive.”

“yeah, or wanted to make stupid people think that instead of searching for their meth lab.

But my point is that in these areas there has always been anti-government hatred that has nothing to do with politics and more with the government breaking up their illegal ventures.

I bet you have sung that Rocky Top song a time or two and sung the words about revenuers never coming back. Did you just think they were having tea in a cave somewhere?
last edited: 9/24/09 5:58:31 AM”

“Pure speculation on the part of all of us.....

One thing for sure is that who ever murdered and mutilated the guy is a sick mofo.

Now, do ya suppose the killer was right-handed or left-handed?”

“I am only speculating to counter this quote from violin "Congratulations strat. One of your guys bagged one." Anyone without an agenda would not have jumped to the conclusion that violin did. Especially anyone on a backpacking site who should know what types of illegal activities goes on in National and State Parks.”

“Yeah!

And no, hyway, I've never heard the words to Rockytop, I'm a razorback and it's against State law to sing Tenn songs here....”

“The most probable reason for this murder is that it was done by criminals such as meth producers, drug smugglers, etc and this census worker saw something he shouldn't have. This is not a new phenomenon (it is so common that it is casually sung about in numerous songs) and people like violin who knows this to be the most likely cause still aren't above using it for politically motives. - hyway

First thing I thought as well. Violin has a history of doing this. If you recall, way back when, Matt b!tch slapped him because violin was always gleefully posting about American soldier deaths to make his point known he was against the war. This is no different.
last edited: 9/24/09 6:49:11 AM”

“I agree Muttly. V has no principles whatsoever. It's not surprising, seeing as how he doesn't even care about the corruption in the Democratic Party.

hyway, sorry. I thought you were playing the race card like Violin does. My bad”

“I think I read that the census taker is white and I imagine that the hillbillies in that area are also white (unless they are the mexican drug cartels) so no race card to play.”

“The image is a link to where you can buy one to wear to your next Teabagger Outing.

Don't forget to gargle.

”

“
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

”

“No crap...November 2008”

“Tilt & XL, that's what gang warfare is all about.

Blue gang-3

Red gang-3”

“
Too many freaks; not enough circuses.

”

“Too many circuses and not enough left handed HC experts from Arkansas.

Isn't the Genital Motives/ Cryingseller bailout a tariff, of sorts, eh?
last edited: 9/25/09 8:31:44 AM”

“FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power'

By Seton Motley
September 23, 2009

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/09/23/fccs-diversity-czar-white-people-need-be-forced-step-down-so-someone-0

NewsBusters.org
One Giant Censorship Step Down For Personkind

Mark Lloyd is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar. And he has in a recently discovered bit of archive audio goodness detailed his rather disturbing perspective on race, power and the American system.

(Audio located below the fold, courtesy of Breitbart.tv and Naked Emperor News)

This is of course in addition to Lloyd's rather disturbing perspective on the First Amendment.

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

And Lloyd's rather disturbing perspective on Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez's "incredible...democratic revolution." To go with Lloyd's bizarre admiration for the thuggishly fascistic manner in which "Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."

We have said repeatedly that Lloyd is a man myopically focused on race. What is revealed here is more than just that. Listening to excerpts of his offerings at a May 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice reveals a man that finds great fault with our nation's power structure - as he defines and sees it. And in his racially-warped, finite pie worldview, too many white people sit alone in the too few spots atop the heap. They're "good white people," mind you, but ...”

“Jesus was dark brown, somewhat like the dirt he is now.”

“


Salebored, is that you on the left?”

“They SURROUND them with their mouths.

Don't forget to gargle.”

“Conservative versus Liberal

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection..

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his health care.”

“Breaking: New Rasmussen Poll Shows More Trouble for ACORN
by Publius

Hitting the wires in a few minutes:

ACORN Favorable 15%

Unfavorable 67%

No opinion 19%

By 3-1 margin (51% to 17%), voters favor cutting off all federal funds

By 6-1 margin (64% to 10%) voters agree with census bureau decision to cut
ties

Only 20% believe the investigations of ACORN are politically motivated…
57% say they’re the result of illegal activity”

“Are those #'s by the same NO NAME COLLEGE that counted the marchers?? Another triple post by dO or half dOOd which ever you desire.
last edited: 9/25/09 7:23:35 PM”

“Conservative vs Liberal

if a conservative doesnt like abortion, they insist that no one else get them

if a conservative doesnt want sex ed for their teen, they dont want sex ed for anyone elses teen, either

if a conservative doesnt want to hear about evolution, no one else does either

if a conservative doesnt like the idea of gay marriage, they dont want any gay folk to marry




i can play that stupid fvcking game too”

“so you want to be like strat?”

“absolutely not.”

“Touche' Crash”

“They've lost their minds.”

“Can't lose a wish.”

“
Conservatism isn’t a philosophy. It’s a joke and a lie: a lie perpetrated to allow all sorts of human degradation so that Some can reap great rewards while the overwhelming majority (including poor and middle class Conservatives) struggle to survive (health care being a Prime Example).

But they’re happy to make the sacrifice for their masters. They’re like pets.

Conservatives’ great success has been in promoting racism. They know that if poor and middle class people of all races came together their little money machine would be put at risk ---- They got a taste of that last November, and it scared the living #&%!$ out of them.

Now they’re in overdrive, doing their best to nullify the election. But fewer people are buying the bull#&%!$. The insanity of invading Iraq and the near destruction of the global economy woke a few people up, it seems.

So what do they do? Rethink? Hell No! LMAO They scrounge up all the True Believers they can and have them scream as loudly as they can in front of television cameras ---- a bastardization of past demonstrations to thwart powerful interests: they twist the methodologies to  *promote*  powerful interests.

It reminds me of something Molly Ivins wrote about the use of satire:


The kind of humor Limbaugh uses troubles me deeply, because I have spent much of my professional life making fun of politicians. I believe it is a great American tradition and should be encouraged. We should all laugh more at our elected officials--it's good for us and good for them. So what right do I have to object because Limbaugh makes fun of different pols than I do?

I object because he consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom are in a particularly good position to answer back. Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel. It has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people, as Limbaugh does, it is not only cruel, it's profoundly vulgar.


Of course they have a perfect right to do these things ---- and we have a perfect right to call them on it.

”