ObamACORN

Clarence Page writes that the "right's recent obsession with ACORN... grows largely out of a faint hope that bringing down ACORN will help them to bring down Obama"

Being on the right, which Page clearly isn't, I can say that I hope ACORN gets "brought down" for a different reason: they are for things that I am against. Their reform consists of an even greater government intervention into the daily lives of all Americans, and removes even more of the voluntary exchange between free people. They want wages to be set, not by the market, but the government. They want the number of sick days to be set, not by an agreement between employer and employee, but by the government. They want to rewrite contracts that were voluntary entered into by both sides after the fact, so that lenders are forced to take it on the chin when homeowners stop paying their mortgages.

I'll leave their views on immigration out, because it's a different issue, but the above three are all instances of government restricting the freedom of both (yes both) parties in a voluntary exchange. This is America, and they are free to have their opinions on the proper role of government, along with everyone else. Why is it, however, that money is taken from me and given to them by the government?

By the way, you'd think that ACORN might be grateful to the hand that feeds them. Instead, they are now in the news for offering advice on how to set up a brothel with 13 underage El Salvadoran girls (Page's column conveniently leaves that part of it out) so as to avoid paying taxes.

For Page, the concern seems to be what impact this may have on President Obama, and his piece seems intent on short-circuiting any connection. After noting that "back in 1995, young Harvard law grad" Obama helped ACORN, he goes on to state:

"The organization and the former community organizer have not had much contact since, other than connections that have been alleged or exaggerated by conservative media."

Really?

Factcheck.org notes that

When Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office.

They also note that ACORN's Political Action Committee endorsed Obama.

In addition, during the campaign, the Pittsburgh Tribune review reported:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an
offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

I certainly hope that the connection between Obama and ACORN, both financially and philosophically, doesn't "bring down" the president's efforts to avert a nuclear Iran, for example. I do hope, however, that this latest ACORN scandal will slow any momentum in imposing their leftist agenda on America.