An Examination of Community Organizations and Community Organizers
by Kevin Scott

I might be wrong, but when examining statistics that relate primarily to behavior, one finds that what we would categorize as "bad behavior", is concentrated in the blue states. This does not mean that the red states are without bad behavior, but rather the people in the blue states are statistically victims of bad behavior at higher rates. This would be a good point to bring in the evolvement of New York City, where they were a typical bad behavior city, but they were significantly improved when the mayor, Rudy Guiliani implemented a curious new policy. He ordered the police to enforce the law.

This example jumps the gun a bit, but the blue states (Democrat) have much greater population  in general, more minorities, are generally run by entrenched Democrat political parties, more low income people, etc., all of which result in more dependence on government and independent social services to care for them. The circumstances of their environment and the circumstances of isolation from the mainstream of the overall population, lack of jobs, less education, and lesser expectations for life success in a world alien to them. These circumstances would lead to general despair, lack of ambition, and more acceptance of a lesser life experience.

Into these circumstances,  there are people from within or outside the community that believe that through their efforts, they will make sure that the people in the community know of available programs and funding available that may or may not enrich their lives beyond what they might do themselves. So they organize a group, collect some money, and then apply to the government or charitable organizations to fund the cause for the community. In general, there are many groups that have done this for years- Good Will, Salvation Army, etc., but their efforts were more related to providing material goods and sustenance to the community, whereas the new community organizations are looking for money to provide some of these items, but are equally interested in the political approach of increasing the safety net benefits for the communities. Solving the problems of these communities would eventually result in the organizations being unnecessary, so a balance that included continued dependency on the organization was paramount. Again, this is not a blanket condemnation of all situations, but just a example of some that do little or nothing for the community, but a lot for themselves.

Having created these entities, we have seen the abuses that have lead to their corruption and negative influence on their communities. What have they done to change or improve the overall conditions of their communities? Probably nothing. The crime figures are not diminishing, the drug problems continue, alcoholism continues, out-of-wedlock births continue to rise, and in general, the organizers do well because like it or not, they were entrepreneurs that started a business, creating their own jobs, and many got rich, all while maintainng the status quo.

It is the government (the politicians) that view these organization as voting factories. By creating a class of people that are dependent on the government, i.e., "wards of the government" or WOG's, primarily in these blue (Democrat)states. The WOG's are not limited to the people of the minority communities, but include all bloc's of people that are dependent on the politicians for jobs, job security, unions, and so forth. Interestingly, the armed forces which in some ways are dependent upon the politicians do not generally support the Democrat party, because they have sworn an oath to a higher authority-The Constitution and America. Political parties generally do not figure into their thinking as they uphold their duties and oath of service and the Constitution.

So the next point we get to, while the description above is clearly about America due to the red and blue state references, and a few others, if we removed those references, this could be about Hamas or Hezbollah. They are just as much community organizations created by and supported by politicians, that do a little for their communities, and a lot for themselves. Hamas is supported by Saudi Arabia and other mid-east countries that America supports, and we give direct support to Hamas for humanitarian reasons, which of course, we have no idea what becomes of the money or goods we supply. Syria and Iran support Hezbollah. What is the common denominator of the terrorist groups? They obviously depend on funding from political entities like the US government, as does ACORN. It is the politicians that take your money, and give it to people that are killing other Americans and their allies.

And all of this has roots in "Community Organizers". Many people think that this term is equivalent to traditional beneficial groups (Salvation Army, Good Will, etc.) but you can see that if you just send money to these people, you don't solve problems, and you are stealing the wealth of America and condoning the un-American activities that they promote. The fact that any member of congress still supports ACORN, shows their ignorance of what the concept  of helping others is about. It is not helping others by letting them steal our wealth. Congress was going to give ACORN $5+ BILLION dollars in the stimulus bill. We all know congress is populated by idiots, so when are people of either party going to vote for America first, not just blindly voting for an organized bunch of politicians? Think about it, America needs your vote. Obviously the "Change" you voted for in 2008 was just to change from what was being done, to Obama's way of doing the same thing. Can you Democrats  or Independents that voted for Obama really vote to continue his idea of change? I hope not.