I am well aware that many, maybe most I dont know, think I have a real fixation on ACORN and Alinsky.

If understanding what is happening amounts to a fixation...I am guilty.

I find the following offensive on so many levels, even if it were not ACORN. This is the kind of legislation this wonderful congress is going to stick us with forever and ever....

"Earlier this month, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., sponsored an amendment to the $140 million Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. The Frank measure allowed organizations being investigated by state or federal authorities on corruption charges to receive federal funds as long as they avoid conviction.

Frank argued that his amendment, which was approved by the House, protected the presumption of innocence in federal spending. But federal ethics rules have long stipulated that either an actual or apparent conflict of interest can put a government employee at risk of prosecution for ethics violations.

So, if the Frank amendment becomes law, the federal government will have a double standard, ignoring the presumption of innocence for its employees with apparent conflicts of interest, but extending the presumption to its funding recipients.

ACORN claims to be nonpartisan, but it and its many affiliates have ardently supported Democratic incumbents and candidates at all levels of government."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Ex...-45880472.html

Perhaps this is the change you all wanted...well you are going to get it over and over for the next few years.

Read this part once again...."So, if the Frank amendment becomes law, the federal government will have a double standard, ignoring the presumption of innocence for its employees with apparent conflicts of interest, but extending the presumption to its funding recipients."

Why does anyone think Frank wanted this ammendment ? Was it an attempt at transparency ?