ACORN again !

[Guest]

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/Examiner-Editorial-Feds-give-ACORN-more-money-despite-indictments-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 ?

[Guest]

The answer is obvious: to protect the democratic, socialistic, crooked ACORN organization. Frank is a blemish among many in the Congress today., The lot of 'em should be run out of town on a rail. Those that voted Frank and his ilk in office should be ashamed, IMHO.

[Guest]

Bucco, count me with those who believe you have been right on ACORN all along. We can only hope that the former ACORN workers and administrators
who have now become whistleblowers on the fraud and corruption in ACORN will prevail in the initiating of a "real" investigation. If Barney Frank is chosen to head it...you'll know the fix is in.

As for Alinsky...it is hard to imagine how educated voters and citizens cannot connect the dots between Obama's actions, words and Alinsky....unless they think Alinsky is right. "Rules for Radicals" was a blueprint for the Obama campaign. It also shows what is in store for America under an Obama administration. It's already happening.

Keep on posting!!

[Guest]

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/Examiner-Editorial-Feds-give-ACORN-more-money-despite-indictments-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 ?Don't you wish the IRS would afdopt those standards when doing taxaudits?

[Guest]

Bucco, count me with those who believe you have been right on ACORN all along. We can only hope that the former ACORN workers and administrators
who have now become whistleblowers on the fraud and corruption in ACORN will prevail in the initiating of a "real" investigation. If Barney Frank is chosen to head it...you'll know the fix is in.

As for Alinsky...it is hard to imagine how educated voters and citizens cannot connect the dots between Obama's actions, words and Alinsky....unless they think Alinsky is right. "Rules for Radicals" was a blueprint for the Obama campaign. It also shows what is in store for America under an Obama administration. It's already happening.

Keep on posting!!

Thanks for the post CABO.

During the campaign and since, I keep getting the feeling that folks just think it is another "conspiracy" program and it is not FOR SURE.

I did extensive reading on President Obama even before he was the candidate and he is a true disciple of Alinsky and what is happening was predicted on here and other places and it is happening much much faster than expected.

This particular ammendment is simply the beginning and the President will back it and all others, and there is nothing that can be done about it !

[Guest]

Just to stay informed on this wonderful group....

"ACORN allies converge in the midst of financial allegations "

"Among the organizations expected to attend the strategy session are: Advancement Project, Alliance for Justice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, Common Cause, Fair Elections Legal Network, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/ACORN-allies-converge-in-the-midst-of-financial-allegations--46275132.html

The groups coming together are interesting reads...all radical left wing civil rights groups.

[Guest]

Another story from TODAY's news...

"ACORN drops off dirty laundry at Boehner’s office"

"Activists delivered a stack of dirty laundry to U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s West Chester Twp. office Wednesday, May 27, to protest his stance on health care reform.

The 14 T-shirts had messages written on them, many from a nearby low-income neighborhood."

http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/oxford-news/acorn-drops-off-dirty-laundry-at-boehners-office-135741.html?showComments=true

[Guest]

...many, maybe most I don't know, think I have a real fixation on ACORN and Alinsky....

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

Yep, count me among those who are a bit tired of the constant railing on ACORN and Alinsky, and your attempts to tie both to President Obama. I'm not defending ACORN, but I'm certain that there are many quasi-political organizations favoring both parties that are the beneficiaries of federal funding that all don't operate on the up-and-up.

On Alinsky, take a look back on the 2008 Presidential campaign. Both political parties applied almost all of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals in the conduct of their campaigns. Re-read rules 4 thru 10 and tell me that only one of the political parties or candidates applied those rules.

I found rule 10 particularly interesting. It reads, "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Boy, does that sound familiar. Lots of people in the "party of NO" seem to embrace Alinsky's rules that worked so well back in the 1930's.

I'm not defending Barney Frank. I think the voters of Massachusetts ought to toss him out on his ample butt. They won't, of course. But was he the candidate that ran a campaign based on the change you refer to, Bucco? Your constant criticisms based on your disdain for Alinsky and attempts to tie him to President Obama are one big mixed metaphor, I think.

Re-visit the Rules For Radicals and see if they don't sound like familiar modern-day political campaign strategies, by both political parties... http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

[Guest]

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


"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.





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/Examiner-Editorial-Feds-give-ACORN-more-money-despite-indictments-45880472.html

?

the alternative to this legislation would allow a federally funded program to be shut down by the mere allegation of impropriety. Seems fair to me that if they are entitled by law to receive funds, then those who oppose their funding should not be able to thwart the system just by making accusations which could eventually be found to be untrue.

Even if they are considered too liberal by you.

[Guest]

Yep, count me among those who are a bit tired of the constant railing on ACORN and Alinsky, and your attempts to tie both to President Obama. I'm not defending ACORN, but I'm certain that there are many quasi-political organizations favoring both parties that are the beneficiaries of federal funding that all don't operate on the up-and-up.

On Alinsky, take a look back on the 2008 Presidential campaign. Both political parties applied almost all of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals in the conduct of their campaigns. Re-read rules 4 thru 10 and tell me that only one of the political parties or candidates applied those rules.

I found rule 10 particularly interesting. It reads, "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Boy, does that sound familiar. Lots of people in the "party of NO" seem to embrace Alinsky's rules that worked so well back in the 1930's.

I'm not defending Barney Frank. I think the voters of Massachusetts ought to toss him out on his ample butt. They won't, of course. But was he the candidate that ran a campaign based on the change you refer to, Bucco? Your constant criticisms based on your disdain for Alinsky and attempts to tie him to President Obama are one big mixed metaphor, I think.

Re-visit the Rules For Radicals and see if they don't sound like familiar modern-day political campaign strategies, by both political parties... http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html


I have NEVER disagreed that both parties and lots of people apply the principles of Alinsky. I have said it here before and will probably say it again.

If you would read in detail, as I have, the background and training of Obama and his quotes....none of which ever was vetted by MSM and only the Wright thing did because it was too "loud" to be ignored.....you will find an eerie admiration and adherence that you would be hard pressed to find anywhere else.

[Guest]

the alternative to this legislation would allow a federally funded program to be shut down by the mere allegation of impropriety. Seems fair to me that if they are entitled by law to receive funds, then those who oppose their funding should not be able to thwart the system just by making accusations which could eventually be found to be untrue.

Even if they are considered too liberal by you.


Point is...exactly how many other organizations other than ACORN are presently under indictment ?

Answer...NONE

[Guest]

First, I want to say that I'm so sorry. Barney Frank is our representative( I didn't vote for him) and there are alot of embarrassed people here in Massachusetts. Unfortunetly, all one has to do to get elected in this state is run as a democrat. Kerry and Kennedy are extremely rich limosine liberals who are the biggest hippocrites you ever saw. Kennedy preaches alternative energy but is against a windmill inituitive because it would ruin his view while cruising on his yacht.barf
Also, everybody I know up here agrees on the acorn link stated by Bucco.Keep up the good fight Bucco.:agree:

Keedy

[Guest]

Point is...exactly how many other organizations other than ACORN are presently under indictment ?

Answer...NONE

what difference does that make?

The real point is, that without such legislation, all one would have to do is allege misconduct in order to stop funding for a program.

And even if someone within the organization is found guilty of charges, the appropriate action would be to discipline the transgressors, not necessarily cut the entire program.

If an individual in, say, The Pentagon, were to do something illegal, say...oh...charge $1000 for a toilet seat, and were that person found guilty after due process...what would be the appropriate action:

1. Stop funding for all defense as soon as the indictment is brought?

2. Discipline the individual(s) who were found guilty?

3. Shut down The Pentagon if someone within were found guilty?

[Guest]

what difference does that make?

The real point is, that without such legislation, all one would have to do is allege misconduct in order to stop funding for a program.

And even if someone within the organization is found guilty of charges, the appropriate action would be to discipline the transgressors, not necessarily cut the entire program.

If an individual in, say, The Pentagon, were to do something illegal, say...oh...charge $1000 for a toilet seat, and were that person found guilty after due process...what would be the appropriate action:

1. Stop funding for all defense as soon as the indictment is brought?

2. Discipline the individual(s) who were found guilty?

3. Shut down The Pentagon if someone within were found guilty?

Your defense of ACORN is noted....as for your analogy.....that is the problem...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, HOWEVER we will make an exception for someone like ACORN WHO IS FUNDED ALMOST 50% BY TAXPAYER MONEY !

We have been around for over 230 years and NOW we need this legislation !

[Guest]

Your defense of ACORN is noted....as for your analogy.....that is the problem...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, HOWEVER we will make an exception for someone like ACORN WHO IS FUNDED ALMOST 50% BY TAXPAYER MONEY !

We have been around for over 230 years and NOW we need this legislation !

Am I missing something? I assumed we were talking about the ACORN employees indicted for voter registration fraud. If so, they are not federal government employees, they are employees of an organization that receives federal funds.
And they aren't being accused of having a conflict of interest, they are accused voter fraud.

What am I missing here?

[Guest]

Am I missing something? I assumed we were talking about the ACORN employees indicted for voter registration fraud. If so, they are not federal government employees, they are employees of an organization that receives federal funds.
And they aren't being accused of having a conflict of interest, they are accused voter fraud.

What am I missing here?


That we need legislation to insure that a group under indictment can get MONEY FROM ME !!!! AND YOU !!!

READ A BIT about how they operate and how they conducted the registration drive .....READ the indictments. And we need legislation to INSURE they get OUR MONEY !

Now any government employee who has an APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST is subject to prosecution but ACORN RECEIVING OUR MONEY is going to be exempt because Barney Frank wants it that way !

Wonder why Frank did not introduce legislation to insure that federal employees are innocent until proven guilty !

Listen, you can defend this group forever and NEVER EVER change my mind. I have read the indictments, their history BEFORE Malkin and others jumped on the bandwagon.

If you wish to defend them fine...do so...that is your right but someday in the near future the facts will make the MSM and you can defend them then if you wish. I, for the life of me, cannot understand it but guess that is my problem. They are what they are and your words of defense cannot change them, nor Frank's blatant use of power to insure them money.

I am sure you are overjoyed that this group is President Obama's choice to work directly for the WH during the census !

[Guest]

That we need legislation to insure that a group under indictment can get MONEY FROM ME !!!! AND YOU !!!

READ A BIT about how they operate and how they conducted the registration drive .....READ the indictments. And we need legislation to INSURE they get OUR MONEY !

Now any government employee who has an APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST is subject to prosecution but ACORN RECEIVING OUR MONEY is going to be exempt because Barney Frank wants it that way !

Wonder why Frank did not introduce legislation to insure that federal employees are innocent until proven guilty !

Listen, you can defend this group forever and NEVER EVER change my mind. I have read the indictments, their history BEFORE Malkin and others jumped on the bandwagon.

If you wish to defend them fine...do so...that is your right but someday in the near future the facts will make the MSM and you can defend them then if you wish. I, for the life of me, cannot understand it but guess that is my problem. They are what they are and your words of defense cannot change them, nor Frank's blatant use of power to insure them money.

I am sure you are overjoyed that this group is President Obama's choice to work directly for the WH during the census !

Actually, you'll have to show me where I've defended ACORN. I don't think I have. What I've defended is the idea that you can't shut down federal funding by accusing members of an organization of wrong doing, nor even if they are individually guilty of something.

The organization (ACORN or any other one) is larger than just a few employees. If the wrongdoing is widespread, or organizational, AND determined to be true by due process, then the government may decide to pull the funding.

But it's important not to be able to cut the funding of a program solely because of "charges" of wrongdoing of a few within the organization.

And that is a completely different matter than whether a federal employee should or shouldn't have to defend oneself against charges of conflict of interest.

Now if there is a defense of ACORN in there somewhere, I don't see it.

[Guest]

It might not be implied but to a bystander just reading this...it sure seems like your defending ACORN. Maybe not defending but maybe more of an apologist?
Keedy

[Guest]

It might not be implied but to a bystander just reading this...it sure seems like your defending ACORN. Maybe not defending but maybe more of an apologist?
Keedy

not defending nor apologizing.

Just taking the position that it would be a dangerous precedent to set that all one would have to do to pull funding from a program one didn't want to see funded would be to indict someone within the organization.

I go a step further and say that even if someone within the organization is convicted, that would not automatically pull funding from the entire organization. It may be appropriate to eliminate the guilty party(s) from the organization and prosecute the individual.To pull funding would require due process, and in that due process, an assessment made as to how widespread the fraud was, and whether funding should continue or not.

[Guest]

not defending nor apologizing.

Just taking the position that it would be a dangerous precedent to set that all one would have to do to pull funding from a program one didn't want to see funded would be to indict someone within the organization.

I go a step further and say that even if someone within the organization is convicted, that would not automatically pull funding from the entire organization. It may be appropriate to eliminate the guilty party(s) from the organization and prosecute the individual.To pull funding would require due process, and in that due process, an assessment made as to how widespread the fraud was, and whether funding should continue or not.

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

[Guest]

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

Wow. I can't argue with someone who thinks due process need not be followed. For whatever reason.

Especially when the person who says it need not be followed, in one post, claims to be an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution in another post.

:shrug:

[Guest]

Wow. I can't argue with someone who thinks due process need not be followed. For whatever reason.

Especially when the person who says it need not be followed, in one post, claims to be an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution in another post.

:shrug:

You sure like to use that word "argue" alot.:undecided:

[Guest]

Actually, you'll have to show me where I've defended ACORN. I don't think I have. What I've defended is the idea that you can't shut down federal funding by accusing members of an organization of wrong doing, nor even if they are individually guilty of something.

The organization (ACORN or any other one) is larger than just a few employees. If the wrongdoing is widespread, or organizational, AND determined to be true by due process, then the government may decide to pull the funding.

But it's important not to be able to cut the funding of a program solely because of "charges" of wrongdoing of a few within the organization.

And that is a completely different matter than whether a federal employee should or shouldn't have to defend oneself against charges of conflict of interest.

Now if there is a defense of ACORN in there somewhere, I don't see it.

Laker,
I will have to take exception to your argument. Due process applies to individuals and only applies to organizations when the government is seeking to take their property without "...just compensation.

Congress routinely cuts funding of various programs (perhaps not enough) and the organization or branches of government that have been receiving those funds have to go their own way. ACORN is no more entitled to these funds than say Lockheed when a weapons program is cancelled. Lockheed then has to find other work for the people involved in the program or lay them off. There is more than enough 'smoke' to justify the suspicion of a fire. IMHO, until the situation is clear, ACORN should not receive further taxpayer funding.

[Guest]

Laker,
I will have to take exception to your argument. Due process applies to individuals and only applies to organizations when the government is seeking to take their property without "...just compensation.

Congress routinely cuts funding of various programs (perhaps not enough) and the organization or branches of government that have been receiving those funds have to go their own way. ACORN is no more entitled to these funds than say Lockheed when a weapons program is cancelled. Lockheed then has to find other work for the people involved in the program or lay them off. There is more than enough 'smoke' to justify the suspicion of a fire. IMHO, until the situation is clear, ACORN should not receive further taxpayer funding.

Well, by "due process" I mean that there are steps that are taken in the process of deciding if funding will be continued. I take the legislation to mean that funding isn't to be withdrawn automatically, just because of investigation or indictment.

You say there is enough smoke to justify suspicion, and I agree. The question is whether smoke and suspicion are enough to justify pulling the funding.
Any funding is subject to being cancelled. But if Lockheed had funding and some employees were being indicted for fraud, the entire program would not necessarily lose funding at the first smell of smoke, and fire and suspicion.

I'm not a big fan of ACORN, and I expect some of these allegations to hold up. Then, depending upon how rampant the practice was, compared to it's legitimate agenda, funding should be re-examined for it's appropriateness.

[Guest]

You sure like to use that word "argue" alot.:undecided:

Do you have a better word for describing what we do here?:censored:

[Guest]

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the government had anything to do with the car dealerships being closed. This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing. As for due process..that refers to something done illegally.. you know due process under the law. Has a court case been established and the case throw out of court. That is the only way one could use the due process issue in this instance.

[Guest]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the government had anything to do with the car dealerships being closed. This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing. As for due process..that refers to something done illegally.. you know due process under the law. Has a court case been established and the case throw out of court. That is the only way one could use the due process issue in this instance.

From what I have heard, there is no rhyme or reason on the selection of whose dealership will close. I heard a guy on the radio say his dealership was closed and it was profitable. He also said he voted replublican.(that could be a coincidence:confused:)
Yea, there is going to be some precedence in the justice department.:swear:
Keedy

[Guest]

Do you have a better word for describing what we do here?:censored:

Discussion, exchange of knowledge, bandy, hash over, kick around, deliberate,converse, parley,debate....That's all I can think of now:beer3:
Keedy

[Guest]

Well, by "due process" I mean that there are steps that are taken in the process of deciding if funding will be continued. I take the legislation to mean that funding isn't to be withdrawn automatically, just because of investigation or indictment.

You say there is enough smoke to justify suspicion, and I agree. The question is whether smoke and suspicion are enough to justify pulling the funding.
Any funding is subject to being cancelled. But if Lockheed had funding and some employees were being indicted for fraud, the entire program would not necessarily lose funding at the first smell of smoke, and fire and suspicion.

I'm not a big fan of ACORN, and I expect some of these allegations to hold up. Then, depending upon how rampant the practice was, compared to it's legitimate agenda, funding should be re-examined for it's appropriateness.

Laker,

I think we are talking past each other here. My point is that Congress can cancel funding for anything for any reason. Fraud can cause congress to look more critically at what is being funded, however Congress funds (or should fund) only those programs that “…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”

I do not see the funding of ACORN, with its apparently widespread voter registration fraud does anything but undermine the idea of securing the blessing of liberty. Consequently, until the truth is uncovered and necessary steps taken to ensure that such actions cannot happen again, I feel that Congress should terminate any taxpayer funds going to that organization. Just my humble opinion.

[Guest]

:agree: I don't know the correct machinations of the law, but that organization has so many red flags....considerations on it's demise should begin. If it smells like a skunk...it must be a skunkbarf

Keedy

[Guest]

Discussion, exchange of knowledge, bandy, hash over, kick around, deliberate,converse, parley,debate....That's all I can think of now:beer3:
Keedy

Jaw bone

[Guest]

..., exchange of knowledge, ...
Keedy

That assumes something I'm not sure is evident from either one of us...:loco:

[Guest]

jaw bone

that's it!!!!!!

[Guest]

That assumes something I'm not sure is evident from either one of us...:loco:

HEY!!! I resemble that!!!!:girlneener:

Keedy

[Guest]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the government had anything to do with the car dealerships being closed. This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing. As for due process..that refers to something done illegally.. you know due process under the law. Has a court case been established and the case throw out of court. That is the only way one could use the due process issue in this instance.


"This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing."

The above is absolutely totally not true !!!

[Guest]

I am just shocked that so many folks would come on here and defend this legislation which is so blatantly political and aimed at one organization only; an organization that is considered as the clearing house for money by Soros, etc to fund the Democratic party.

Imagine the outrage if this were reversed...it would echo from every corner of the press.

While I believe based on my reading all the accusations about ACORN (and I believe there will be many many more) it is not even just about this organization. It is a member of our congress persuing legislation so obvious and using a word from this adminstration so "transparent" ! And folks defend legislation like this.