ACORN again !
 

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 ?

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.

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!!

Don't you wish the IRS would afdopt those standards when doing taxaudits?

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 !

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/op...-46275132.html

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

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/oxfo...wComments=true

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

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.

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.

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

Answer...NONE

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

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 !

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?