Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

[WhoWee]

Perhaps this belonged in the other thread we're debating in ;)

I was responding to the mheslep post of the large chart - didn't want to re-post the entire graphic.

 

[byronm]

Please be clear when posting opinions. Again, check out the rule book.

Politics is all opinions, that's why I'm trying to get to the "matter of fact" of why acorn exists and the "matter of fact" that if there was a republican solution we probably wouldn't be debating our political opinions of the matter but the fact we have disenfranchised voters that need to be taken care of.

Education has failed these people
People have failed these people
many things have failed these people.. i don't want to define "disinfranchised" to make it fit my political views but to state a purpose that needs fulfilling whether or not ACORN is the one doing it and i don't see that as welfare as being inherently bad.. obviously by the definition anything supporting fellow humans is "welfare" so i guess there is no point in what I'm trying to say anyway. that's all.. done here. thanks welfare=demonized :)

 

[chemisttree]

Has anyone found a link regarding this police report yet?

O'Keefe is heard in the video saying, "I want to buy a house and this is my girlfriend, and she's a prostitute."

Vera said he was told the woman needed to escape her controlling pimp, who wouldn't let her start a new life.

Immediately, Vera said he offered to call the police but the filmmaker quickly stopped him.

"Don't call the police because I'm going to be a lawyer," O'Keefe said in the video.

After the pair left the building, Vera said he called the National City Police Department.

National City police confirmed that Vera contacted them, but said there was not enough information about the couple to file a formal report.

http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html

Anybody else have a weird feeling about this 'investigation'? The footage I see is obviously very heavily edited.

Supposedly, these 12 underage girls from El Salvador are due to arrive late Friday or early Saturday by boat! A bit unusual for immigrants from El Salvador, wouldn't you say? Juan sounds incredulous and asks, "These people came from El Salvador?" And then the tape is stopped. Keep in mind at this point they are being referred to as 12 girls. Then he is told that the intention is to have a house with 12 underage prostitutes and that they don't want any problems with the police or with neighbors. "Yeah, that's right", was the only thing Juan said and then the tape is cut again... just when a really incriminating (or exculpatory) bit might be expected. Why was it edited here? When Juan is asked what he needs regarding the 12 underage prostitutes, he says he needs the location that the girls will be taken. (5:35) Why? He says that he's working with the District Attorney's (Oh! That's not good!). And just then the tape is edited... Why? What did he say next? Why was this crucial part edited? Why did he mention the DA's office? Why did he mention that he was working with them? Then the pimp changes the story to say that the girls will be landing at a location in Mexico, perhaps Tijuana, and then cross the border. It goes on and on like this.

I've got a sick feeling about this sting. It sounds like this poor sap was duped into talking to these two and they heavily edited the conversation to make him look really bad.

I'd like to see the unedited footage in its entirety.

 

[Wax]

That guy in the last footage reported the incident to the police after it was over. I'm not sure if he filed a report but according to CNN, he told a police officer.

 

[chemisttree]

That guy in the last footage reported the incident to the police after it was over. I'm not sure if he filed a report but according to CNN, he told a police officer.

According to National City Police he called but there wasn't enough information to file a report. Just a cell phone number that was likely bogus.

 

[WhoWee]

According to National City Police he called but there wasn't enough information to file a report. Just a cell phone number that was likely bogus.

When was the call logged and was it recorded?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well it certainly isn't a positive mark. They are responsible for the conduct of their workers and even if they reported fraud amonst their ranks, it is still their failure.

Voter registration fraud is incredibly common. The fact that they found it themselves and reported it for investigation themselves is a mark in their favour in my opinion.

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13352704
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/16/ec.01.html
Indefinite suspension with pay actually. Not many fired employees show up for news interviews with the state chairperson for their ex employer there as support.

http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html

Anybody else have a weird feeling about this 'investigation'? The footage I see is obviously very heavily edited.

Supposedly, these 12 underage girls from El Salvador are due to arrive late Friday or early Saturday by boat! A bit unusual for immigrants from El Salvador, wouldn't you say? Juan sounds incredulous and asks, "These people came from El Salvador?" And then the tape is stopped. Keep in mind at this point they are being referred to as 12 girls. Then he is told that the intention is to have a house with 12 underage prostitutes and that they don't want any problems with the police or with neighbors. "Yeah, that's right", was the only thing Juan said and then the tape is cut again... just when a really incriminating (or exculpatory) bit might be expected. Why was it edited here? When Juan is asked what he needs regarding the 12 underage prostitutes, he says he needs the location that the girls will be taken. (5:35) Why? He says that he's working with the District Attorney's (Oh! That's not good!). And just then the tape is edited... Why? What did he say next? Why was this crucial part edited? Why did he mention the DA's office? Why did he mention that he was working with them? Then the pimp changes the story to say that the girls will be landing at a location in Mexico, perhaps Tijuana, and then cross the border. It goes on and on like this.

I've got a sick feeling about this sting. It sounds like this poor sap was duped into talking to these two and they heavily edited the conversation to make him look really bad.

I'd like to see the unedited footage in its entirety.

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-0...n-employee-fired-for-controversial-video-clip
ACORN received a lengthier version of the video and apparently decided that his version of the story did not jive with what they saw on the tape.

 

[WhoWee]

This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune last year.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html

"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 for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. "

The story gives a fair amount of background info including:

"Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans. Citizens Services was established in December 2004 to "assist persons and organizations who advance the interests of low- and moderate-income people," according to paperwork filed in Louisiana. In a 2006 ACORN publication, Citizen Services Inc. is described as "ACORN's campaign services entity." "

and concludes with

"Money flows back and forth between ACORN, Citizens Services Inc., Project Vote and Communities Voting Together. ACORN posts job ads for Citizens Services and Project Vote. Communities Voting Together contributed $60,000 to Citizens Services Inc., for example, in November 2005, according to a posting on CampaignMoney.com. Project Vote has hired ACORN and CSI as its highest paid contractors, paying ACORN $4,649,037 in 2006 and CSI $779,016 in 2006, according to Terry of the Consumers Rights League."

I have to wonder how many ACORN affiliated companies exist and the extent of their involvement in other Government related activities.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Ahhh, This all explains why the man who bills himself as "the Senate’s most outspoken critic of
ACORN," Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. was found in brothels across the nation.


He's was just looking for people to assist in the investigations into ACORN !


FOX NEWS quoting on Vitter's encounters with prostitutes:

"- he just wanted to have somebody listen to him, you know"
"- he was a "decent guy" who appeared to be in need of company"
"- guys coming over hanging out with the girls and having a few cocktails, and men being men."
"- He's just a decent, normal guy"
"- Republicans most likely would stand behind Vitter despite the new allegations.
"- They aren't going to throw him to the wolves," he said, citing support from religious
organizations, conservative commentators and the general public."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html

Oh well...


Regards, Hans

 

[WhoWee]

Ahhh, This all explains why the man who bills himself as "the Senate’s most outspoken critic of
ACORN," Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. was found in brothels across the nation.


He's was just looking for people to assist in the investigations into ACORN !


FOX NEWS quoting on Vitter's encounters with prostitutes:

"- he just wanted to have somebody listen to him, you know"
"- he was a "decent guy" who appeared to be in need of company"
"- guys coming over hanging out with the girls and having a few cocktails, and men being men."
"- He's just a decent, normal guy"
"- Republicans most likely would stand behind Vitter despite the new allegations.
"- They aren't going to throw him to the wolves," he said, citing support from religious
organizations, conservative commentators and the general public."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html

Oh well...


Regards, Hans

Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?

I think that's a very good question. There are defenses of ACORN's behavior of the form "Fox News is a bounch of scoundrels" or "the Republicans are a bunch of scoundrels".

Shouldn't we on the left demand better behavior of our institutions?

ACORN has been undermining the very foundation of democracy by committing massive voter fraud. Now we discover there is at least one office that's willing to aid and abet setting up a sex slavery ring for teenage and pre-teenage girls.

Are our political views so important that we are willing to subvert democracy, attempt to steal elections, and to enslave underage girls to get them? Are we willing to look the other way as these crimes are committed, just because their political views match ours?

Where is our outrage?

I think we deserve better than ACORN.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?

After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.

It's hard to believe that Acorn as a whole is some kind of criminal organization though.
It seems they do have employed a lot of people from the real bottom of society, maybe
from some naive progressive political viewpoint.Regards, Hans

 

[DavidSnider]

If ACORN was actually involved in prostitution they wouldn't have bought that those two were for real in the first place. (If they ever did at all.)

 

[WhoWee]

After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.

It's hard to believe that Acorn as a whole is some kind of criminal organization though.
It seems they do have employed a lot of people from the real bottom of society, maybe
from some naive progressive political viewpoint.


Regards, Hans

I think the organization has grown too large and lost control - if not focus.

 

[LewisEE]

ACORN used the same "temporary, rogue employee" excuse during the election to explain their people who were submitting false voter registrations. Now we have another controversy which centers around these supposed part time workers. WhoWee is right; the company may not intend to falsify registrations or give advice to prostitutes, but they are now consistently blundering to an extent which can't be dismissed anymore.

 

[edward]

EVERYONE LOVES A SCANDAL

It looks like the Acorn employees are guilty. Yet at the same time we seem to have an odd way of assessing scandal and how it should be treated.

On the 2nd of September Pfizer admitted to marketing fraud and was ordered to pay a $2.3 Billion fine. No one at Pfizer will see jail time even though high level company officials made the illegal decisions.

The Pfizer settlement was the largest health care related fine in history, yet they walked away. The Pfizer story was out of the news in 2 days. Should the government stop buying from Pfizer?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2009/db2009092_913433.htm


At Acorn on the other hand it was the unsophisticated bottom of the barrel employees in the inner cities who appeared to cooperate with the sting although there was no follow through with any of the requests.

IMHO it all boils down to greed. Pfizer makes mega bucks and will despite the record fine.

The Acorn employees from my point of view, and from several articles I have read, appeared to want a piece of the action. Or perhaps they simply were not shocked by the requests because they live around prostitution on a daily basis. And yes that does include underage prostitution.

http://neprimer.com/ePress/Child-Prostitution-Americas-Dirty-Secret.htm

Unlike Pfizer the Acorn scandal will be talked to death.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?

 

[WhoWee]

At Acorn on the other hand it was the unsophisticated bottom of the barrel employees in the inner cities who appeared to cooperate with the sting although there was no follow through with any of the requests.

IMHO it all boils down to greed. Pfizer makes mega bucks and will despite the record fine.

The Acorn employees from my point of view, and from several articles I have read, appeared to want a piece of the action. Or perhaps they simply were not shocked by the requests because they live around prostitution on a daily basis. And yes that does include underage prostitution.

http://neprimer.com/ePress/Child-Prostitution-Americas-Dirty-Secret.htm

Unlike Pfizer the Acorn scandal will be talked to death.

Middle America doesn't live around prostitution and is troubled by child exploitation. We work hard to earn a living and stay out of the filth. We expect our tax dollars to be used more wisely. Those ACORN people on the tape are (for all practical purposes) an extension of the Government - quasi-Government employees ala tax dollars and tax credits enable the organization. We the people expect better.

 

[jambaugh]

You're still stuck on defining tit for tat what you believe or don't believe charity is while ignoring what the purpose of ACORN is or ANY government program for that matter.

And you keep ignoring my basic question. Use your own definitions and assign your own purpose. Can you justify using coercion to enforce funding of them.

I think its essential to help the poor as a society, not out of an act of charity,
therefor having programs that help the under served participate in our democracy is important to our government and the very ideology of democracy itself.

Again you confuse the two "We's" and again you miss the point. Yes I agree "We" ought to help the poor. And my motives are not altruistic either. But "We" should do it solely through the private sector. I assert that government is NOT necessary in this role. And again I harp on the point that Government=use of coercive force means the use of government in this role cannot be justified.

I don't agree with supporting religious groups through tax dollars at all and I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. That argument is entirely different than looking at social issues and solving them through tax payer dollars. I'd rather "throw money at a problem" then "throw god into it" :)

Again you missed the point. You feel strongly about this, of course. But how would you feel about your tax dollars being so used? Suppose the "moral majority" amended the constitution to allow for tax funding of religiously based "helping the poor"? Wouldn't you agree that it is unfair for you to be forced to fund it?

I don't see government so black and white that welfare = charity and non welfare != charity.

What is welfare if not altruism? Oh yea it is also buying votes but that's even less justifiable.

In fact for argument sake i say there is more risk in taxing the people for the military then there is risk in taxing people for the greater welfare of all. Why is it that people often equate welfare with an oppressive taxaction against will but the funding of military expenditures as a fair taxation at will? Which one is truly representative of the people and which one is representative of the state itself?

I covered that. The purpose of the military is opposing force with force. The purpose of the police likewise is opposing force with force. The purpose of welfare? Opposing poverty with force.

Yes I know the issues are not cut and dried simple. But the basic premises are. Either we have a military or we don't. Once one decides that we must have one, that coercive taxation is necessary and thus justified to fund one then we get into the details of how to limit the authority we grant the military. That's an argument for another thread.

Governance isn't through force unless you make it that way. If you polarize yourself from the real issues at hand then that is something you are choosing to do.

Name one single act of government which is not enforced by the threat of imprisonment? I'm not talking about non-binding resolutions to make tuesday's "Happy Feel Good" day. I'm talking about actual laws or judicial/executive orders, including allocation of spending. Remember that the value of the US Dollar is fundamentally based in the requirement to pay taxes in dollars, plus the Federal law prohibiting private sector currency. I could insist on trading my services and selling my products for barter. But the Tax Man will still audit my "income" and put me in jail if I don't pay what I owe in the established Legal Tender.

I'm not saying that's a bad or evil way to do things. It is necessary. We must have a functional government. I am just pointing out that you cannot escape government's fundamental nature. They are the "users of force" when force is necessary.

To me, government is a civil service working issues that impact society.

There is no "To me" about it. Government is what government does. It's nature is definitional. They are those who we authorize to use force.

I think humanity is just as much a worthy cause as the "perceived violence" that you believe is a worthy cause. But once again.. we're fighting the philosophy of government and not the fact there are disenfranchised voters regardless of what we think the government should be.

I'm not arguing about what is worthy or not. You can't twist my position into "damn the poor". I dare say I've helped far more poor than you in far more ways. But ways of my choosing, and with effects I can see and judge, and to individuals I know are worthy and in true need. I'm arguing the fundamental question which you refuse to address. You don't like my word charity? Fine! Let me rephrase it:

Can the use of force be justified to enforce the majorities opinion of how altruistic an individual should be or by what means that altruism should be exercised?

 

[WhoWee]

Here's an example of ACORNs community organizing in action.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/acorn-behind-protests-at-aig-ct-homes

" 3/20/09

Less than a year ago, the most repellent area bus tour we knew of was the one that induced Sex and the City–crazed tourists to put $40 on their Citi cards for a cupcake and a glimpse at Carrie Bradshaw’s brownstone. How times have changed! Now, everyone’s clamoring aboard the Populist Rage Bus.

The Connecticut Working Families Party this weekend has organized a bus store that will make stops at Wilton, Connecticut, AIG office as well as the security-patrolled homes of AIG execs who are fearing for their lives.

"We’re going to be peaceful and lawful in everything we do," said Jon Green, the director of Connecticut Working Families. "I know there’s a lot of anger and a lot of rage about what’s happened. We’re not looking to foment that unnecessarily, but what we want to do is give folks in Bridgeport and Hartford and other parts of Connecticut who are struggling and losing their homes and their jobs and their health insurance an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy."

Right, they’re not fomenting rage, they’re just encouraging it. So if you happen to record someone’s address so you can return in the dead of night, it’s not like Working Families told you to! We know we sound paranoid and we really can’t believe we’re actually on the same side as Rush, but this is getting way out of hand. Oh, to have fat ladies in high heels clogging up the West Village again.

And just who are Connecticut Working Families?

Why a couple of mouse clicks would tell any interested journalist that they were ‘founded’ by none other than ACORN.

From CWF’s website:

Working Families Party Making Inroads

by Scott Whipple (New Britain Herald) Oct. 28th, 2008

… Asked about the party’s joint founder, ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), Dinkin said “while it’s fair to say that ACORN has a role in Working Families, allegations of voter fraud against ACORN are trumped up. At worst, a couple of people who worked for ACORN tried to cheat ACORN and not do their jobs. These people were identified and fired. I’m impressed with what a good operation they run.” …"

Here's 2 more old sayings - what goes around, comes around. and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Count Iblis]

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is in the news again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315657.shtml

Should any more tax payer funds be given to ACORN or should they first be investigated?

The ACORN employee realized that this was a joke and she played along. No need to investigate anything.

 

[skippy1729]

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

 

[mheslep]

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [...] and provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States; ...

Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.

 

[ray b]

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ?

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ?

 

[drankin]

There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.

ACORN funding needs to be reviewed. What is the ROI? What has been discoverd undermines the people of the US (voter fraud, IRS fraud). Usually, when a few things have been discovered, there is more that has not.

I have not seen any good justification for maintaining ACORN.

 

[mheslep]

The pair that did this story, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, deserve a good shot at the Pulitzer prize given how the rest of the media missed it.

 

[edward]

The pair that did this story, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, deserve a good shot at the Pulitzer prize given how the rest of the media missed it.

His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??



Odd how much of his previous stunts involves poor blacks.

 

[mheslep]

His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??

Funny. Good for him.

 

[edward]

Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?

That wasn't my point at all. Pfizer's record $2.3 billion fine for health care related fraud was in and out of the news in only one day.

What both Pfizer and Acorn did was wrong. Acorn was a set up. Pfizer set themselves up.

$2.3 billion is a whopper of a fine.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ?

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ?

A student 'documentary film maker' wearing what amounts to a halloween costume and carrying a hidden camera (I have on in my phone, how about you?) and you want to know who funded them? Are you serious?

Of course you automatically assume Fox must be funding what amounts to a bored college student prank and must have all of the video tape somewhere.

And Fox viewers are supposed to be the brainwashed ones.

 

[skippy1729]

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision:

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be be carried into effect." 15 Feb. 1791Papers 19:275--80

So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Skippy

 

[skippy1729]

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ?

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ?

They borrowed the fur coat from one of their mothers. They financed the project with $1300 of their own money. If they make a million as a result of all this, it isn't enough.

Skippy

PS My source was one of their interviews on FOX last week.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision:

:snip:

So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Skippy

Can you please explain why exactly you seem to think that government funding of ACORN would be precluded?

 

[skippy1729]

Can you please explain why exactly you seem to think that government funding of ACORN would be precluded?

It is not covered by any of the enumerated powers.

Skippy

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not covered by any of the enumerated powers.

Skippy

So then for them to fund ACORN the constitution should say "Organizations named ACORN will be funded by federal monies"? I asked for further explanation of your rationale (that it is not covered by any of the enumerated powers), not a reiteration of your claim.