5th Acorn video! How many are out there?

madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
Here we go again. This time, the Acorn employee is a Mexican lawyer (went to school in Mexico, not licensed in the US). He advised that the underage illegal alien prostitutes be brought in thru Tijuana because he has lots of contacts there. Even better, at the end of the video he inquires as to the exact location of the whore house and how much she charges.

5th Acorn Video from San Diego

And just for fun:

Hitler Response to Acorn Scandal (it's pretty funny)
 
Last edited:
Reality bites

Madanthonywanye said:

Here we go again.
Click to expand...

So are you starting to get a sense of the reality at street-level, USA?
 
madanthonywayne said:
Here we go again. This time, the Acorn employee is a Mexican lawyer (went to school in Mexico, not licensed in the US). He advised that the underage illegal alien prostitutes be brought in thru Tijuana because he has lots of contacts there. Even better, at the end of the video he inquires as to the exact location of the whore house and how much she charges.

5th Acorn Video from San Diego

And just for fun:

Hitler Response to Acorn Scandal (it's pretty funny)
Click to expand...

WHAT is the name of that Hitler movie?
 
Tiassa said:
So are you starting to get a sense of the reality at street-level, USA?
Click to expand...

Yes, and some are changing it. Seems it was especially easy this time.

Every person interviewed was obligated to directly contact law enforcement and report these plants.
I would guess none did. Very sad. I wonder if they would pimp their own children or perhaps buy a child prostitute/slave. I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (if possible) and made public examples of.
 
cluster said:
Every person interviewed was obligated to directly contact law enforcement and report these plants.
Click to expand...
Likewise with Wells Fargo, in almost exactly the same arena (financing housing) and demographic (inner city).

Biggest difference: Acorn was stung by agents provocateur, on a small scale, and only in a few offices. Wells Fargo initiated the cons, and organized them on a national scale as company policy.

I haven't seen even a hint of the proposal that all banks behaving as Wells Fargo did be cut off from all government contracts, monies, and support.
 
This and that

ClusteringFlux said:

Every person interviewed was obligated to directly contact law enforcement and report these plants.
I would guess none did.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure about that. To the one, if they had direct knowledge that crimes were occurring against children, such as actually witnessing child solicitation, then there is virtually no question about informing law enforcement. However, I wrote nine days ago in another of these threads about the entrapment of ACORN:

Now, there's something that I would not be surprised to find exists, but I need to see it, first: A standard that tells people in general what to do in these situations.

Because what would you have done? Would you have preached and moralized and condemned? Would you have whipped out your gun and attempted to make a citizen's arrest? Would you have locked down the office, forbidding anyone to pass through until you called the police to come down and dust your office for fingerprints so they can track down these child-pimping bastards?

What?

What would you have done?

If it was my organization, the employees would have a protocol for notifying authorities of reasonable suspicion of criminal harm to a child. That's the worst thing I can fault ACORN for so far, and I still want to see that standard as it applies to, say, insurance sales and financial advice from a brokerage house. As far as I know, the range of people who are obliged at the stake of their livelihood to report suspicion of criminal harm of a child is fairly limited, and concentrated among professionals who deal with children, such as schoolteachers, doctors, and mental health counselors.

Good God, I went to a Jesuit school. If I reported all the sex crimes against minors taking place around me, it's eighteen years later and I'd still be filling out paperwork ....

(Boldface and bold italic accent added)​

I, too, think the ACORN employees should have called the police. But I have yet to see a statute obliging them to do so on the basis of mere suspicion of crimes against children.

• • •​

Iceaura said:

I haven't seen even a hint of the proposal that all banks behaving as Wells Fargo did be cut off from all government contracts, monies, and support.
Click to expand...

Not quite what you're looking for, but it's an interesting development:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) -- my guest on Salon Radio today -- yesterday pointed out that the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN is written so broadly that it literally compels the de-funding not only of that group, but also the de-funding of, and denial of all government contracts to, any corporation that "has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency." By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which -- unlike ACORN -- has actually been found guilty of fraud. As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim put it: "the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."

I spoke with Rep. Grayson this morning regarding the consequences of all of this. He is currently compiling a list of all defense contractors encompassed by this language in order to send to administration officials .... The President is required by the Constitution to "faithfully execute" the law, which should mean that no more contracts can be awarded to any companies on that list, which happens to include the ten largest defense contractors in America. Before being elected to Congress, Grayson worked extensively on uncovering and combating defense contractor fraud in Iraq, and I asked him to put into context ACORN's impact on the American taxpayer versus these corrupt defense contractors. His reply: "The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Haillburton each day during the war in Iraq."

The irony of all of this is that the Congress is attempting to accomplish an unconstitutional act: singling out and punishing ACORN, which is clearly a "bill of attainder" that the Constitution explicitly prohibits -- i.e., an act aimed at punishing a single party without a trial. The only way to overcome that problem is by pretending that the de-funding of ACORN is really about a general policy judgment (that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding). But the broader they make the law in order to avoid the Constitutional problem, the more it encompasses the large corrupt corporations that own the Congress (and whom they obviously don't want to de-fund). The narrower they make it in order to include only ACORN, the more blatantly unconstitutional it is. Now that they have embraced this general principle that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding, how is anyone going to justify applying that only to ACORN while continuing to fund the corporations whose fraud and corruption is vastly greater (not to mention established by actual courts of law)?

(Greenwald)​
____________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "Salon Radio: Rep. Alan Grayson on de-funding corrupt defense contractors". Unclaimed Territory. September 23, 2009. Salon.coom. September 23, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html
 
clusteringflux said:
Yes, and some are changing it. Seems it was especially easy this time.

Every person interviewed was obligated to directly contact law enforcement and report these plants.
I would guess none did. Very sad. I wonder if they would pimp their own children or perhaps buy a child prostitute/slave. I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (if possible) and made public examples of.
Click to expand...

your wasting your time with the kool-aid drinkers.
 
Tiassa said:
What would you have done?
Click to expand...

Called. The. Police. This is such a difficult question for you? Answer in street or any variety of speech you prefer.

If it was my organization, the employees would have a protocol for notifying authorities of reasonable suspicion of criminal harm to a child.
Click to expand...

And, you answer your own question. Good.

I, too, think the ACORN employees should have called the police. But I have yet to see a statute obliging them to do so on the basis of mere suspicion of crimes against children.
Click to expand...

How about abetting them? Conspiracy?
 
(chortle!)

GeoffP said:

Called. The. Police. This is such a difficult question for you? Answer in street or any variety of speech you prefer.
Click to expand...

Good. For. You.

Now, would you have just sat there and lectured them on immorality, such as New York Post reporter Jeremy Olshan suggested they should have done?

It's not that it's a difficult question, Geoff. I mean, I included the link, and you bothered to turn your answer into an attempt to insult, so we can only presume that you had the decency to survey the broader context of the original discussion from which that excerpt was taken.

Too bad you "missed" it.

And, you answer your own question. Good.
Click to expand...

You know, given that I originally made the point about calling the police in a post to you—

So, yeah, I stand corrected: There is a second thing I would criticize ACORN for—its employees should have called the police after the counseling session, and they should have damn well known from the head office that they were supposed to.​

—and even pointed that out in the linked post from which the excerpt was taken—

Indeed, as I noted in my response to Geoff, I stand corrected insofar as I have another criticism of the ACORN people. They should have called the police.​

—your attitude problem seems a bit disingenuous, Geoff.

Of course, you've been on this stupid, dishonest bender for over a month, haven't you? At least since you popped up in String's discussion of WE&P changes to whimper and whine about me. Too bad you missed the rest of that thread.

So can the trolling, Geoff. And the dishonesty. You've been at it for forty freakin' days now, and you're embarrassing yourself.

How about abetting them? Conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Giles and O'Keefe will go to jail, too. And the burden of proof for convicting the ACORN employees is higher. See Gustav, #2365911/30, #2365928/33. Oh, right. You already have:

"I wish him well in proving any of those charges with a properly informed jury. :rolleyes:"​

So let's get this straight: You want the community service workers to be convicted of conspiracy and abetting a crime that you think the primary perpetrators aren't guilty of? Is that even approximately correct?

If authorities wish to take down the employees caught up in the entrapment sting, they can certainly try. It's within their right, and can be reasonably argued to be their duty. But that's a problem with entrapment. If they can't or don't take down the primary perpetrators, how can they take down anyone else for abetting or conspiring to a crime that doesn't exist?

The properly informed jury you referred to would certainly face a quandary.
 
geoff said:
How about abetting them? Conspiracy?
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for some idea of what's going to happen with Wells Fargo - the same crime at a much higher level and much larger scale, only actually committed, with court-filed oath-backed evidence of management level conspiracy to commit it, and no entrapment problems or other difficulties with prosecution.
 
Frankly, that's easy enough to calculate

Iceaura said:

I'm still waiting for some idea of what's going to happen with Wells Fargo - the same crime at a much higher level and much larger scale, only actually committed, with court-filed oath-backed evidence of management level conspiracy to commit it, and no entrapment problems or other difficulties with prosecution.
Click to expand...

Not enough xenophobia for the Obamanoiacs to care.

Not sensational enough for the Obamanoiacs to care.

The financial world is often too complex for voters in general to understand, speak nothing of Obamanoiacs.

They're Obamanoiacs. They'll get around to it when they figure out how to blame it on Obama.
 
iceaura said:
I'm still waiting for some idea of what's going to happen with Wells Fargo - the same crime at a much higher level and much larger scale, only actually committed, with court-filed oath-backed evidence of management level conspiracy to commit it, and no entrapment problems or other difficulties with prosecution.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with anything?

:facepalm:there was no entrapment because they are not law enforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top