FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


ACORN strikes back





handfleisch
ACORN, the social networking organization that was thoroughly smeared in various right wing hit jobs last year, is organizing a letter writing campaign to the NY Times asking for a retraction in the most recent case, since they have been cleared of all charges. The filmmakers involved in the supposed expose featured on FOX news have been shown to have lied about basic facts of the case and to have edited the videos deceptively. The main filmmaker, who as it turns out once worked as an assistant at a white-nationalist event, has now been arrested for felony trespassing on federal property under false pretenses (the same kind of pretenses he had at ACORN).

Help the letter writing campaign here
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=62844&t=

More details here
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7728
Quote:

ACORN Strikes Back! 'Accountability' Campaign Demands Media Corrections for 'Pimp' Hoax Stories
Group asks '100,000 supporters' for 'Letters to Editor'
Cites BRAD BLOG coverage of NYTimes Editors' outrageous justifications for refusing to retract repeated misreporting...

Following on our weeks-long coverage here at The BRAD BLOG, and at other sites who've similarly jumped in demanding accountability from the New York Times, ACORN itself is now launching a "Letter to the Editor" campaign to "Demand Accountability" from the paper for their repeated misreporting of the James O'Keefe/Andrew Breitbart ACORN "pimp" hoax.

An email blast is being sent to "over 100,000 ACORN supporters" today, according to spokesman Kevin Whelan, calling on them to "send an email to the Times' Public Editor and tell him to retract the Times' erroneous reporting about O'Keefe and ACORN."

The community group's heavily-footnoted email blast, signed by "CEO and Chief Organizer" Bertha Lewis, quotes several articles from The BRAD BLOG's detailed coverage, including NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt's outrageous emailed justifications for refusing to recommend the paper correct its multiple misreports.

"Can you tell Clark Hoyt, The New York Times' Public Editor, that The Times needs to retract its past ACORN stories and report the truth about the anti-ACORN sting operation from now on?" the email campaign asks [emphasis in original] before chiding Hoyt for refusal to "see that a correction is in order, because that would require conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong, which I haven't seen."

The BRAD BLOG, however, has indeed shown "conclusive evidence" to Hoyt that the paper was wrong, and even Hannah Giles (who played the fake prostitute) and even Andrew Breitbart (who published the videos to help launch his new BigGovernment.com website) have both now admitted that the reports of James O'Keefe dressing as a "pimp" in the offices of ACORN were flat out wrong.

Whelan says the group is "asking people to contact either the New York Times OR their local paper and ask for a correction to the erroneous reporting regarding O'Keefe and his video scams."

"Bradblog and a handful of online writers have been way ahead in looking at the facts on this story," Whelan wrote, "just as you were in exposing the great voter fraud fraud in 2006." (Our indexed coverage of that particular Rightwing fraud campaign is here.)

More from Whelan's email to The BRAD BLOG:
We are asking people to contact papers all around the country because nearly everyone has reported on this story erroneously at some point-O'Keefe's purpose after all, was to deceive and confuse. The New York Times has a special responsibility to correct the facts though-both as the paper of record and because they reported based on a combination of wild misconceptions (as they admitted to you) and pressure from the radical right.

The ACORN email blast to supporters also notes that the New York Daily News had the decency to report on a law enforcement source who noted Monday that "they edited the tape to meet their agenda," following the conclusion of the Brooklyn D.A.'s finding of "no criminality" after a five-month investigation of Brooklyn ACORN tapes.

Moreover, even Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported on the finding, noting the D.A. described the video as a "'heavily edited' splice job" where "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister."

And yet, the New York Times, the "paper of record," continues to misreport the story, even in the wake of the D.A.'s finding, as we detailed last night.

deanhills
There is a saying: "The lady doth protest to much". If ACORN want s to have support, perhaps silence would speak much better for it. There has been much too much noise. People may become much more sympathetic if ACORN's supporters would stop beating their drums, and just take a moment of silence. If they are silent it will alow enough space for people to come to their own conclusions about the court decision, rather then just getting irritable with all of the noise, which would keep them in the negative zone.
Voodoocat
You are correct, Charles Hynes found that the ACORN employees had not committed a crime. Of course, this is the same Charles Hynes that was recently endorsed by the Working Families Party. Who are they? ACORN!

Source: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965

http://biggovernment.com/rstone/2009/09/17/working-families-party-acorn-what-will-ag-cuomo-do/

With this in mind, handfleisch's post indicates that an attorney general found that employees of a group that has endorsed him are not guilty. Does the word "corruption" fit in here?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
You are correct, Charles Hynes found that the ACORN employees had not committed a crime. Of course, this is the same Charles Hynes that was recently endorsed by the Working Families Party. Who are they? ACORN!

Source: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965

http://biggovernment.com/rstone/2009/09/17/working-families-party-acorn-what-will-ag-cuomo-do/

With this in mind, handfleisch's post indicates that an attorney general found that employees of a group that has endorsed him are not guilty. Does the word "corruption" fit in here?
LOL
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003020054
Quote:
No, right-wing bloggers, the Brooklyn DA is not a "member" of the Working Families Party
Voodoocat
Quote:
LOL

Good try, but Hynes' endorsement was posted on the Working Family Party web site:

2009
Source: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

2008
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/elections/endorsements/new-york-city-endorsements/

Kinda hard to claim ignorance when you are endorsed by the group two years in a row, isn't it?

This goes back to my original point- the man refused to press charges against two employees of a group that has endorsed him two years in a row. Suspicious?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
LOL

Good try, but Hynes' endorsement was posted on the Working Family Party web site:

2009
Source: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

2008
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/elections/endorsements/new-york-city-endorsements/

Kinda hard to claim ignorance when you are endorsed by the group two years in a row, isn't it?

This goes back to my original point- the man refused to press charges against two employees of a group that has endorsed him two years in a row. Suspicious?


Try going to the link I posted and reading the facts. Hynes is a Democrat.

1. Endorsement by a party does not mean membership in the party. As the link says:
Quote:
By that standard, Hynes is a member of four parties: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Conservative Party, and the Working Families Party. See, in New York, candidates can earn the endorsement of more than one party and appear on a ballot line for each of them. And in the 2009 election, all four of those parties endorsed Hynes, as the official results show


2. Endorsement by a party or even membership in a party does not mean a DA won't prosecute someone from that party, both in general, and especially in Hynes case:
Quote:
it is ridiculous to claim that in a system in which district attorneys are elected, those DAs simply cannot be trusted to conduct investigations of members of their party. A DA is tasked with prosecuting participants in government corruption, regardless of party. Some of them fail to live up to that duty -- and the system has mechanisms for their removal (i.e., elections) -- but to assume that such action is impossible doesn't make a lot of sense.

With regard to Hynes, by the way, this line of argument is especially inapt -- Hynes is best known for repeatedly successfully prosecuting former Brooklyn Democratic chair Clarence Norman Jr. on corruption charges. Those convictions cost Norman his Assembly seat, his control over the Brooklyn Democratic Party, his law license, and several years in jail. Hynes stood up to the chair of the major party to which he belonged, but refused to prosecute a backer of a minor party that supports him? Seems unlikely.


More than unlikely, it seems ridiculous. This whole argument is such a typical right wing device -- now that the ACORN smear has been proven to be a lie, try to distract by screaming "corruption" in the process that vindicated ACORN.

[Moderated to remove personalised remartk - Bikerman]
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Endorsement by a party does not mean membership in the party.
ACORN did mean something to Obama up to his election, and the presumption of ACORN being affiliated with the Dems during the election campaign was easy to tie up. But then when the Republicans were pointing their fingers at that, Obama and the Dems distanced themselves from ACORN. As far as I can see they have deliberately distanced themselves from ACORN. It's become a hot potato for anyone with political affiliations to handle. If Obama had said something in the last year or so, or even later, that would have saved ACORN right there and then. All that ACORN may have left now is the structure and support it still had before everyone started to clamp down on them. Something really big would have to happen, such as Obama or someone in a powerful role making a public announcement, before they can be saved. The recession has not been that helpful either. People may be keen to not make contributions to ACORN from that point as well. An excuse like ACORN's finances not being in order, would be useful in this case.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Endorsement by a party does not mean membership in the party


I never claimed that he was a member of the party. As a matter of fact, I clearly said that he was ENDORSED by the party.

Quote:
Of course, this is the same Charles Hynes that was recently endorsed by the Working Families Party.


It probably would have prudent for Hynes to recuse himself from a case involving employees of one of his endorsors.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
Endorsement by a party does not mean membership in the party


I never claimed that he was a member of the party. As a matter of fact, I clearly said that he was ENDORSED by the party.

Quote:
Of course, this is the same Charles Hynes that was recently endorsed by the Working Families Party.


It probably would have prudent for Hynes to recuse himself from a case involving employees of one of his endorsors.


I don't understand how someone could read the text and only take these two points from it. For example, on the second point, Hynes has successfully prosecuted the local chair of the Democratic party, which not only had endorsed him, and not only is his own party, but is a much more significant and powerful player in the US politics. That pretty much proves that he can successfully prosecute political cases despite who might endorse him. Or do you think he should he have recused himself from that one too? Do you understand how that would not and does not work?

More broadly, I don't understand how someone can express concern about these side issues involving supposed corruption and ethics, when the activities of the so-called journalists who targeted ACORN used so much fraud and lying themselves. If you are so concerned about this minor side (non-)issue, what about the major issues of the case -- an extremist with an agenda lying about what happened in the ACORN offices, using deceptive editing of secret films as proof, getting innocent people fired and causing serious damage in finances and reputation to the organization, aided and abetted all along a national TV network? If you are so concerned about corruption and truth, don't these things bother you?
handfleisch
ACORN has scored another victory in its battle against the smear campaign

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/March/Judge-Orders-ACORN-Govt-Funding-Resumed/
Quote:

Judge Orders ACORN Gov't Funding Resumed

A federal judge is once again telling Congress they must fund the controversial community organizing group ACORN, or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Last year, Congress tried to block all federal funding of the group. However, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon ruled that move as unconstitutional.

The Brooklyn judge said ACORN was punished by Congress without the proper means to decide if money had been handled properly. She said the harm to ACORN's reputation continues because the government never rescinded its advice to withhold funding after it was distributed to "hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients."
deanhills
Wonder whether a court action against the Government for defamation is the next on ACORN's business and marketing agendas? I guess that will not be a problem as the US Government seems to have limitless funds at its disposal? Or has it?

I'm curious, is there a contract between the Government and ACORN? Surely the Government could give ACORN notice that it would no longer support it financially, or is there legislation that compels the Government to do so?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

I'm curious, is there a contract between the Government and ACORN? Surely the Government could give ACORN notice that it would no longer support it financially, or is there legislation that compels the Government to do so?


Now, when's the last time the government passed legislation that puts limits on itself?
Related topics
What is your favourite movie?
Star Wars - Episode 3
Your Favorite Movie
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi (Spoilers)
What is your favourite Star Wars game?
Star Wars 3 Revenge of the Sith
Star Wars Novels
Your favourite movie quote
.hack
Best Star Wars film?
Intel Core 2 Duo and Extreme
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Irritatingly annoying Trivia question. Prize for winner.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.