Media Ignores ACORN Nuggets

Mainstream Media Ignores Juicy ACORN Nuggets
Hannah Giles
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The “Pimp and Pro” story, exposing ACORN’s willingness to advise a prostitute on tax evasion and child sex trafficking, hit America a few weeks ago. There were a myriad number of angles to report, yet the Mainstream Media's favorite approach seems to be the method in which James O’Keefe and I orchestrated and gathered the information.

It’s like going fishing, but instead of taking a picture and raving about the 750lb Mako shark you caught, you blather on about the bait that was used.

What happens when people get bored? They stop paying attention. What happens when people stop paying attention to an already suffering press industry? We’re seeing that happen now.

Rather than simply complaining about the MSM’s negligence on the story, here are some loose ends the media ignored, from our footage alone, that warrant attention.

With regard to the children:

• Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?

• San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?

Attention to the masses:

• Washington, DC- Why were we counseled by ACORN during a first time homebuyer’s seminar, while 30-40 other first time homebuyers sat crammed in a hot room?

• Brooklyn- This office was swarmed with people, busy staff members and a full waiting room. Did we take our number and wait in line? Nope. Why were we given the private attention of three ACORN staffers when clearly more deserving and less intrusive (and even possibly law-abiding!) clients patiently waited?

The political games:

• San Bernardino: What happened to the list of politicians that Ms. Kaelke rattled off when she spoke of her ACORN office’s community involvement and influence? Has anyone set out to uncover just how close these politicians’ relationships are with the San Bernardino ACORN? Does anyone even remember the names?

• San Diego: Has anyone questioned why ACORN employee Juan Carlos would want to help smuggle girls across the Mexican border right after an ACORN-sponsored immigration parade???

• Philadelphia: Why did the Philly office go into damage control mode as soon as the Baltimore story first broke? What do they have to hide?

I would hate to be known as the journalist who never saw the bigger picture, lacked the creativity and ambition to approach a story from a fresh perspective, and contributed to the apathy of an entire nation. And I honestly, from the bottom of my heart, think every wannabe and professional journalist has the same attitude.

So why aren’t they behaving accordingly? Fear? Comfort? A false sense of purpose?

I don’t know about the rest of the press corps but all of the above scenarios scream scandal to me. They'd be worthwhile news.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Convergence!

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Bipartisan Baloney

The IBD skewers any notion that the Baucus Grand Government Healthcare Takeover proposal is somehow bipartisan.

Bipartisan Baloney

Health Reform: As predicted, the Democrats are using the vote of one very liberal Republican as proof their health care takeover is "bipartisan." It's nothing of the sort. But then, we're getting used to such exaggerations.

To ensure passage even in a Congress where they have an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, the Democrats have used deceit and outright lies to make their case. Calling the Baucus health overhaul "bipartisan" simply because Republican-in-name-only Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine opted to vote for the bill is just one example.

Snowe in fact is more liberal than most of Blue Dog Democrats, some of whom have shown the wisdom to object to the nationalization of 17% of the U.S. economy.

Before Baucus, she voted for the bogus $787 billion "stimulus" package that's done nothing for our economy but promise to send our children into perpetual debtor status. So in one year, she voted to expand our deficit by a minimum $1.5 trillion in the next decade.

Bipartisan? Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says he won't vote for the bill's passage, as it stands now. Nor will Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller. He objects to taxes on high-income health care recipients — who happen to include, believe it or not, many coal miners in his home state of West Virginia.

Doesn't that show opposition to the bill is more bipartisan?

And what about the 158 House Democrats who, like Rockefeller, won't vote for the Senate bill if it includes the 40% tax on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans — supposedly a tax on "the rich," but in reality one that will hammer the job-creating entrepreneurs in many Democratic districts.

As for Snowe and her fellow Maine Republican, Susan Collins, their possible embrace of the Baucus bill doesn't make it bipartisan either. Heck, they aren't even "moderate," as the media have described them. They're liberal. And that's not merely an opinion.

The American Conservative Union scores legislators on a number of key votes to gauge how conservative or liberal they are. Here's what the ACU had to say about its 2008 tally: "For the first time, two Republicans scored as absolutely liberal in voting."

The two? Snowe, with a score of 20%, and Collins, at 12% — more liberal even than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who scored 17%. Not surprisingly, Collins says she may also back the Baucus bill.

No, none of this is "bipartisan" in the least. But that's par for the course in this debate, where so many outright falsities masquerade as truths.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)