jasonk282
Banned
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429383616613404.html
In a letter published nearby, Representative Barney Frank takes us to task for an editorial last week in which we noted his absence from the House's 345-75 vote to defund Acorn, the "community organizing" group that has been caught on video at least five times offering advice on how to evade the authorities while enslaving children as prostitutes. Mr. Frank, whose spokesman tells us he would have voted against the measure (that is, in favor of funding Acorn), has a point. Any implication that he is trying to dodge the matter is mistaken
Even after the recent revelations, Mr. Frank is a vigorous and unashamed defender of Acorn. Yesterday he and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) requesting a "careful and objective analysis of a number of issues concerning ACORN." (Mr. Conyers voted to defund Acorn but later said he did so "accidentally.")
The investigation that Messrs. Frank and Conyers envision does not, to say the least, sound aggressive. They ask the researchers to get to the bottom of, among other things, "the extent to which ACORN has assisted [the] homeless." With respect to the child-prostitution sting, they ask the CRS to look into "conflicting allegations" about "the propriety of these activities"—by which they mean not the advice Acorn gave on getting away with crimes, but "the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties."
So Frank and Conyers think that it is worng to viedotape someone, but not wrong for ACORN to help hookers and bring in illegal immigrants. Like the Wall Street Journal says "Messrs. Frank and Conyers were serious about learning the truth, they'd send their letter to the Justice Department, not the Congressional Research Service".
In a letter published nearby, Representative Barney Frank takes us to task for an editorial last week in which we noted his absence from the House's 345-75 vote to defund Acorn, the "community organizing" group that has been caught on video at least five times offering advice on how to evade the authorities while enslaving children as prostitutes. Mr. Frank, whose spokesman tells us he would have voted against the measure (that is, in favor of funding Acorn), has a point. Any implication that he is trying to dodge the matter is mistaken
Even after the recent revelations, Mr. Frank is a vigorous and unashamed defender of Acorn. Yesterday he and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) requesting a "careful and objective analysis of a number of issues concerning ACORN." (Mr. Conyers voted to defund Acorn but later said he did so "accidentally.")
The investigation that Messrs. Frank and Conyers envision does not, to say the least, sound aggressive. They ask the researchers to get to the bottom of, among other things, "the extent to which ACORN has assisted [the] homeless." With respect to the child-prostitution sting, they ask the CRS to look into "conflicting allegations" about "the propriety of these activities"—by which they mean not the advice Acorn gave on getting away with crimes, but "the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties."
So Frank and Conyers think that it is worng to viedotape someone, but not wrong for ACORN to help hookers and bring in illegal immigrants. Like the Wall Street Journal says "Messrs. Frank and Conyers were serious about learning the truth, they'd send their letter to the Justice Department, not the Congressional Research Service".
ukey:
