search
top

Who Knew?

There are apparently 75 votes in the House of Representatives for organizations that promote child prostitution.  But I can’t get a repeal of the Hughes Amendment on the table because it’s too radical?   Something is very very wrong in Washington.  Apparently there are at least three Democrats in Pennsylvania’s delegation who think taxpayer money funding child prostitution rings is just peachy.   They are Bob Brady, Mike Doyle, and Chakka Fattah.  I am very glad no Republicans went along with this crap.  I guess it’s easier to hold the anti-paedophilia coalition together with Mark Foley out of Congress.

13 Responses to “Who Knew?”

  1. Thirdpower says:

    We have four in Illinois plus both of our Senators.

    I’m so proud.

  2. Linoge says:

    Not a damned one in Tennessee. W00t.

    Of course, in a just world, there would be criminal charges, not only for ACORN, but also for any who would financially support them…

  3. Pete says:

    No surprise here. My Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich (Detroit) voted for it. One of the most racist people in public office. Mother of the convicted felon and ex-mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. What a winner.

    I was thinking of registering as a Republican or Libertarian and gettting on the ballot just for kicks. Its a one party election up here.

  4. AntiCitizenOne says:

    Devil’s Advocate: Innocent until proven guilty.

    If innocent…if possible…then so be it.

    If guilty…cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.

  5. MicroBalrog says:

    Nobody suggests that ACORN should be put on trial.

    However, the is no right in the Constitution for Federal funding.

    The video footage of what certain ACORN employees did are sufficient to annoy the general public.

    Technically, I suppose, there’s no proof ACORN itself is inherently corrupt, but the public is past caring at this stage.

  6. 4332 says:

    acorn shouldn’t be federally funded, but uh, where did the “rargh pedophiles” stuff come from?

  7. Phoronus says:

    I just can’t believe that anyone actually believes the ACORN workers were serious. Did you see the twerp pretending to be the ‘pimp’? Yeah, they shouldn’t have played along, but to take it seriously is just such an absurd thing to do.

  8. Weer'd Beard says:

    Phoronus, they started filing federal tax paperwork for a Pimp and prostitute, and supplied information on how they can avoid legal detection.

    That’s beyond the realm of “Just foolin’!”

  9. AntiCitizenOne says:

    The trial is not in the court of law,

    The trial is in the court of public opinion, and everyone is digging around for the facts.

    We should extend the principle to everyone, rather than jumping to conclusions so much. We do have limits, now we’re going to raise them, and make the antis look bad when they judge so quickly.

  10. Sebastian says:

    It doesn’t have to be in a court of law. This is politics. For politics, the video evidence presented is enough for me to suggest there’s no reasonable defense for the continued allocation of public money to fund ACORN’s activities.

  11. emdfl says:

    The part I like best i sthat everytime an acorn spokesasshole opens his/her yap, another video from another office shows up.

    I wonder how many of those breitbart has in his magazine

  12. talgus says:

    Real problem is the vote is meaningless. Senate and House differ, so conference required. they will drop the anti-ACORN language. Many Dems know this and knew OK to vote for the measure. IF nothing else, Anti-ACORN is bill of attainder. Not allowed by Constitution. (passing law to make person/group guilty or punish them, withdraw of funds is punishment).

  13. Sebastian says:

    IF nothing else, Anti-ACORN is bill of attainder. Not allowed by Constitution.

    What? Congress can withdraw funding from whatever group it wants. That’s not a bill of attainder, it’s a legitimate exercise of Congress’ spending power.

top