Well, two ACORN workers were caught in a terribly wicked setup by "conservatives." The ACORN employees were villainous for sure, but so too were the conservatives who stung them. They set them up with temptation. Two young "conservatives" posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking illegally to bring in underage girls from Central America to engage them in prostitution in what one might rightly consider a sex-slavery operation. The two posers faked that they needed help in setting up the operation. The two incredibly devious ACORN workers fell for it and started offering all sorts of advice on how to scam the evil system and get away with child prostitution, etc.
The two ACORN workers were fired, of course.
Now, a huge problem with this is that neocons and others (so-called libertarians) are attempting to tar and feather ACORN as a whole on account of those two criminals. We are being asked to conclude that ACORN itself is an organization that is always beyond the pale. The real issues that ACORN has brought to the fore in impoverished, often inner-city environments are completely ignored in this tearing down.
At the end of the day, though, what does this prove? Certainly that these two ACORN workers displayed astonishing stupidity. But does it show that ACORN is as lawless as its critics contend? It's important to note that the two filmmakers, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, were turned away when they tried the same stunt in other cities. If they wanted to prove something about the organization as a whole, they might have tried a less salacious scenario. Of course, that would have been much less likely to rocket them to YouTube and Fox News stardom.
Well, well, what do we have there? We have exactly what I was wondering about that caused me to go looking. They reportedly tried it in other cities and were rejected. What does that tell you? It tells you that they shopped until they found individuals who were crooked when they couldn't show that the whole organization is crooked. It is very, very telling that those two false-conservatives did not state anywhere in their videos (2 segments on YouTube) that they were rejected in other cities by ACORN workers. Real conservatives don't engage in such deception.
So, what did Glenn Beck and FOX News, that corrupted organization of Rupert Murdoch, do? They ran with those videos putting the worst possible light on them. They did not ask the right questions, one of which was exactly whether the two had tried it elsewhere and been turned down.
This is why God detests FOX News and believes that no one should support Glenn Beck or Rupert Murdoch in any aspect of his detestable empire. Rupert Murdoch is antichrist. Glenn Beck is antichrist. It is completely clear and plain. Wake up!
One of the most important, if not the most important, themes of this website is that we are to sort the truth from the false. We are not to throw out the good with the bad. Satan throws out the good with the bad. Satan doesn't prune or sift correctly. Satan hates everything in a blind, hypocritical, rage.
Enticement and entrapment are evil devices. Leading others into temptation is not right.
If you watch the videos on YouTube associated with this "operation," you will take note of the obviously intended titillation scenes as well. The so-called "conservative" girl (Hannah Giles, young White woman posing as a prostitute) seems to relish wagging her scantily clad tail for the male viewers of the videos. The male in the videos, James O'Keefe, apparently was wearing the camera and mic. He was sure to capture sexually suggestive images of the young lady and the editing was done carefully to preserve the images. This was no operation done out of a spirit of purity and harmlessness by any stretch. It was not righteous but rather totally unrighteous.
I believe in exposing evil doing. Whistleblowers are required. I believe in those who first go to those astray to seek to change what is wrong from within as much as possible. These two "conservatives" did not do the conservative thing at all. They did not seek to reform or convert the wayward ACORN workers who it was not shown were authorized by ACORN itself to be operating in such manner.
Now, the "conservatives" here do show an important mundane point. Obviously, ACORN needs to tighten up their ship. However, that is not what the "conservatives" are seeking. They are seeking that ACORN be destroyed even though much of what ACORN does and says is just. That's biblical.
The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. (Isaiah 32:7 KJV)
To Hell with FOX News and News Corp. It would be a blessing to Rupert Murdoch, his whole house, and the entire world were all the people to turn away from the evil tactics of those rabid-capitalist, Wall-Streeter entities, who are ripping off all the common taxpayers with their Federal Reserve and world, private, central-banking scams.
Now, I don't completely agree with the following linked article, but I include it since it takes the exact opposite view (on the false ideological spectrum) of FOX News:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)