The ACORN employees' misbehavior put in perspective

[GeezerMan]

Link

Here is some embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke.

" The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group?s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

Dale Rathke remained on Acorn?s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. "

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link

Here is some embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke.

" The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group?s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

Dale Rathke remained on Acorn?s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. "

Thanks for the link. This does not show embezzlemenent by the organization, it shows embezzlement by one individual and the organization did not partake in the embezzlement, did not allow it to continue, did not let the thief keep the money, but IMO they did make a mistake because of the excessive attacks by the right on the organization. However, there's now new management in place.

The article says they got an agreement for restitution because "word of the embezzlement would have put a ?weapon? into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to its often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers." That's inadequate, but it's not as if they were ebmezzling too.

So I'd say that's a legitimate black mark as a mistake, but not by any means one that condemns the organization that it should not get federal support for registering voters, with the changes that have been made. They should have disclosed the one person's embezzzlement instead of trying to protect the group from more right-wing attacks, and the slow repayment plan was too little IMO.

What they did right and wrong isn't affected by what others do right and wrong, but it's fair to compare the bias of theiir atttackers, when George Bush has done worse and still had their support to be *President*; the same people attacking ACORN didn't say the Bush family was unfit to lead the *nations* because Neil Bush was behind of a far, far worse embezzlement type crime in the Savings and Loan scandal, they don't call for banning business with defense contracters who have done far worse.

There's clarly a double standard involved. based on bias.

It's understandable why they made the mistake, just as George Bush had Alberto Gonzales cover up his drunk driving arrest, although he was covering up his OWN crime that endangered lives, rather than someone else's crime over money. And oh, ya, went on to make his personal lawyer who had helped him cover it up Attorney General of the United States to ensure that his *policies* did not get denied by the Justice Department, corrupting the nation's fedeal Justice organization. But the ACORN attackers say that's ok.

If ACORN as an organization had sysstem corruption, had widespread embezzlement or widespread knowing acceptance of embezzlement, I'd look at agreeing with the attackers.

What we have is not that, it's an organization who deals with a very difficult area, the poor, who serves democracy very well, but the anti-democratic, selfish people who would rather poor Ameicans didn't vote hate them for their work for democracy, for empowering the poor with a vote, and so they hype and sensationalize (and entrap) them to attack them and make a mountain out of a molehill, screaming about thousands while they ignore the billions that are the real corruption.

The people who are demanding ACORN get no funding are scummy IMO, out to hurt the poor as their only agenda. If ACOR had no such dings, they'd still attack them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link

Here is some embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke.

" The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group?s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

Dale Rathke remained on Acorn?s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. "

Thanks for the link. This does not show embezzlemenent by the organization, it shows embezzlement by one individual and the organization did not partake in the embezzlement, did not allow it to continue, did not let the thief keep the money, but IMO they did make a mistake because of the excessive attacks by the right on the organization. However, there's now new management in place.

The article says they got an agreement for restitution because "word of the embezzlement would have put a ?weapon? into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to its often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers." That's inadequate, but it's not as if they were ebmezzling too.

So I'd say that's a legitimate black mark as a mistake, but not by any means one that condemns the organization that it should not get federal support for registering voters, with the changes that have been made. They should have disclosed the one person's embezzzlement instead of trying to protect the group from more right-wing attacks, and the slow repayment plan was too little IMO.

What they did right and wrong isn't affected by what others do right and wrong, but it's fair to compare the bias of theiir atttackers, when George Bush has done worse and still had their support to be *President*; the same people attacking ACORN didn't say the Bush family was unfit to lead the *nations* because Neil Bush was behind of a far, far worse embezzlement type crime in the Savings and Loan scandal, they don't call for banning business with defense contracters who have done far worse.

There's clarly a double standard involved. based on bias.

If ACORN as an organization had sysstem corruption, had widespread embezzlement or widespread knowing acceptance of embezzlement, I'd look at agreeing with the attackers.

What we have is not that, it's an organization who deals with a very difficult area, the poor, who serves democracy very well, but the anti-democratic, selfish people who would rather poor Ameicans didn't vote hate them for their work for democracy, for empowering the poor with a vote, and so they hype and sensationalize (and entrap) them to attack them and make a mountain out of a molehill, screaming about thousands while they ignore the billions that are the real corruption.

The people who are demanding ACORN get no funding are scummy IMO, out to hurt the poor as their only agenda. If ACOR had no such dings, they'd still attack them.

Then you hold harlmless banks and brokers for writing intentionally bad or misleading loans too right? After all, it wasnt the bank that wrote it, it was an individual. Just using your train of thought.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link

Here is some embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke.

" The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group?s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

Dale Rathke remained on Acorn?s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. "

Thanks for the link. This does not show embezzlemenent by the organization, it shows embezzlement by one individual and the organization did not partake in the embezzlement, did not allow it to continue, did not let the thief keep the money, but IMO they did make a mistake because of the excessive attacks by the right on the organization. However, there's now new management in place.

The article says they got an agreement for restitution because "word of the embezzlement would have put a ?weapon? into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to its often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers." That's inadequate, but it's not as if they were ebmezzling too.

So I'd say that's a legitimate black mark as a mistake, but not by any means one that condemns the organization that it should not get federal support for registering voters, with the changes that have been made. They should have disclosed the one person's embezzzlement instead of trying to protect the group from more right-wing attacks, and the slow repayment plan was too little IMO.

What they did right and wrong isn't affected by what others do right and wrong, but it's fair to compare the bias of theiir atttackers, when George Bush has done worse and still had their support to be *President*; the same people attacking ACORN didn't say the Bush family was unfit to lead the *nations* because Neil Bush was behind of a far, far worse embezzlement type crime in the Savings and Loan scandal, they don't call for banning business with defense contracters who have done far worse.

There's clarly a double standard involved. based on bias.

If ACORN as an organization had sysstem corruption, had widespread embezzlement or widespread knowing acceptance of embezzlement, I'd look at agreeing with the attackers.

What we have is not that, it's an organization who deals with a very difficult area, the poor, who serves democracy very well, but the anti-democratic, selfish people who would rather poor Ameicans didn't vote hate them for their work for democracy, for empowering the poor with a vote, and so they hype and sensationalize (and entrap) them to attack them and make a mountain out of a molehill, screaming about thousands while they ignore the billions that are the real corruption.

The people who are demanding ACORN get no funding are scummy IMO, out to hurt the poor as their only agenda. If ACOR had no such dings, they'd still attack them.

Then you hold harlmless banks and brokers for writing intentionally bad or misleading loans too right? After all, it wasnt the bank that wrote it, it was an individual. Just using your train of thought.

This was a high up individual too. The brother of the founder of Acorn. IMO, the reason they did not report it was they did not want an audit done. I wonder at what level of corruption would the liberals concede there was a problem at Acorn?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link

Here is some embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke.

" The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group?s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

Dale Rathke remained on Acorn?s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. "

Thanks for the link. This does not show embezzlemenent by the organization, it shows embezzlement by one individual and the organization did not partake in the embezzlement, did not allow it to continue, did not let the thief keep the money, but IMO they did make a mistake because of the excessive attacks by the right on the organization. However, there's now new management in place.

The article says they got an agreement for restitution because "word of the embezzlement would have put a ?weapon? into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to its often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers." That's inadequate, but it's not as if they were ebmezzling too.

So I'd say that's a legitimate black mark as a mistake, but not by any means one that condemns the organization that it should not get federal support for registering voters, with the changes that have been made. They should have disclosed the one person's embezzzlement instead of trying to protect the group from more right-wing attacks, and the slow repayment plan was too little IMO.

What they did right and wrong isn't affected by what others do right and wrong, but it's fair to compare the bias of theiir atttackers, when George Bush has done worse and still had their support to be *President*; the same people attacking ACORN didn't say the Bush family was unfit to lead the *nations* because Neil Bush was behind of a far, far worse embezzlement type crime in the Savings and Loan scandal, they don't call for banning business with defense contracters who have done far worse.

There's clarly a double standard involved. based on bias.

If ACORN as an organization had sysstem corruption, had widespread embezzlement or widespread knowing acceptance of embezzlement, I'd look at agreeing with the attackers.

What we have is not that, it's an organization who deals with a very difficult area, the poor, who serves democracy very well, but the anti-democratic, selfish people who would rather poor Ameicans didn't vote hate them for their work for democracy, for empowering the poor with a vote, and so they hype and sensationalize (and entrap) them to attack them and make a mountain out of a molehill, screaming about thousands while they ignore the billions that are the real corruption.

The people who are demanding ACORN get no funding are scummy IMO, out to hurt the poor as their only agenda. If ACOR had no such dings, they'd still attack them.

Then you hold harlmless banks and brokers for writing intentionally bad or misleading loans too right? After all, it wasnt the bank that wrote it, it was an individual. Just using your train of thought.

This was a high up individual too. The brother of the founder of Acorn. IMO, the reason they did not report it was they did not want an audit done. I wonder at what level of corruption would the liberals concede there was a problem at Acorn?

They kept him on the payroll for another 6-7 years afterwards. Only booted him when it became public knowledge.

Something stinks.

ACORN may have started out with good intentions, but it has evolved into a unaccountable monster that is defended by those that remember what the original intent was; not what it is do now.