Are ACORN and Planned Parent hood using the same staffing agency?

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

My questions are:

 1)      Why does this keep happening?

a.       Consider that in 2008 Planned Parenthood had a similar mistake happen.

b.      How many times does it need to happen to be no longer a ‘mistake’ and we question their

2)      I believe that liberalism/progressivism/Democrats are inherently good and caring people. Is it that natural inclination to be caring that is somehow warpped their decision making ability when confronted with this sort of Evil? Are they being dupped into thinking they are ‘helping’ these children/young teenage girls by allowing some man to abuse them?

3)      Can we have this dialog without it going to the abortion issue? I’d like the discussion to be about LiveAction/Planned Parenthood/ACORN and the acceptance of underage sex workers.

A Planned Parenthood manager in New Jersey coaches a man and a woman posing as sex traffickers how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for their female underage sex slaves, and make their whole operation “look as legit as possible” in an undercover video released this morning.

Clinic manager Amy Woodruff, LPN, of Planned Parenthood Central New Jersey’s Perth Amboy center, warns the pimp and his prostitute to have their trafficked underage girls lie about their age to avoid mandatory reporting laws, promising, “even if they lie, just say, ‘Oh he's the same age as me, 15,’…it's just that mainly 14 and under we have to, doesn't matter if their partner's the same age, younger, whatever, 14 and under we have to report.” She says, “For the most part, we want as little information as possible.”

 “If they're minors, put down that they're students. Yeah, just kind of play along that they’re students--we want to make it look as legit as possible.”

“This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve,” said Lila Rose, President of Live Action
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/vid-shows-planned-parenthood-advising-pretend-pimp-about-underage-sex-slaves/ 

Planned Parenthood fired Amy Woodruff the manager. Is that enough? Shouldn't strong policies be put in place so this doesn't happen again?

This isn't Planned Parenthoods first time offense against children

The Mona Lisa Project videos document Planned Parenthood's willingness to repeatedly violate mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape that protect children.
http://liveaction.org/monalisa <-- 2008


http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2009/09/14/acorn-sex-scandal-now-a-triology-okeefe-exposes-again-in-new-york-city-video/  <-ACORN sex scadal.

 The similarity of these scandals bothers me a lot. Where are these liberal groups failing to train their employees/managers!? What policies and procedures are missing that would allow the ACORN manager or the Planned Parenthood manager to think that  discussing child prostitution rings with a man would ever be okay?  I've been in middle management for a long time now and after a few years you just become indoctrinated into the Corporate policy. I find myself towing the line all the time. Why aren't these managers doing the same? I know in my heart of hears that ACORN and Planned Parenthood don’t officially condone this sort of EVIL. Why is Live Action repeatedly able to find those individuals who are in charge (that’s important. They are the leaders not just some flunkies) who’d help out such a sick bastard.

 ACORN’s focus was housing and not nearly as well funded as Planned Parenthood ($374.7 million 2008). They have the revenue to train better. They should not be making this sort of grievous and awful mistake. Especially after 2008. Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice...loss of funding?

Comments

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So we're in agreement that breaking into a place means gaining access through an illegal manner, and doesn't necessarily have to involve sneaking in through a window or kicking down a door?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

No, you said that they weren't by their actions.

I was agreeing, breaking and entering doesn't come into play. But man, did they have a ton of crazy people saying all kinds of factually incorrect things that ran the gamut of stupid like they were trying to sabotage the office or bug her phones. Making birthers look rational by comparison with that crazy.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

They admitted to attempting to bug their phones. That charge was dropped as part of their plea bargain. That doesn't mean that the attempt didn't happen, especially since they confessed.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'They admitted to attempting to bug their phones.'

No, they didn't. They didn't even have wiretapping equipment on their persons. All their surveillance equipment outside of their cameras and recorder were in their van.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

The factual basis (http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf) that was signed by O'Keefe and others and used in the plea bargaining states:

In this case, further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretense despite their initial statements to the staff of the Senatorial office and GSA requesting access to the central phone system.

Translation from legal speak: "We're going to let any other charges drop by not investigating since you're being nice to plead guilty to one charge on the advice of your attorneys and not causing us to waste time/money/manpower having to go through a real trial."

Hey, if you don't believe me, check with your attorney pals who practice criminal law. They'll back up that translation.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

So now you realize they never confessed to attempting q felony. Want to try and realize you're wrong about other things?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Oh please - you can read between the lines as well as I. The only reason they didn't confess in actuality was so they could skate out with a plea bargain. I again refer to the translation from legal speak. Like I said; you don't believe it, check with your attorney friends. They'll set you straight.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Proof by assertion. Do you even realize how big of a fallacy you are making?

In the basis offact they say outright there was no intention of committig a felony.

Is your assertion really that all people who plead guilty to a misdemeanor actually guilty of felonies they were never charged with?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Is your assertion really that all people who plead guilty to a misdemeanor actually guilty of felonies they were never charged with?

If they're plea bargaining, shit yes. Otherwise they'd go for innocence. You only plea bargain if you are guilty, guilty, guilty as sin and know you're going to get reamed if you don't.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

But they were clearly guilty of the charges they plead to. The prosecutors aren't going to push a weak case for some charges when they can just get a misdemeanor that is a slam dunk. You should know this.

So pray tell, what evidence would have reamed them?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

But they were clearly guilty of the charges they plead to. The prosecutors aren't going to push a weak case for some charges when they can just get a misdemeanor that is a slam dunk. You should know this.

Plea bargains are entered into when the state has no wish to waste its time and money on a trial. They are generally only entered when the state can win whatever it likes against the client on the original charges and can bully the plea bargain via that method. We got you down for 12 robberies? Tell you what, you plead to 3 and we'll cut you slack. Save the taxpayers some money, which to the taxpayers is more important than justice anyway. Especially in Louisiana.

So pray tell, what evidence would have reamed them?

The evidence that immediately became unofficial and unnecessary once O'Keefe & Co realized how boned they were and went whining to their bellies like whipped dogs. If they were innocent, if they were able to beat all of the charges on their own merits before being dropped in the plea bargain, they would have refused and gone to trial. That's innocence.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'We got you down for 12 robberies? Tell you what, you plead to 3 and we'll cut you slack'

And if you really only robbed three places, it's not a bad deal as it saves you time too.

Your assertion that people are absolutely guilty of everything they're charged with is absolutely un-American. And yes, don;t try and weasel out of saying that you believe a person is guilty of everything they're charged with if they acept a lower plea because that is the basis for your argument as you've done nothing to prove or support the assertion that he was there to commit a felony.

'The evidence that immediately became unofficial and unnecessary'

Evidence you refuse to state or mention because it's so damn good.

Christ Almighty.

'If they were innocent, if they were able to beat all of the charges on their own merits'

Except for the one they were absolutely positively guilty of that they plead guilty to. Defendants don't like to waste money when they have no defense to the charges they plead down to.

Why is the basic concept of how the us Justice system that hard to grasp?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

It's telling how many people chimed in on this topic with everything they "know" to be true that is wrong yet oh so simple to verify.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I notice you don't have much to say about this (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/883777.html?thread=66908481#t66908481). It's pretty simple. Either O'Keefe & Company are shining ethical journalists, crusading for truth, or they're skeevy liars. I'm obviously of the "skeevy liar" persuasion. You obviously prefer to believe they are truthful.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Is your assertion that it's okay to lie about unethical people?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

And what is it I have lied about, pray tell? I'm not the one white-knighting O'Keefe & Company as shining valorous champions of the truth.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You said they admitted to a felony. They clearly and absolutely did not.

I get ticked when people are slandered. All you have to do is stop slandering people with provable lies. Till then you're in the same class of liars as birthers and truthers.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

All you have to do is stop slandering people with provable lies.

Oh, OK, fine. He didn't admit to it publicly; we just all know it was in his plans. Or if you prefer, we suspect it of Mr Wanna-Be Date Raper.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Well, I know for a fact that you're a rapist based upon how you clearly are one. And since I don't have to prove my assertion of your guilt I think we can leave it at that.

C'mon, do I have to keep committing vagrant fallacies against you for you to realize what a fallacy is?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Please. You're telling me you're unaware of his plan to drunk up a CNN correspondent and then get his hot lovin' while she's all unconscious as a 'liberal sting'? Oh sure, he said "I never would have gone through with it.", but when you have the plans in B&W in loving detail with the boat already tricked out and ready? Really? I'm expected to believe that?

Let me ask this: Why are you so willing to take the word of some dudebro fratguy who thinks he's all Watergate material? You believe he's innocent of everything that's ever been said about him.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

No, you said that they weren't by their actions.

They lied about who they were to get into a location that they wouldn't be able to get into otherwise.

That's called "breaking in." Once again, you don't have to literally break a door or window to break into a place. As long as you're entering illegally, that's breaking in.

Unless you claim that they didn't enter the building under false pretenses, in a manner which is illegal (claiming to be from the phone company).

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'As long as you're entering illegally, that's breaking in.'

Not true.

"Breaking in" requires intent of a crime or vandalism to trespass. There was no criminal intent. The basis of fact establishes that.

And most phone rooms are easily accessible with no posted restrictions (such as "Authorized personnel only" or a keyed lock). After all, 90% of phone rooms are just supply closets.

So no, they didn't break in to anywhere.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

"Breaking in" requires intent of a crime or vandalism to trespass. There was no criminal intent. The basis of fact establishes that.

They planned to tamper with government phone lines. It may not have been bugging, and instead "checking to see if they worked," but it was still an illegal act.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'They planned to tamper with government phone lines.'

Not according to the statement from the plea bargain that the prosecution agreed to.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

That's generally how plea bargains work.