Holder Seeks to Preserve ACORN’s Government Funding Ahead of 2010 Campaign
Tags: ACORN.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Because Democrats are relying on this group, ya know?
The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.
The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.
And who gets to decide what was authorized prior to Congressional action? Yep, you got it – Democrats in the Obama Administration. And who is going to be providing oversight on the Democrats in the Obama Administration? Democrats in Congress, of course. What does this mean? There will be an endless supply of money to ACORN.
Unless, that is, you guys out there want to think that Obama, Holder and Congress would never in a million years deceive the American people…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
14 Responses to “Holder Seeks to Preserve ACORN’s Government Funding Ahead of 2010 Campaign”
Caucus of Corruption
According to all reports, this group engages in fraudulent activity, including election fraud.
That’s why the Donks need them…
so few donkrats will admit that acorn is an organized criminal enterprise…in all truth…acorn should be prosecuted under RICO and shut down…proof of fraud…crossing state lines…avoidance of prosecution…hiding evidence that points to criminal acts…so many violations…to include thier encouragement of clients to lie on application forms to qualify for federal tax dollars…
a rotten tree…it can bring forth nothing but rotten fruit…proof…look a barak…a liar…con artist..and a thief in the night usurping the office of POTUS…
Yes, but he’s “unprecedented…”
I just saw that “unprecedented” story. Everything is “unprecedented”; and the other over used words by this admin: notion, look, whole host. Can you believe we have three more years of this dithering idiot?
cluster
Can you believe we have three more years of this dithering idiot?
I pray NOT………
(not a threat or implied threat)
I just ask for the same consideration for obummer that the libs wished for Clarance Thomas.
On Saturday’s “Good Morning America,” Kate Snow chatted with a woman who once wished death on Clarence Thomas and highlighted her as an expert on racial politics in America. The weekend GMA co-host interviewed Julianne Malveaux on the subject of racial overtones in the conflict between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
On November 4, 1994, Malveaux famously stated of
Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “faux president obummer I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”Malveaux=French name
neocon, what do you expect from someone with a French surname?
I remember the comment; it was over the top. However, it was made by a liberal; therefore, it was acceptable.
Liberals are trash. I remember the good-old-days when we used to incinerate trash.
Disclaimer: My incinerator comment above was not a threat against liberals. If anyone took offense or felt threatened by the comment, tough shite. Grow a pair and take it like a man…
…or like a woman.
keef
with libs the terms are mutually inclusive.
with libs the terms are mutually inclusive.
Yeah, but liberal women have bigger balls…
Keef
ROTFLMAO
hillary and jenet reno come to mind UGH!!
hillary and jenet reno come to mind UGH!!
That’s why Hitlery never wore mini-skirts…
As long as Congress has to vote on ACORN funding, there is hope. Every single representative is up for reelection, and a third of all senators. Voting to refund ACORN is the kind of thing to get a congresscritter retired faster than anything else.
Holder is a hard-core racist, hard-core Leftist, and a perfect representative of the president. They are two sides of the same coin, and share their ideas and agendas. The only think America can do is try to rein them in through taking Congress away from the RRL. And voting to refund ACORN will push that agenda along very nicely.
You think the Dems ran from the town hall meetings when they got called on their lies? Wait till debate time in 2010. Imagine being a Dem representative having to answer questions like:
Why did you vote for this earmark? (Repeated about 80 times, for every earmark in the so-called “stimulus” bill.)
You didn’t READ the bill? How can you vote to spend billions of dollars on all these earmarks WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BILL?
Why did you vote for this? For that? YOU DIDN’T EVEN READ THE BILL??
Did you know this about ACORN? Did you know that about ACORN? Did you ever think ACORN ought to be investigated before giving them taxpayer money? Didn’t any of their antics matter to you? Why did you vote to give them even more money?
And so on……….
You think these weasels were hiding out during town hall meeting time? Wait till the next election. We’ll be having “debates” in packed auditoriums and stadiums, with the missing congresscritters represented by cardboard cutouts (so appropriate..) and having questions like these thrown at them.
They don’t. Bills of attainder are unconstitutional, so this will inevitably be struck down.
If you accept the definition of a bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a trial to determine guilt, then the question would be whether or not the defunding of ACORN was punitive or merely a correction of an improper previous act.
So it would seem that there would have to be definitive proof that the defunding was a punishment for what the legislature determined to be a crime, rather than a determination that they did not deserve the money in the first place.
I would not consider it “inevitable” that any court will find that ACORN met certain standards of performance or non profit status or any of the other criteria that may have been claimed to justify the funding.
In other words, a legal challenge would become a trial of ACORN as an institution, and of the many incidents that should have caused the revocation of its non profit status, including the ‘unreported loan’ of a million dollars or so to its founder’s brother, and/or its refusal to be audited.
And a close legal investigation and trial of ACORN in general is not likely to put Barry in a good light. So don’t hold your breath, Sergei, if you are counting on ACORN putting up a serious legal fight.
It is far more likely that they will get their money through the back door, via the Attorney General and other avenues.