Hello Friends,
Interesting developments in regard to ACORN funding. After Congress banned all funding to ACORN Obowma and his goons over at the AG's department decided that funding that was committed to prior to the congressional banning is permitted cos of semantics.
It's as if they're saying that all the illegal and criminal acts of this gangster organization prior to the banning is kosher and all acts after are criminal. How amusing if it wasn't so sad.
The same AG and his minions that decided to prosecute terrorists in a Federal Court are now legitimizing actions of home grown criminals in the same manner by awarding them millions of your tax dollars.
It's about time that the masses stood up and told this regime to stop with their massive stealing from the American people. Enough is enough.
Even the bilious New York Times saw fit to write about this unsavory topic. Not God forbid criticizing but at least for once reporting news instead of creating the news.
Shalom,
Peter
Published: November 27, 2009
WASHINGTON — 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 memorandumfrom David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Officeof Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate overthe antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance thegovernment from it.
Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for theAssociation of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has receivedabout $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.
But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obamasigned into law a spending bill that included a provision that said notaxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation —could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.
A Housing andUrban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Departmentwhether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn shouldbe broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online thisweek, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make paymentsto Acorn as required by such contracts.
The new law “should notbe read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existingbinding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or itsaffiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so wouldgive rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote.
The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.
“Weare pleased that commitments will be honored relative to Acorn’s workto help keep America’s working families facing foreclosure in theirhomes,” Mr. Kettenring said.
Mr. Barron said he had based hisconclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said,has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending —unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”
Citing dictionaryand thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted asmeaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionarychoices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instancesin which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfycontractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways toconstrue the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense topick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breachingcontracts.
Moreover, he argued, requiring the government tocancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even incases where performance has already been completed but payment has notbeen rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided byinterpreting the law differently.
The Constitution prohibits“bills of attainder” — legislation intended to punish specific peopleor groups. Acorn has filed a lawsuit arguing that the statute banningthe government from providing it money amounts to a bill of attainder.
Foundedin Arkansas in 1970, Acorn describes itself as the nation’s largestgrass-roots community organizing group. It provides financial servicesto poor and middle-income families, conducts voter registration drives,and advocates for higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.
Conservativeshave long complained about Acorn’s voter drives in poor neighborhoods,citing instances in which workers fraudulently registered imaginaryvoters like Mickey Mouse.Acorn has argued that it is the real victim of such incidents, whichits employees have often brought to the attention of the authorities.
Criticism of Acorn escalated in September, when two conservative activists released videosthey had recorded using secret cameras of Acorn workers in severalcities. The activists had posed as a pimp and a prostitute seekingfinancial advice. Instead of raising objections, the Acorn employeescounseled the couple on how to hide their illicit activities and avoidpaying taxes.
Conservatives seized on the videos to criticize thegroup further, highlighting that the Obama campaign had paid an Acornaffiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts. Congress then enacted the banon providing money to it.
Acorn has fired several of the employees depicted in the videos.