A federal judge has ruled the U.S. government’s move to cut off funding to ACORN is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government Friday. She ruled that it is in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress’ decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an organization.
A lawyer for ACORN says the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can’t single out an individual or organization without due process.
What they are essentially claiming here is that Congress passed a Bill of Attainder directed at ACORN:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.
I’m no lawyer, but since when is it considered punishment to refuse to fund an organization or person? Does that mean every other organization that Congress chooses to not spend our tax dollars on can claim they are being singled out and punished?
This is a ridiculous ruling, this judge is wrong, and this will get reversed if our government bothers to appeal it… be interesting to see if they do appeal since they probably like the idea of being “forced” to fund ACORN. That way they can fund this bunch of crooks and say they had no choice, the judge made them do it.
This ruling does send a sharp message though… government spending is so out of control, organizations can now claim an inalienable right to our money.
July 2 this year we published a chart showing a significant and growing gap between the unemployment rate for men and women. Even sent a copy of the chart to a couple of media folks. Either missed all of the media discussion on the subject or no one thought it was interesting enough to report.
Yesterday’s opinion piece in the WSJ, by David Paul Kuhn, is the first I’ve seen on the subject.
Why is this gap significant? If we assume that in most American households the man is still the main source of income, the impact of the unemployment rate on American families is greater than has been reported since the rate for men 20-years and older passed 10% all the way back in July.
Here’s the latest chart:
Not sure why this has not been worthy of discussion before today, but here are some excerpts from the WSJ article:
Last month the unemployment rate climbed above 10% for the first time in more than a quarter century. Less noticed is that male workers crossed this same threshold six months earlier. Since the U.S. became the world’s dominant economic power, no downturn has fallen more disproportionately on one gender.
The unemployment rate for men, 11.4%, based on seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, outpaces the rate for women, 8.8%. We now have the largest jobless gender gap since tracking became possible in 1948.
<snip>
And yet, for all its unprecedented scope and nature, the limited attention and passive response it has received are remarkable. Imagine the outcry if women amounted to roughly three in four lost jobs in this recession.
<snip>
The solution is not a male version of the Labor Department’s Women’s Bureau. Men don’t need to start viewing themselves as victims. But the stimulus or new jobs bills could be adjusted to address the wave of male unemployment by expanding public works spending. It would make for more effective policy and be fairer. As the feminist movement taught us, what happens to one gender happens to us all.
Especially since the impact spreads to the whole family when dad is out of work.
Yet another shameful display of immature behavior by Democrats today. Maybe I am just not hearing about Republicans behaving this way, but it seems like I keep hearing about elected Democrats behaving like little children across the country.
The Democratic chairman of the House committee responsible for government oversight has indefinitely locked Republican members out of the hearing room, following a dispute over a mortgage loan controversy.
Kurt Bardella, spokesman for ranking Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., had the locks on the Republican entrance changed Tuesday.
The move was apparently was in retaliation for Issa’s efforts to subpoena records on Countrywide’s so-called VIP loan program and for a video Issa’s staff recorded of Democrats darting from their chambers a week ago in the face of a vote.
“They say we will have access to the hearing room when the general public does,” Bardella told Foxnews.com. “I’m embarrassed for them.”
From Salon - Tuesday marked just the latest twist in an ongoing, and embarrassing, fight over which party will control New York’s State Senate. The saga began two weeks ago, when two Democrats joined with Republicans to wrest power from the Democratic Party, which had gained the majority in last year’s election after a four-decade drought. Democrats, though, weren’t willing to accept the results of the coup, and wouldn’t go back to work. With the body deadlocked and neither party willing to cede control, Gov. David Paterson called a special session to try to force the two sides to come to an arrangement.
So before the special session was gaveled to order at 3 p.m. Wednesday, Democrats snuck in to the chamber through a back entrance and locked themselves in — and the Republicans out. By doing so, they beat the GOP to the punch; Republicans were going to enter the chamber at 2 p.m.
Eventually, the Democrats did let their opponents in to the Senate, but that only led to more tension. A Republican tried to go to the rostrum in order to preside, but there was already a Democrat up there, so a sergeant at arms blocked the Republican’s way. Then, Republicans started holding the session, presiding from the floor. Democrats, though, refused to participate, but the GOP went ahead and acted like they were. Oh, and there are now two separate gavels being used.
So… the Republicans made a good political play by getting two Democrats to vote their way and the Democrats responded by… locking the door.
From CNN: With action in the Texas House brought to a standstill, roughly 50 state Democratic representatives said they would remain in neighboring Oklahoma “as long as it takes” to block a Republican-drawn redistricting plan that could cost them five seats in Congress.
Not in the majority? No problem… just leave the state and refuse to return until you get your own way.
And just recently, the incident that apparently led to the latest lockout by the Democrats:
Oh.. and why was this video made? Because the Democrats left the chamber to avoid a vote… see a pattern forming here?
What is with these people? Next time, let’s elect adults.
Three years ago, Nancy Pelosi discussed her agenda for the House under Democratic leadership:
WAPO 10/6/2006 – House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to “drain the swamp” after more than a decade of Republican rule.
<snip>
All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
So clearly the deficit is the top priority according to Pelosi. Even health care reform must take a back seat to stopping the growth of the deficit. The deficit can not increase, it’s pay as you go from now on folks, not one dime of deficit increase. Deficit growth must be stopped at all cost.
Yeah, no increasing the deficit, no increasing… yeah…
No increasing the deficit?
The deficit has gone up over $4,000,000,000,000 ($4 trillion) since Pelosi made it a priority to not increase the deficit.
And that’s WITHOUT the anticipated impact of health care “reform” Pelosi is pushing.
Is it me, or does it seem like you can not believe anything Pelosi says.
… I suppose one way to convince folks that the government has no plans to intrude in the relationship between health care providers/insurers and patients is to tell health insurers what they can and can’t say:
From WAPO: The federal government has ordered health insurers to stop telling Medicare beneficiaries that proposed health reform legislation could hurt seniors and jeopardize their benefits.
The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.
Well, I’m convinced….
Not only is it clear that the federal government has no intention of interfering in the relationship between patient and health care providers/insurers, it is also clear that they will forcefully defend their First Amendment rights to freedom of appropriate/approved speech.
Why are folks upset over this? Team Obama is just trying to help us to understand that what they are doing is for our own good and confusing messages to the contrary are just not helpful.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warns that human trafficking is flourishing in the shadows of the global economic downturn.
This is a problem that needs more attention and Sec. Clinton should be applauded for pushing for a global crackdown.
With the apparent tendency of some ACORN workers to, at the least, look the other way when human trafficking is brought to their attention and seemingly willing, in some cases, to assist in setting up housing for brothels full of children, will the Obama administration come out and condemn the behavior of these individuals and the ACORN organization as a whole?
Perhaps someone should ask Sec. Clinton her thoughts on ACORN, recipient of US tax dollars, and their role in human trafficking.
At the very least, with evidence mounting that these may not be isolated incidents, there should be a federal investigation into ACORN’s role in providing support for illegal activities in election fraud, prostitution, human trafficking and whatever other illegal activity the might be involved with while accepting our tax dollars.
ACORN might be totally innocent here, but there is at least enough evidence to take a closer look.
"Great commentary and a very substantive blog in a sea of ordinary ones. Really good stuff!" - Amy Proctor, Bottom Line Up Front
"Great website! I love your 'movie night'... a wealth of interesting material." - Gina Cobb
Commenting on 'It's About the Future...':
"...home-produced video... as effective a political message as almost any professionally produced commercial I've seen in a long time.
One need not endorse the message to recognize its simple and powerful clarity. Very impressive indeed!"
- Quin Hillyer, The American Spectator
