Audacity defined - White House ACORN Christmas Cookies

[allingeneral]

No, really - I'm not joking. Check out the following link, you have to see the pictures to believe it!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... -lawmaker/

[OakRidgeStars]

That's nuts

[moss20]

This is a nut.

acorn cap.jpg (21.04 KiB) Viewed 2522 times

[GS78]

you know when I saw this story, the first thing I thought was , how dare they have the nerve to do this..... but the group that has taken control of this country are really enemies, its that simple.

[zephyp]

This is a nut.

acorn cap.jpg

Also a:

socialist
usurper
traitor
illegal alien
liar
thug
instigator

Did I miss anything?

Its bad enough the WH "Christmas" will leave a carbon footprint bigger than the state of Alaska (not that this specifically bothers me, but watch the news). Now they have to make ACORN cookies? Seriously, who comes up with this stuff?

[VBshooter]

Zephyp Wrote"

socialist
usurper
traitor
illegal alien
liar
thug
instigator

Did I miss anything?
I think you just about got em all

[zephyp]

And if that aint enough a US Distric judge (libtard no doubt) ruled that de-funding ACORN (federal tax dollars - OUR MONEY) is unconstitutional. I'm sure that obama and his cronies are celebrating that one.

Will this administration prosecute any criminals? Also recall the Philly NBPP thugs that DOJ let walk.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9CHEQDO0

Move to cut ACORN funding ruled unconstitutional

By ADAM GOLDMAN (AP) – 1 day ago

NEW YORK — The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.

U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's 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 individual organization.

Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."

Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.

"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."

ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.

ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds. Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."

ACORN has been dogged by allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement.

Several of its offices were the subject of an embarrassing hidden-camera sting in which ACORN employees were shown advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. The videos sparked a political uproar, with Republicans trying to use the group's troubles to portray Democrats as corrupt.

The group's lawsuit named the U.S. government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants.

Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[VBshooter]

Disgusting isn't it? I want to know where any judge gets off saying the Congress can;t decide where money is spent. It;s in the publics interest to see ACORN disbanded and fully prosecuted. This is an organization that is deemed dishonest and should never see public money now or ever again. An even further insult is Holder not pushing a prosecution of the particulars at ACORN is a serious miscarrage of justice and truly stinks. Congress not demanding it is smells even worse. The 2010 election cycle is going to be very interesting when the dirt starts flying. We will need as much removal of incumbent lifers as possible to at least tie this administrations hands for the last 2 years.It has in less than 1 year made Americans ashamed of what their country is will become if the brakes are not applied starting yesterday,,,

[zephyp]

Right on Spence. Wrt ACORN recall that the "film maker" has told DOJ he has many more tapes he will release coincidental with the 2010 elections unless holder orders a full investigation of ACORN. I'm betting DOJ will do nothing or go after the film maker.

[VBshooter]

If they were to go after him. I'd gladly contribute to his defense fund!!!!!!!! we gotta stand up to this BS and get on the right track again. These people need to be made accountable to us,not some political agenda!!

[novasig226r]

Simply put, Judge Gershon saw fit to nullify Article One, section 9 of the Constitution:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Public money, i.e. the treasury, must be appropriated and those monies must be accounted for. Congress can choose not to renew appropriations. This judge is essentially saying that the court will demand of the Congress any appropriation for any project that it (or possibly the Executive branch) desires. It effectively removes the People's right to say to whom public money will go.

While one might argue that ACORN does good, others still say it does not. An overwhelming majority of the House and Senate said, "no more money to ACORN," likely due to ACORN's shady past. The Congress was bipartisan in its decision to no longer support public funding for an organization which it determined to be undeserving of such assistance. (This does not prevent private organizations from donating to ACORN, only that the public shall not be burdened.)

Since the Supreme Court decided, in Marbury v. Madison that Congress cannot alter its (SCotUS's) original jurisdiction (Article III), so too should the judiciary be prohibited from altering Congress's rights granted by the Constitution. Only a ratified amendment, not judicial decree can alter the Constitution, including changing the limits on Congress.

[zephyp]

I think his thought process was more like it was "unconstitutional" to deny one group money (for any reason) while still giving money to another group. A loose interpretation if ya ask me. IMO ACORN should be investigated and if charges are filed then there goes their "constitutional" right to more of our money. Fat chance of any of that happening under the messiah's watch especially with holder at the DOJ wheel.

[VBshooter]

As far as I'm concerned , as a private organization ,ACORN was NEVER entitled to any money whatsoever from the public coffers. Along with all the other issues with Congress this outragous spending has to be addressed seriously and it has to be stopped. They act like the money is their's to squander as they see fit. Seems like every other day they are wasting billions on crap and adding earmarks to something else. Funny how there seems to be enough for their folly but never enough for the dangerous bills they try to pass....