Didn't Acorn, the corrupt community organizer, get its federal funding yanked after its last scandal? Actually, no. Through municipal middlemen, it's poised to rake in another $4 billion. Where is the outrage? Solution's simple enough: stop filling the trough for anyone. If it's not run by the government then it's not financed by the government.
You'd think a group implicated in dozens of electoral fraud cases, theft of funds and, most recently, helping criminals interested in bringing child prostitutes to the U.S. would have been ruled ineligible for federal aid long ago.
But think again, because these aid rats are experts at survival.
FrontPage magazine reports that federal Judge Nina Gershon ruled that Acorn is eligible for the Obama administration's proposed $4 billion in Housing and Urban Development grants within the $3.83 trillion federal budget proposal for 2011.
That cancels the ban Congress placed on Acorn funding late last year after at least five of the group's offices willingly aided undercover reporters posing as a pimp and prostitute to get federal funding for a brothel and cheat on their taxes.
Acorn's antics were revealed after a series of reports last September on the BigGovernment Web site. Faced with a firestorm of complaints, Congress had no choice but to pull funds for the group.
Many were surprised that Congressional Democrats backed Acorn's defunding. Usually, Acorn and the Democratic Party work hand in hand. Acorn supplies votes and election assistance to Democratic candidates, and the Democrats supply them with funding.
Turns out, the fund-pulling was really just for show.
A number of Rantburgers did sound that warning at the time.
Acorn is being allowed to make an end-run around the federal funding ban through the use of a middleman, the Washington Times reports.
The way it's done is through HUD Community Development Block Grants, which are given to cities and states to help boost development efforts. Instead of applying directly to the federal government for aid, a violation of Congress' ban, Gershon, a Clinton appointee, effectively ruled that Acorn can instead apply directly to cities and states.
In short, this gaping loophole means the ban is off.
No organization that has broken the law so many times has any right to even indirect federal funding. The fact the feds never prosecuted them as they should have is what has created the opening for Acorn to put its snout in the public trough once again.
It's time for Congress and HUD to get tough with these miscreants before they do any more damage to our system.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Where is the outrage? It is all being directed at a much, more serious issue of child trafficking - Christian missionaries attempting to move 30 impoverished children out of Haiti.
And as for the missionaries jail conditions, well I'm sure that the same people who had their panties in a wad over Muslim terrorist mistreatment at Gitmo will be right on that.
#2
The fact the feds never prosecuted them as they should have is what has created the opening for Acorn to put its snout in the public trough once again.
Which will not happen under this administration. This is what gives ACORN its zombie-like powers.
Of course, an enterprising tea-party candidate in a state race could use acorn funding as a chew toy against an establishment candidate. If this happened in a couple of states, it would scare others out of the water. Then ACORN would have to go to plan C.
The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow?
Not since King Canute have government officials engaged in an exercise as futile as in 2007, when seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces got together to form something called the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.
Leading the charge for the pact was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who insisted, "We cannot wait for the United States government to get its act together on the environment." At the time he said the regional agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap-and-trade program which will provide a powerful framework for developing a national cap-and-trade program."
Since then, the nation has slid into a recession, and the only thing man-made about climate change has been the manipulated and manufactured claims that we are doomed if we don't act to fight it.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Arnie has been listening to "Science Advisor" Maria much too long. Arnie and the rest need a clue:
As the earth revolves around the sun, the place where light shines the brightest changes. This motion gives us the different seasons. For instance, the poles receive less light than does the equator because of the angle that the land around the poles receive the suns light. When the north pole is tilted toward the sun, the northern hemisphere is presented to the sun at a greater angle than the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere gets warmer. When this happens, the northern hemisphere gets summer while the southern hemisphere gets winter. When the south pole is tilted toward the sun, the two seasons reverse hemispheres.
#2
Science is when you can prove your theory over consistently: Today Fire = Hot, Tomorrow Fire = Hot. I can produce a flame and demonstrate that fire is indeed hot. The MMGWA crowd wants you believe that fire can be cold or hot depending on how WE interpret the data. And no you can't see our data.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/14/2010 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Even if Arnie pivoted, there are plently of whack job bureaucrats in Sacramento who will never get off the scam-bus and continue to put small businesses out to pasture...even at a time when California is mire in red ink.
The mayor of Providence and the former head of Rhode Island's Democratic Party announced Saturday that they would run for the U.S. House seat being vacated by Patrick Kennedy, a son of one of the nation's most storied political families.
Mayor David Cicilline and William Lynch, both Democrats, officially declared their candidacies less than two hours apart. Kennedy's decision not to seek re-election has set off frenzied competition among politicians interested in a post once viewed as unassailable because of his political clout and fundraising ability.
Cicilline and Lynch promised to focus on job creation and fixing the dismal economy, important issues in a state where the unemployment rate is nearly 13 percent, among the nation's highest.
Cicilline, who announced his candidacy at a swine flu shot clinic, said there is a "dangerous disconnect" between what Washington thinks will help Americans and what will actually work. He said a key difference between him and Lynch is that, as chief executive of the state's largest city, he's witnessed firsthand the effects of the recession.
"What we need in Washington is someone who understands what's happening to families in our cities and towns in this country," he said.
Lynch said the stimulus program passed by Congress helped stop what he called economic bleeding, but he wants to force financial institutions getting government help to increase their lending locally.
"What I will not accept and what I will not endorse and what I will not support is the ... continuation of making money available to Wall Street and to bankers in New York that never gets to Main Street in Woonsocket, or Pawtucket or Middletown," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 11:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Patrick Kennedy, a son of one of the nation's most storied sordid political families.
There, fixed it for them. No need for applause (throw money instead).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/14/2010 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
The emerging strategy seeks to take advantage of the partisan stalemate in Congress over Obama's nominees and major policy initiatives, and to turn the page on a year when the White House failed to secure passage of complicated health-care and energy legislation.
The idea is to make Republicans either vote for a series of more modest bills identified as popular with the public or explain to constituents this fall why they opposed them.
The decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to offer a pared-down jobs-creation bill and dare the GOP to oppose it is the most visible sign of the plan so far. White House officials and congressional staff members say it will be followed in coming weeks by a House vote to lift the antitrust exemption for insurance companies, measures to assist small businesses and extend unemployment benefits, and a proposal to levy fees on Wall Street banks that received bailout money.
One senior White House official called the strategy an attempt "to force progress," at a time when polls show that the public wants bipartisan cooperation.
"If they support the measures, great," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. "But if not, the votes will show their hypocrisy and obstruction, which will demonstrate something in itself."
But the strategy carries risks for Obama and congressional Democrats, who saw their filibuster-proof majority disappear last month with the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott P. Brown to the Senate.
Some of the measures the White House plans to push this year are not popular with all congressional Democrats, including the proposal to impose fees on large banks that accepted federal bailout money. And Democrats have also used some of the same arcane delaying tactics that they now criticize Republicans for employing, including Obama himself when he served in the Senate.
"If your public position is bipartisanship and your legislative stance is division, I don't think that works politically," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 11:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy's abrupt announcement that he's not seeking re-election to Congress has gleeful Republicans eyeing incumbent New England Democrats and asking, "Who's next?"
"Long-term incumbents who don't have a fire in their belly are in trouble," said GOP consultant Ron Kaufman, in response to news the Rhode Island congressman is stepping aside. "There's an anti-incumbent fever, and that helps Republicans."
In Massachusetts, the National Republican Congressional Committee - tasting victory after the come-from-behind Senate win of Scott Brown last month - has targeted U.S. Rep. William Delahunt and U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas - both from districts where Brown won the majority of communities.
Those two Democrats have also shown sluggish fund-raising, and Delahunt has refused to even commit to seeking re-election.
"Delahunt and other New England Democrats who have voted in lockstep with (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi will pay a price on Election Day," said National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Tory Mazzola.
Tsongas (D-Lowell) vowed to fight for re-election and said Brown's surprise win gave Democrats an early wake-up call.
"As a candidate you have to earn every vote," said Tsongas, who faces two GOP challengers. "I do think in this election we heard voters' anger and frustration. I hear it when I'm in my district, but I'm working for them on bread-and-butter issues on a daily basis."
Former state Treasurer Joseph Malone, who is considering running against Delahunt (D-Quincy), said Kennedy's resignation has fed rumors that Delahunt will also bow out.
Shirpal Shah, spokesman for the National Democratic Campaign Committee, said Kennedy's resignation isn't expected to trigger a rash of Democratic incumbent departures. He added that the national party is better funded and able to take on challengers.
"My feeling is whether he runs or not, this is a very winnable seat, and the reason why it's winnable is because Bill Delahunt has gone far in the liberal direction," Malone said.
Democrats are also facing stiff competition in the Granite State, where U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-Rochester) was bested by GOP challenger Frank Guinta in a recent independent poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and WMUR-TV (Ch. 9).
"I think you're seeing the voters are angry, they're frustrated and they're taking that out on incumbents and in particular Democrats," said Guinta, who is the former mayor of Manchester, N.H. "We're really starting to feel the tide is changing, and many Democrats in New England are becoming vulnerable."
Shirpal Shah, spokesman for the National Democratic Campaign Committee, said Kennedy's resignation isn't expected to trigger a rash of Democratic incumbent departures. He added that the national party is better funded and able to take on challengers.
"I think everyone takes the Brown victory seriously, and they're taking precautions to ensure victories in November," said former Democratic state committee chair Phil Johnston. "Everyone is aware of the anger among the electorate and that it's legitimate and needs to be addressed."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 10:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Repuglycons need to back up and take a LONG look at what the Tea Party is really saying:
-- We want limited government.
-- We want lower taxes.
-- We want to end ALL earmarks and other set-asides.
-- We want honest representation.
Anything else, either from Repuglycons or Democheats, is unwelcome.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/14/2010 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
On paper, it's not just the Republican campaign fundraising arms that have money problems. Several of their Senate candidates do as well.
In all but one of the eight states where Republicans are locked in primary battles for the party's nomination, the Democratic candidates already have cash on hand advantages, some of them significant.
Add that to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's cash on hand advantage over its Republican counterpart -- it started the year with $12.5 million to the National Republican Senatorial Committee's $8.3 million -- and it looks like the GOP faces a steep uphill path. "These primaries not only present political problems, but also are inhibiting GOP chances of building adequate war chests," a Democratic strategist said.
Republicans argue that their leads in much of the polling, along with competitive primaries on the Democratic side, put them in what NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said is "a far stronger financial position relative to the Democrats, compared to two years ago."
Here's the state of the races:
Arkansas: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent Democrat, has $5 million in her war chest, more than five times as much as the two most serious Republican challengers combined. Rep. John Boozman has about $292,000, and state Sen. Gilbert Baker has $639,000. Yet the GOP is confident that either of those candidates will oust Lincoln, and the polling seems to back them up for now. The two most recent polls had both Boozman and Baker between 15 and 20 points ahead of Lincoln.
Colorado: Sen. Michael Bennet, the incumbent Democrat, has $3.5 million on hand and will snatch up a bit more on Thursday when President Obama campaigns for him. Compare that to the Republicans: former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton has $600,000 and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck has $276,000. But Bennet is facing a stiff primary challenge himself from former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. And while some polls show Bennet slightly ahead of the Republicans, he is behind Norton in others.
California: Sen. Barbara Boxer, the incumbent Democrat, holds a big money lead here as well, with $7.3 million to the $2.8 million held by the most loaded Republican, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. Former congressman Tom Campbell, who is leading his fellow Republicans in primary polling, has about $700,000, and state assembly man Chuck Devore has $226,364. Privately, Republicans downplay the significance of this race in the broader scheme, saying it is not one of their top pickup targets, but say either Fiorina or Campbell will at the very least give Boxer a tough enough run that she has to use most of her money and can't transfer it to the national party.
Nevada: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, has $8.7 million. He also will get a fundraising boost from Obama this week when the president shows up in Nevada on Friday. The closest Republican is banker John Chachas, with $1.7 million. Businessman Danny Tarkanian has about $377,000, and former state Sen. Sue Lowden has roughly $498,000. But the state of this race is more clear than most: Reid is going to need every cent if he hopes to win reelection. Reid's negatives are sky high in the state, and he trails both Tarkanian and Lowden in most polls.
New Hampshire: Rep. Paul Hodes, the Democratic frontrunner, has $1.4 million to the Republican front-runner Kelly Ayotte, the state's attorney general from 2004 to 2009, who has $1 million. That's a slight lead for Hodes given the fact that he entered the race much earlier than Ayotte. Ayotte consistently leads Hodes in recent polling by several points.
Pennsylvania: Sen. Arlen Specter, the former Republican turned Democrat incumbent, has a Harry Reid-size war chest, with $8.7 million. The closest Republican, former congressman Pat Toomey, has a respectable $2.8 million. But Specter faces a tough primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak, who has $5.1 million himself. And again, Toomey leads in the polls over both Specter and Sestak.
Kentucky: Jack Conway, the state's attorney general and Democratic front-runner, has a slight edge over the two Republican candidates. Conway has $1.7 million while Trey Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of state, has $1.4 million, and physician Rand Paul has $1.3 million. Again, a familiar dynamic is at play. Both Grayson and Paul lead Conway in the polls. And Conway faces a challenge of his own from Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, who has $783,000 of his own.
Florida: You would think Republican Gov. Charlie Crist would be the clear leader, with a $7.6 million war chest. But he has lost the 30-point lead in the polls he had last summer over primary challenger Marco Rubio, the former state speaker, who has $2 million on hand. Rubio is considered by many in the GOP to be not only a lock for the nomination and the general election, but is also being looked to as a national leader. Democrat Rep. Kendrick Meek has a respectable $3.5 million, but few expect him to be any threat to Rubio or Crist.
Of this list, Democrats are ahead only in Colorado and California. So while the party has an edge in overall cash levels, they are facing some pretty difficult challenges in the overall political environment and look to have a number of very tough races on their hands.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those people in California and Colorado must all be from Johnstown.
Johnstown, PA (1889 flood, killed 3000+ people, caused by neglect of a dam by millionaires who owned a ritzy lake resort) or Jonestown, Guyana (cyanide laced Kool-aid)?
#3
Johnstown PA home of leeches who repeatedly sent John Murtah to Congress to milk the rest of the country for them and seem to be spreading their disease to Colorado and Caliphornia.
#4
Something for non-locals to remember: Colorado has a population of 5 million. Four-fifths of those live within either side of a line drawn from Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Castle Rock, Colorado (about 15 miles south of Englewood, CO., a Denver suburb). More than half the population has lived in Colorado for less than 20 years, and a large percentage of them are from California and Texas. They came here as Democrats, but their kids will be Republicans.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/14/2010 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Simple answer: Expropriate whatever the incumbent has in excess of the challenger, and use it to pay down the national debt. Promotes fairness (dems LOVE fairness, right), and the incumbent can say he / she is doing his / her part to get America out of hock...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/14/2010 22:53 Comments ||
Top||
Republicans were up in arms last week -- and rightly so -- over the outrageous accusation by John Brennan, President Obama's top anti-terrorism advisor, that his critics "only serve the goals of al Qaeda."
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said Brennan "needs to go" because he's no longer "credible" on security matters.
That's putting it mildly.
Indeed, there are several reasons -- apart from his shamefully partisan name-calling -- to question Brennan's effectiveness.
Start with the near-tragedy of the Christmas would-be airline bomber -- who was foiled only by alert passengers: Brennan has admitted that the governemnt failed to make use of available intelligence to prevent this attack.
Add the absurd decision to Mirandize the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and send him to the civilian criminal-justice system -- rather than treating him like the enemy combatant that he is.
Now, a lot of people -- and not just Republicans -- have attacked the administration for these policy errors and others.
Brennan has a right to respond, of course. He did so -- in a published newspaper column that's so far over the top that it should be the last straw.
It is, as House Minority Leader John Boehner said, "a cheap, irresponsible political smear that doesn't help keep the American people safe."
And coming after seven years of the unconscionable abuse that Democrats -- including Obama -- heaped on then-President George Bush's anti-terrorism policies, Brennan's piece is particularly unseemly.
Brennan himself termed Bush's policies "a recruitment bonanza for terrorists." Unlike Bush, Brennan promised, Obama would not "validate al Qaeda's twisted worldview."
Now, instead of an independent, nonpartisan intelligence official, Brennan has turned into what Bond correctly labels "a mouthpiece for the political arm" of the White House.
That kind of irresponsibility is not just unseemly, it's potentially dangerous.
Brennan needs to go. Now.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2010 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just add him to the ever growing list of Bambi's failed choices for federal government adviser's/jobs. 2012 can't come soon enough.
#2
Now, instead of an independent, nonpartisan intelligence official, Brennan has turned into what Bond correctly labels "a mouthpiece for the political arm" of the White House.
New handler, same hoer but a brand new day. Seen it many times in the beltway. You wish to have a friend in D.C. by a dog.
#3
Obama keeps reinforcing my view that he is an incompetent boob who is in over his head. I came to that conclusion before he was nominated. The MSM carried him across the line.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Didn't Acorn, the corrupt community organizer, get its federal funding yanked after its last scandal? Actually, no. Through municipal middlemen, it's poised to rake in another $4 billion. Where is the outrage?
On paper, it's not just the Republican campaign fundraising arms that have money problems. Several of their Senate candidates do as well.
Republicans were up in arms last week -- and rightly so -- over the outrageous accusation by John Brennan, President Obama's top anti-terrorism advisor, that his critics "only serve the goals of al Qaeda."
