ACORN again? Its nuts! (pun intended)

In case you haven't followed any of the ACORN stuff that's been going on, I encourage you to watch the videos linked in the following summary.

ACORN helps us into economic crisis:
Basically ACORN is one of the groups encouraging and even pressuring and blackmailing banks into giving home loans to people who could not afford them. Isn't that what caused the housing crisis? Hmm...
More on that:
And ACORN was to receive like 20% of the bailout money...?
ACORN election fraud:
Um... yeah... just ridiculous. They were registering underage people, dead people, random people out of the phone book, made up names, etc.
ACORN consults on how to run child prostitution part 1
ACORN consults on how to run child prostitution part 2:
I can't believe some of the stuff in this video. Prostitution is classified as a "Performing Art" to make it look like a legitimate business, yeah I can't really handle this one so just watch it.
Obama ACORN connection
Obama dismisses ALL of this as "not a big issue"
Obama: ACORN will help shape my presidential agenda

The list goes on and on. And now, I read the following in todays news.

In a written ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon made permanent her conclusion last year that the cutoff of funding was unconstitutional. She ordered all federal agencies to put the word out about it.

The Brooklyn judge said ACORN was punished by Congress without the enactment of administrative processes to decide if money had been handled inappropriately. She said the harm to ACORN's reputation continues because the government never rescinded its advice to withhold funding after it was distributed to "hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients."

What?! She is basically accusing Congress of passing a bill of attainder here. And I mean she is technically right. But, wouldn't you think in a case like this you would want to at least withhold funds until after the time that a trial can be held? I can't help but feel that she was just given the perfect opportunity to help out Obama and his cronies on a technicality and loophole. This had better not be the end of the story.

Jim Matheson is on thin ice with me.

I voted for Jim Matheson last election. I'll tell you why. First of all, yes I'm a Republican, and yes I usually vote Republican, but last election, Bill Dew was the only other option. Bill Dew I'm sure is a great guy in real life. But all I heard about Bill Dew the entire campaign season was attack ads against Jim Matheson. One thing you should know about me is that mudslinging and attack politics are one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. I HATE people who say you should vote for them just because "that other guy is evil and is going to vote the opposite of everything you believe in!" On top of that, I couldn't find one single iota of information on what Bill Dew stood for. All I knew from Bill Dew was that Jim Matheson voted for whatever policy in Congress and it was usually something you didn't care about.

That being said, I also thought Jim Matheson was a man of good character. And integrity. I haven't had reason to start worrying about him until recently. I have been so proud to know that he is one of the democrats standing up against pushing healthcare down our throats. Then of course the whole thing came out about Scott Matheson being appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and that the timing was strangely, coincidentally on the exact same day that Obama invited all the Democrats against healthcare to the White House for buttering up. I'm willing to accept that Scott Matheson deserves the appointment, but I hate the fact that none of these stupid White House people saw any kind of coincidence. Those who raised the concerns were called "absurd" and accused of "manipulat[ing] the message out there for partisan gain" and this by Matheson himself who was described as "furious". So I'm basically hearing "those people are just crazy Republicans and we should ignore them." Why would you be furious for being asked if an accusation is true or not? Its not like we are accusing you personally of taking a bribe. We are just concerned about the integrity of the White House and Obama. And rightly so. It's not a baseless accusation at ALL!

Let's make an analogy here. Your son really wants a cookie before dinner. You say no, mainly because you know that you will be in big trouble with your wife if you say yes. Your son then decides to be really obedient and helpful, including getting a cookie for you. In the midst of him getting a cookie for you and handing it to you, your wife walks in. What do you think she is going to think immediately? That your son was just trying to be nice and that him giving you a cookie was completely unrelated to the fact that HE wants a cookie? No that would be stupid. Almost as stupid as my analogy :)

Anyway, a few days ago I wrote Jim a letter letting him know that I wasn't accusing him of anything wrong but that I hoped he wouldn't let these seeming favors influence his votes and that he would continue to vote for his constituents (me). Then, I read about Jim's refusal to give back $45,000 given to him by Charlie Rangel over the years because the money had been spent during past campaign cycles. The problem I have with this?

Matheson had reported $860,000 left in his campaign bank account after his last race in 2008 and reported $1.24 million in that account at the end of 2009.

So... you must keep a very specific ledger of each individual or group that gives you money and then when you spend that exact same money. But even if that were the case, the money that he was given by Rangel is money that Rangel obtained through tax fraud. Meaning (to me at least) that Matheson is basically refusing to give back tax payer money. He is funding his campaign in part with money that should not ever have been his whether he knew at the time he got it or not. He obviously has plenty of money right now for his next campaign. I would think that at a point when his public image is somewhat in the hands of how he votes on healthcare, he might want to try and shift that negative focus to something more positive like giving back money that he doesn't technically have to give back. At this point I'm feeling more like everything I hear about Matheson is about how he received some benefit out of corruption within his party yet he is unwilling to acknowledge it. The message I'm getting is this:

Utah, my party is infected with corruption and I have benefitted many times at the hands of it. But I never participated in any of it directly so I should not be held responsible for any of it. I also should not have to give up any of the benefits I am receiving from it. After all, if a bank robber steals money and then gives me some of it later and I spend it on a new TV then shouldn't I be allowed to keep the TV? After all I didn't know he got the money by stealing it. I'm totally innocent. And if you say I should give up my TV because I bought it with dirty money then you are an absurd self righteous jerkhead. You voted for me and that means I'm allowed to do whatever I want for two years and screw you.

That's the message I'm hearing from Jim. Sorry buddy, but you are going to have to find a new job soon.