Vietnam

ACORN Challenges Cut-Off Of Federal Funds After Child Prostitution Scandal, Claiming It Is ‘Unconstitutional’

by Hans Bader on November 12, 2009

in Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

ACORN has just filed a lawsuit in New York challenging as “unconstitutional” its loss of federal funds after its role in a child prostitution scandal was exposed.  Earlier, it sued those who exposed its role in that scandal for $2 million, claiming that the exposure violated its privacy rights under state audiotaping laws.  ACORN claims that Congress’s vote to cut off federal funds to ACORN is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

ACORN is a left-wing group that launched President Obama’s career as a community organizer (ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).  Obama has long-standing ties to ACORN, and an ACORN affiliate received received $800,000 from Obama’s campaign.  Earlier, a liberal prosecutor (and fervent Obama supporter) threatened to punish those who exposed ACORN’s scandalous actions, while turning a blind eye to ACORN’s wrongdoing.  Now, however, Obama is quite rationally distancing himself from ACORN, which has become an embarrassment to its one-time supporters.

Legal scholars like Hans Von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation have explained why Congress’s cut-off of funds to ACORN was perfectly constitutional.  It is easy to see why Congress would not want scarce federal funds to go to ACORN, which has a long history of terrible financial mismanagement, waste of funds, financial fraud, vote fraud, and tax evasion.  Congress had many legitimate,  non-punitive reasons for cutting off funds to ACORN.

ACORN’s lawsuit is brought by the radically left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).  CCR’s founder, William Kunstler, was very open about the fact that he believed in civil liberties only for left-wingers in capitalist societies, not for dissidents of any stripe in Communist countries.  A classic example was his attitude towards dissidents in South Vietnam.  Many of these dissidents were liberals who had once criticized the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government.  After communist North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, the dissidents began politely criticizing the human-rights abuses of the new government.  They were promptly sent to re-education camps, where they were starved or tortured to death.  The new Communist government turned out to be far crueler than the old right-wing government, which had at least allowed dissidents to live.

When some liberals, like Joan Baez, criticized this oppression against dissidents they had once worked with, William Kunstler refused to do so, saying that once a communist regime took power, he was not in favor of criticizing it for any human-rights abuses it committed.  Kunstler said, “I don’t believe in criticizing socialist governments publicly, even if there are human-rights violations.”  To Kunstler, civil liberties were just a tool to be used to bring down capitalist governments and pave the way for a communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.”  Once such a dictatorship was in power, there was no more need for civil liberties or individual freedoms of any kind, since individual freedom could only prove an obstacle to the socialist transformation of society.

Fishy Politics May Harm US Consumers

by Greg Conko on July 14, 2009 · 2 comments

in Agriculture, International, Natural Resources, Regulation, Trade

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today on one US industry’s latest attempt to secure some protection against foreign imports, which just may spark a trade war with an important target for American exports. This time, it’s the farmed fish industry, and the imports in question are catfish from Vietnam.

The U.S. catfish farming industry, located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, faces tough competition from Vietnamese imports, the value of which rose from $2 million in 1998 to $46 million in 2002, and $77 million last year, all the while chipping in on the US-produced market which fell from about fell from $488 million to $410 million during the same time period. That didn’t sit well with American fish farmers. So, in 2002, they convinced Congress pass a law forbidding Vietnamese catfish, which is a different species than the one farmed domestically, from being labeled as “catfish.” Instead, you’ll see it in supermarkets labeled as “basa” or “tra,” even though taxonomically, the Vietnamese fish are members of the family Pangasiidae within the order Siluriformes, which makes them genuine, authentic catfish.

American consumers seem to like the relatively inexpensive imports, no matter what they’re called. So, in 2003, the US farmed fish industry secured a punitive tariff of up to 64 percent on the Vietnamese fish. And, last year, the federal Farm Bill included a provision introduced by Republican Senator Thad Cochran (Miss.) that would authorize the federal government to shift the inspection of “catfish” from the Food and Drug Administration, which currently oversees nearly all seafood, to the US Department of Agriculture. According to the Associated Press,

“The inspections requirement could be the U.S. producers’ silver bullet, stopping imports in their tracks. Applying to all catfish sold in the U.S., it would require Vietnam to establish a complicated inspection system and demonstrate that it is equivalent to U.S. inspections, a process that could take years.”

Ironically,

“after years of arguing that the Vietnamese fish is not catfish — and winning a federal law saying as much — the U.S. farmers are now trying to have it both ways. Under their latest lobbying strategy, they want the Vietnamese imports considered catfish so that they will be covered by [the] new inspections regime”.

This is reminiscent of a similar dispute between the European Union and South American fishing industry that arose earlier this decade. In an effort to protect the European fishing industry, the EU adopted a rule that forbade Pacific Ocean-caught Sardinops sagax from being labeled as “sardines” despite their taxanomic similarity to Mediterranean-caught Sardinops walbaum. In 2002, the World Trade Organization found that this violated the EU’s GATT obligations and ruled in favor of the complainant, Peru.  It’s worth noting that the US sided with Peru and the other South American countries in that dispute, but is now doing exactly what it condemned the EU for doing just a decade ago.

The various US attempts to hobble the Vietnamese farmed-catfish industry is no less underhanded. And, in order to prevent a trade war with Vietnam, it would be wise for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reject the pleas of US fish farmers to harm US consumers by making it harder for us to enjoy a good, safe, and inexpensive food.