City Councilmember Larry Seabrook was charged Tuesday with presiding over a reign of corruption in the Bronx that included shakedowns, favoritism, nepotism - and even a scam to collect $177 for a $7 bagel and soda.
The endless schemes to line his pockets were detailed in a stunning 66-page federal indictment that charged nothing - not even a cheap snack purchased near City Hall - was beyond Seabrook's greedy grasp.
"Councilman Seabrook basically operated his own corrupt, City Council-funded friends and family plan," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.
The married Seabrook funneled city money to shaky Bronx non-profits where his girlfriend and relatives were paid more than $500,000 between 2002 and 2009, prosecutors charged.
The three-term councilman also shook down a Bronx businessman for $50,000 in return for landing a boiler contract at the new Yankee Stadium - and used the money to pay parking fines and credit card bills.
A 13-count indictment charged Seabrook abused his position to benefit his wife, his girlfriend, his family - and himself.
The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour's migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country's economic needs, but also the Government's "social objectives". The paper said migration would "enhance economic growth" and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be "economically damaging". But it also stated that immigration had general "benefits" and that a new policy framework was needed to "maximise" the contribution of migration to the Government's wider social aims. More evidence (if it were needed) that left-wing politics represents cultural suicide.
The Government has always lied through its teeth/
denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy. However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to "social exclusion".
That was on Tony Blair's watch. While we Americans appreciated his foreign policy, and especially his ability to articulate so beautifully George W. Bush's ideas, you Brits insisted there were serious problems on the domestic side. So it now appears.
Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.
Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.
The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a "driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural".
However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to "social objectives" had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.
Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the "race card".
Gosh, that sounds familiar.
Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.
Gordon Brown pledged to secure "British jobs for British workers" as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was "not racist" to discuss the issue. There is no level of contempt that Brown is unworthy of.
The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title "Migration: an economic and social analysis" but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to "social objectives". The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase -- "if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives" -- was edited out.Another deleted phrase suggested that it was "correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy".
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", had been correct in his account of Labour's immigration policy. "Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain," he said. "Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects? Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration."
Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, accused the Government of having a secret policy. "This shows that Labour's open-door immigration policy was deliberate, and ministers should apologise," he said. "This makes it all the more important that there is a proper independent inquiry in the origins of this policy and whether ministers have been deceiving people."
Jack Straw, who was home secretary when the paper was drawn up, has adamantly denied any secret plot and insisted that he had been tough on immigration.
Liar! I do apologize. For a given value of tough that statement would of course be true. Granted, the value would not match common dictionary definitions, but even so.
Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said the policy changes introduced in the 1997-2001 Parliament toughened immigration rules.
Do tell. Really, do tell us.
"The reports confirm there is no evidence to back the idea there was an open-door policy," he said. "The Government was criticised at the time for tightening the policy." Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will announce today moves to make it harder to earn citizenship.
Tightened citizenship rules are lovely idea. How about radically reducing the number of entrants allowed into the country as well?
#2
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will announce today moves to make it harder to earn citizenship.
Just throw the illegals out , we know who they are and how little they contribute , then tighten immigration for just Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. Makes sure they stay for 6-10 years and pay back what we have given , i.e. a superior education in medicine , engineering or whatever than what they would get the sh1thole they came from.
Oooh wait , labour want the votes to keep their skanky slimey selves in power.. corrupt socialism at its best .
Well done Labour , in doing what Communsim , Fascism , and terrorism have tried to do over the years , but failed.
Shot in the foot by the Government voted in by a dumb average jo citizen. Irony.
Posted by: Oscar ||
02/10/2010 4:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Political power comes from the eye slit of a burka
The administration asked for public comments on a plan to expand offshore drilling. When they came in 2-to-1 in favor, the Interior Department sat on the news. Time for a "Texas tea" party?
When you ask for public comment on a major policy issue, at some point you should make the results public, not hide them until you can figure out a way to spin the public reaction to support a conclusion you've already drawn.
On its last business day in office, the Bush administration published a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling. The plan authorized 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015 for tracts along the East Coast and off the coasts of Alaska and California.
Hopes that America would soon develop vast untapped energy reserves were dashed when the incoming Obama administration ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt all such pending regulations until they could be reviewed by incoming staff. Incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended the public comment period by 180 days.
Last April, Salazar said President Obama told him regarding the comment period "to make sure that we have an open and transparent government" and to make sure that DOI was "maximizing the opportunity for the public to give us guidance on what it is they want us to do" about expanding domestic energy exploration and development.
Well, the public provided no small amount of guidance. The Interior Department announced in September it had received more than 530,000 comments. It did not say, however, how many supported or opposed expanded drilling. It's now four months after the close of this extended comment period, so where are the results? What happened to the open and transparent process?
Instead, on Jan. 6 Salazar announced plans, as the energy news service Greenwire put it, that "will require more detailed environmental reviews, more public input and less use of a provision to streamline leasing." In other words, we were being promised more stalling, not more drilling.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's group, American Solutions, wanted to know and filed a Freedom of Information Act request on the comment period tabulation on Oct. 26, 2009. After weeks of delay and a second FOIA request, some 500 pages of e-mails were received from the DOI's Minerals Management Service (MMS).
Gingrich's group had heard from sources that the result of the tabulation was a 2-to-1 lopsided victory for expanded drilling. An e-mail dated Oct. 27, 2009 from MMS Director Liz Birnbaum to other senior MMS and DOI officials, including Salazar's chief of staff, confirmed the result and discussed ways of hiding it from the American people.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ken Salazar (D-Econut) is from Colorado. He and his brother, John, were elected together by the Denver democratic machine. The state of Colorado has a population of 5 million - 4.4 million of those live in the Fort Collins - Castle Rock corridor around I-25, and pretty much control state elections. Both Salazars have always been against any additional development of local resources. The minute I heard Ken Salazar was going to be the Secretary of the Interior, I knew "Drill, baby, Drill" was dead. I'm sorry to see my premonition proved true. Both Salazars need to face the "Tea Party" music that will be "President" Obumble's funeral march.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/10/2010 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) tried to persuade the Federal Reserve to approve the acquisition of a New Jersey bank where the chairman and vice chairman were both major contributors.
The Federal Reserve did not act and Elizabeth-based First BankAmericano failed on July 31.
The Wall Street Journal reports it's unusual for individual members of Congress to make such requests.
The chairman of the bank at the time Menendez requested help was Joseph Ginarte. He had contributed $30,000 to the Democrat over the last decade. The bank's vice chairman was state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a powerbroker in the state Democratic Party.
Menendez says trying to save the bank was the right thing to do.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Nearly 10,000 San Francisco city workers will be laid off and most rehired for jobs with shorter hours under a controversial plan being examined by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
The mayor's budget office came up with the idea of cutting hours to reduce costs. Fulltime employees will work 37.5 hour weeks instead of the traditional 40.
Newsom's budget office estimates that paying workers for 2.5 fewer hours of work each week would save more than $50 million a year as the city grapples with how to close a devastating $522 million budget gap for the 2010-11 fiscal year.
"We have to look at unprecedented tools to close an unprecedented shortfall," said Tony Winnicker, the spokesman for the mayor. "These times call for unusual measures, so we have to look at all options."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Brought to you by the city that built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression.
Posted by: Kelly ||
02/10/2010 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I wonder what the union contracts look like - in many places anything less than 40 hrs / week mean no or fewer benefits. If that's the case for SF workers then the city will be reaping most of the benefit from reduced overhead rather than hourly wage labor costs.
Canada's spy agency is pulling out all the stops to block the release of decades-old intelligence on socialist icon Tommy Douglas.
In an affidavit filed in Federal Court, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service argues that full disclosure of the file on Douglas could endanger the lives of confidential informants and jeopardize the agency's ability to conduct secret surveillance.
The battle over Douglas' intelligence file began in November 2005, when reporter Jim Bronskill made an Access to Information Act request for the RCMP dossier on the fabled prairie preacher-turned-politician.
Some material in the file, now in the possession of Library and Archives Canada, was eventually released.
It showed that spies with the now defunct RCMP Security Service had shadowed Douglas for more than three decades, attending his speeches, analyzing his writings and eavesdropping on private conversations. His links to the peace movement and Communist Party members were of particular interest.
But the government refused to release big chunks of Douglas' file some of it dating back to the 1930s because of national security concerns. Its decision was upheld by the information commissioner of Canada. Makes you wonder if there is a bit of fire underneath all that smoke.
I received the following SPAM from the DSCC. Just a little juvenile (but pretty mature for the DNC...)
This can be fun
(link goes to a site where you can apparently fill in what Sarah is saying...)
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Dear XXXXXXX,
Tell us what Sarah Palin is saying. Use the new whiteboard. Be creative!
Did you read about last weekend's "tea party" convention in Nashville? Attendees paid $549 apiece for a weekend of activism and education capped by the main attraction: a speech by everybody's favorite half-term former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. For her efforts, Palin received more than $100,000 in speaking fees - and the adoration of legions of fans.
In honor of the tea party convention, we came up with a way for you to tell us what you think she's saying. Just click on the link below, fill in the speech bubble, then submit it to us. We'll post the best creations at dscc.org.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter continues to hold a significant lead over his Democratic primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak, but has not made a dent in his general election deficit former Republican congressman Pat Toomey, according to a new Rasmussen survey.
Democratic Primary (Feb. 8, 425 Dem LV, MoE +/- 5%)
Specter 51 (-2 vs. last poll, Jan. 20)
Sestak 36 (+4)
Und 9
Specter leads Sestak by 18.4 points in the RCP Average
General Election (Feb. 8, 1000 LV, MoE +/- 3%)
Toomey 47 (-2 vs. last poll, Jan. 21)
Specter 38 (-2)
Und 10
Toomey 43 (nc vs. last poll, Jan. 21)
Sestak 35 (nc)
Und 15
Toomey leads Specter by 7.6 points and Sestak by 11.6 points in the RCP Average
A new Web site targeting the tea parties is a part of a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions and trickling slowly into political slush funds for Democratic activists.
A seemingly grassroots organization that's mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds -- including sizable labor union contributions -- through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer.
A Web site popped up in January dedicated to preventing the tea party's "radical" and "dangerous" ideas from "gaining legislative traction," targeting GOP candidates in Illinois for the firing squad.
"This movement is a fad," proclaims TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, which was established by the American Public Policy Center (APPC), a D.C.-based campaign shop that few people have ever heard of.
But a close look reveals the APPC's place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists.
Here's how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men -- Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).
Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money -- tens of millions of dollars -- gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean -- for the most part.
The system helps hide the true sources of funding, giving the appearance of locally bred opposition in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey, or in the case of the Tea Party Web site, in Illinois.
And this whitewash is entirely legal, say election law experts, who told FoxNews.com that this arrangement more or less the norm in Washington.
"It's not illegal but it is, I think, dishonest on the part of the organizations," said Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "And there's a reason they do it: they know voters don't like outsiders coming in to sway the vote."
Calls and e-mails to the Maryland-based consultant firm Independent Strategies, run by Varoga and Rakis, were not returned.
Outside of that firm, the center of their activity appears to be a single office in Southeast D.C. -- 300 M Street, Suite 1102 -- which plays host to a sprawling political shell game they have established.
Public records show at least seven political shops listed in Suite 1102, most of which are essentially clones of one another, but all of which have offered money -- from measly thousands to game-changing millions -- in state-level elections across the country:
#2
And how much of that Union money is extolled from their membership in the form of mandatory union-dues under threat of their livelihood. (As in 'you must join the union to work at your profession').
#6
Via InstaPundit: Fox Uncovers Anti-Tea-Party Slush-Fund Scam Fox has the list of donors, which comprises a set of interlocking slush-type funds that pay for the antiTea Party campaign. The largest of these is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME,) which has kicked in a total of $9.9M in a single year to two funds that provide the cash for the non-grassroots movement. Yes government workers money is being used to fend off Tea Party protesters.
But Fox is not a real news organization.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2010 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I want them all gainfully employed at-will.
Just think of replacing so many unmotivated and lesser skilled minions and clerks with people who have degrees and papers and had experienced the real hunger [without welfare] of unemployment. It's not like being a clerk in the patent office stops you from formulating something like, say, relativity.
#9
That's right, charger. We pay them, they pay their union dues and the union uses the money to complain about "radical" and "dangerous" ideas like not squandering the taxpayers' money.
1. Repeal the Wagner Act and all other similar federal laws, rules & regulations that followed it.
2. Dissolve the Department of Labor and other similar federal governmental units.
3. Decertify and outlaw public employee unions due to the inherent and unavoidable conflicts of interest they present.
4. Implement a strong federal right-to-work law.
5. Liquidate the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
6. Convert all public employee retirement benefits, cash & health care, to the present cash value of the investments that back them today and prohibit any defined-benefit pensions or non-Medicare health retirement benefits for government employees.
Of course that would fix lots of other problems as well. ;)
#11
A plan to prohibit any defined-benefit pensions or non-Medicare health retirement benefits for retired military will not fly in this county. They of all people deserve that. Otherwise it certainly should apply to most other retired government workers. Defined-benefit pensions are not feasible for the vast majority of employees due simply to unsustainable financial projections.
#14
Very true AH, military folks definitely deserve more than we do for them. I was definitely thinking of the millions of present and past unionized "civil servants".
#15
The military is one of only a very few government agencies that is FORBIDDEN from forming a union. The military is also the most independent-thinking government agency that exists. I know that sounds contradictory, but ideas in the military that come from within OR without are given a fair evaluation (unless it's something to do with the Pentagon, and there the "Secretaries" get into the act, and spoil everything). It should be JUST as unlawful to be a member of a union at any government agency. What's even worse is that the US Government mandates that some jobs be unionized, regardless of the wishes of the employees or the leadership (Roosevelt forced unionization of the railroads in 1942, and they've been dictated to remain unionized ever since. Other examples exist). Unfortunately the current government structure is going to have to be totally broken and torn down before any improvement can be made.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/10/2010 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) called on Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan's resignation on Tuesday.
Bond said Brennan, with whom he's tangled publicly over the Obama administration's handling of the attempted bombing of a flight on Christmas, to resign. Brennan "needs to go," Bond said in an interview with National Review Online, a stance that was confirmed later by a spokeswoman.
"A drastic change in policy is needed," Bond said. "Our problem now is that we have to wonder whether we can trust [Brennan] after he has been a mouthpiece for the political arm that I thought only came out of the White House press office."
Bond, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has clashed openly with Brennan and the Obama administration in regards to the handling of suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.
Republicans have complained that the administration was too quick to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal suspect and read him his Miranda rights. Bond, along with his House counterpart, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), have also raised questions about the White House's revelation of certain facts about the investigation.
Brennan shot back at Republican critics in an op-ed for USA Today on Tuesday, accusing them of undermining national security in their criticism.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wasn't Brennen the one in 1996-98 who was unwilling to advise Clinton that bin Laden, whose location was precisely known, should not be killed?
#4
Kit's got the right idea, but he's expressing it poorly. The problem isn't merely that Brennan is playing the political stooge, which seems like a petty partisan complaint, it's that his being a stooge is a distraction from keeping Americans safe.
These are dangerous times Republicans, let's play to win.
Posted by: regular joe ||
02/10/2010 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
Top New York Democrats were silent Tuesday as Gov. David Paterson, already fighting to remain politically viable, fought to lay to rest unconfirmed rumors and news reports of womanizing and drug use.
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, many Democrats' preferred candidate for governor in 2010, refused to comment Tuesday on the unsubstantiated tales, all of which Paterson denies. Cuomo's office also won't comment on whether he supports Paterson in his battle.
"We don't comment on rumors," a Cuomo spokesman said. "There are serious problems facing our state and the attorney general is busy doing the job he was elected to do."
Many Democrats have voiced wishes that Cuomo run for governor instead of Paterson, who took the post upon the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, named in a prostitution investigation 23 months ago.
A Republican candidate for governor came to Paterson's side.
"The Capitol is paralyzed by rumor and innuendo, and somehow we need to get past that and focus on the basic problems that people care about," Rick Lazio said. "I don't think anyone trying to get their job done deserves this kind of phantom threat."
Paterson has cited as fabricated a Jan. 30 New York Post report that he was caught by state police in the mansion with a woman other than his wife. The Post has said it stands by its story.
Paterson decried those allegations and other statehouse rumors Monday in an Associated Press interview. Paterson, trailing Cuomo in the polls and in fundraising, would face a tougher campaign against Lazio, which could threaten the whole Democratic ticket.
Democratic leaders wouldn't comment on Paterson or the rumors that have undermined him as he confronts the Legislature over the state budget, an ethics bill he vetoed and the awarding of a contract for video slot machines at Aqueduct race track.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
--Looks like this guy's following Spitzer's foot-steps, whose next in line ?
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
02/10/2010 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for his part in the collapse of healthcare reform.
The emerging consensus among critics in both chambers is that Emanuel's lack of Senate experience slowed President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel's once-impregnable political armor. Last week he had to apologize after a report surfaced that he called liberal groups "retarded" in a private meeting.
While Emanuel has quelled that controversy by meeting with advocates for people with disabilities, on Capitol Hill he's under fire for poor execution of the president's healthcare agenda in the Senate.
"I think Rahm ran the play his boss called; once Obama called the play, Rahm did everything he could to pass it, scorched-earth and all that," said a senior lawmaker, who added that Emanuel didn't seek a broader base of Senate Republicans. "I think he did miscalculate the Senate. He did what he thought he had to do to win."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Last week he had to apologize after a report surfaced that he called liberal groups "retarded" in a private meeting.
And why, pray tell, does he have to apologize for that?
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Copper Center, AK ||
02/10/2010 0:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Michael Kinsley: A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
02/10/2010 1:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In recognition of Rahm's retard crack, maybe he'll get thrown under the short bus...
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.
City Councilmember Larry Seabrook was charged Tuesday with presiding over a reign of corruption in the Bronx that included shakedowns, favoritism, nepotism - and even a scam to collect $177 for a $7 bagel and soda.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) called on Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan's resignation on Tuesday.
Top New York Democrats were silent Tuesday as Gov. David Paterson, already fighting to remain politically viable, fought to lay to rest unconfirmed rumors and news reports of womanizing and drug use.
Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for his part in the collapse of healthcare reform.
