Three months after Kenneth Gladney and Kelly Owens were assaulted in the Bernard school parking lot following Russ Carnahan's town hall the charges still remain in hibernation at the County Counselor's office. Upon contacting Bob McCullough, I was told that Gladney's charges fall into Patricia Redington's jurisdiction.
Redington was quick to file charges back in 2000, when a staffer for Democrat Richard Gephardt stalked serious contender Republican Bill Federer on a parade route. The staffer, James Larrew, tried to shove his camera into Federer's face until Federer was forced to push the camera away. The staffer freaked, flagged down a cop and claimed that he had been assaulted. Larrew then called Gephardt's office and spoke to Joyce Aboussie, Gephardt's top political adviser, who then contacted Redington's office. Two days later Redington filed assault charges against Federer, on Columbus Day, a national holiday; after which Redington, Aboussie, and Larrew conducted a media blitz, all arranged for by Gephardt's office.
From an account of the incident:
Note that Redington is a Democrat-appointee with close ties to Gephardt's closest adviser, Aboussie.
Does party affiliation and who you know play a part in how fast your charges are filed or whether or not justice is served? This doesn't help matters any. Redington has proven that she's willing to work quickly when politically convenient.
How long will Kenneth Gladney and Kelly Owens have to wait for justice?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A former Louisiana congressman who famously stashed cash in his freezer was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes in exchange for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.
The sentence handed down in suburban Washington was far less than the nearly 30 years prosecutors had sought for William Jefferson, a Democrat who represented parts of New Orleans for nearly 20 years.
Jefferson said nothing in court after he was sentenced. He was convicted in August of 11 counts, including bribery and racketeering. Prosecutors at his two-month trial said he took roughly $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more. He was acquitted of five other charges, including the one most closely associated with the money in his freezer.
He was re-elected in 2006 even after news of the bribery scandal broke but was indicted and then lost to Republican attorney Anh "Joseph" Cao this past December.
Posted by: ed ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The article names Jefferson's party. AP's editors must not be doing their jobs.
#4
This POS represents the US, it's history, traditions and national pride and honor. We threw off the bonds of colonial power and declared ourselves a Republic, beholding to none and equal to all. The President represents that heritage, every day. We don't dip our colors to anyhone, and my favorite WWII story involves the meeting of a B-17 bomber crew and the King of England during a royal visit to a US base. When introduced to the flight crew, the senior sergeant stepped forward, looked the King straight in the eye, stuck out his hand and said "Hiya King"! That is what average Americans do, since we are equal to all.
Sooooo imagine my reaction when our POS bows like a peasant..... to the Saudi King, to the Japanses Emperor, (interestingly, not to the Queen of England, but speaks to his Kenyan feelings).
#8
Someone forget to tell mr. universe not to shake hands and bow at the same time; it makes a person look foolish.
Ya know, for the postmodern president, wtf that means anyways, he sure has a propensity to behave in the ancient way of groveling before royalty. Of course, with the USA never having kings and queens or man-gods, he should not be bowing to anyone.
#9
Unlike bowing before the Saudi King, bowing in Japan is just common courtesy, like shaking hands. The depth of the bow is indicative of rank. Obama's gaffe is shaking hands and bowing at the same time. He's bowing a bit too deeply, as well, but we all know the Bammer is inexperienced and out of his depth, with a staff that has no understanding of international protocol.
#10
Way more than a bit. Fifteen degrees or so, without lowering the eyes, would do.
American Presidents traditionally don't defer to 'royalty', they shake hands. And I've never seen the even the greenest gaijin attempt to shake hands and bow at the same time. What a dork.
#12
He has improved with practice. Did you see the Saudi photo? He tried to step forward, bow, and shake hands, all at the same time. Perhaps he was still walking forward, having misjudged the distance -- it's hard to tell from the single image. At least this time he's standing still.
Don't let's forget he spent the formative years of his life in Malaysia, which still has sultans (seven of them, if I recall correctly). So then he was not only a child and an outsider, but a subject as well. Really, what the Obamas need more than anything is an expert on international protocol for him and a stylist for her. Mrs. Bush would do nicely in both roles.
The higher position, the less the bow. If you ever watch two senior execs of equal status meet, both of them bow with their heads slightly cocked to the other, ensuring the bows (there are multiple)are equal to each other.
Now a junior-to-senior is essentially what you see in the photo.
#14
Now a junior-to-senior is essentially what you see in the photo
I would have described it as shopkeeper to honored customer, but yeah. Major social faux paux. I'm sure the Japanese are laughing themselves silly. But in private, of course, so as not to embarrass their guest.
The Obama administration, mindful of public anxiety over the government's mushrooming debt, is shifting emphasis from big-spending policies to deficit reduction. Domestic agencies have been told to brace for a spending freeze or cuts of up to 5 percent as part of a midterm election-year push to rein in record budget shortfalls.
Do tell. How much is an up to 5% cut in the domestic budget in actual, you know, dollars? How close does it bring the budget toward balance with projected federal income for the fiscal year?
Yet with the economy still in distress and unemployment pushing past 10 percent, prospects for making a dent in a trillion-dollar-plus annual deficit seem slight. And since the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs would likely be shielded from such cuts, overtures toward trimming the deficit may hold more symbolic value than substance.
President Barack Obama is expected to make post-recession spending restraint a key theme of his State of the Union address in January and an important element of the budget he submits to Congress a few weeks later. He is under increasing pressure, including from moderate and conservative members of his own party, to show he is serious about tackling a deficit that has become both an economic and political liability.
Showing is what's important here, not actually being serious.
Not since billionaire Ross Perot made budget-balancing the centerpiece of his 1992 third-party presidential bid has so much public concern been voiced over the gulf between what the government spends and what it takes in.
White House budget director Peter Orszag on Friday told The Associated Press it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut what appears to be a fledgling economic recovery.
Orszag has said the spending blueprint, for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, 2010, would put the nation "back on a fiscally sustainable path" and suggested it would include a mix of spending cuts and new revenue-producing measures.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They will gut the military to raise funds. After the Donks are voted out of office for something else, the Trunks will be left to pick up the pieces and get blamed for it in the process. Then the Donks will get elected back into office and the cycle will repeat itself.
#4
And since the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs would likely be shielded from such cuts, overtures toward trimming the deficit may hold more symbolic value than substance.
They got the latter part right, leftist bias notwithstanding.
#5
The Democrat definition of "spending cut" means to a) decrease the rate of increase in spending or b) not spend money on some new projects they were thinking about funding.
#7
Tax^2
This came to me by an email just to remind people how far weve come. I cant tell people how much tax is right but I can say we have too much.
A Tax Poem
At first I thought this was funny ..
then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which hes fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers.
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you wont be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
Hes good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which hes laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me to my doom
When hes gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon or more)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax=0
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
California Redemption Tax
Recycling Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
#8
A hundred years ago both mother and children worked in the factories if the family was poor in the city, and in the fields if the family was poor in the country.
In an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg, Anita Dunn offers a fairly definitive answer to the question about whether the President of the United States gave his stamp of approval on launching a war on FOX News:
HUNT: Just - just - just a follow-on on this. Was President Obama aware ahead of time that you were going to criticize FOX?
DUNN: You know, the - I am not a person who is known for going rogue, OK?
Just a bit prior, Dunn used the same phrasing in response to a similar question from Hunt:
HUNT: Let me ask you about your famous broadside against FOX News.
DUNN: Absolutely.
HUNT: Was that just Anita Dunn talking, or was that something you and Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod planned ahead of time?
DUNN: Well, you know, Al, I am not exactly one known for going rogue, to use a popular phrase these days.
In other words, the White House's assault on FOX News was a carefully choreographed effort planned by Dunn, Emanuel, Axelrod, and President Obama himself.
Lastly, Dunn made clear that she "absolutely" considers MSNBC a different (which is, in the context of this debate, a synonym for "legitimate") news network:
HUNT: Does MSNBC have a political agenda, too?
DUNN: You know, it's interesting, because that, of course, is what gets thrown back. And, obviously, your friend, Karl Rove, who you quoted earlier, declared war on them during the previous administration, and you may recall that FOX actually applauded Karl for doing that.
Now, I will say this: MSNBC has as their host of their morning program a former Republican congressman who was a member of Newt Gingrich's revolution. That, I think -
HUNT: So you think they're different than FOX?
DUNN: Well, but I also think that their opinion shows - their opinion shows absolutely have an opinion -
HUNT: But as a network, they're different.
DUNN: - but I do regard them as different as a network, absolutely.
U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis said Thursday he faces an anti-incumbent, "throw-the-bums-out" mood among voters similar to the one he rode to victory when he was first elected to Congress in 1992.
"Now I am the bum, so I've got to figure out how to help people understand that maybe your local bum isn't so bad after all."
"Now I am the bum, so I've got to figure out how to help people understand that maybe your local bum isn't so bad after all," Inglis told reporters and editors of The Greenville News. What if he actually is bad and refuses to realize it? What if he's entrenched, comfortable, fat and happy, and getting along with the other side perfectly fine? What if he regards the Congressional perks, the toadies and the flacks and the free parking as no more than his due?
The Greenville Republican, who faces four challengers in June's Republican primary election in the 4th Congressional District, said voters were already worried about the future before the recession and banking collapse struck. The Chinese economy is on track to replace the U.S. economy as the world's largest, "and that's a blow to the American psyche," Inglis said. "You put all that together, and you have a toxic stew for incumbents." It'd be a blow to our psyche because it's not something that should be. There's no reason we should have ceased being competetive, no reason we should have ceased being the world's commerce center -- except that a combination of seedy politicians and Malefactors of Great Wealth fed so rapaciously from the public trough that they actually tried to eat the entire boodle.
Inglis also said there is a struggle within the Republican Party now that the coalition of social and economic conservatives and pro-life Democrats that Ronald Reagan built is "running on fumes." Getting uncomfortable with the libertarian wing of the party, is he?
Inglis said he considers himself a part of the "religious right" and can't identify with a new group that has emerged within the party that he called the "hard right." "I'm concerned about abortion," Inglis said. "It's very much a concern to me. The hard right really doesn't care about abortion. They just want you, government, out of their pocketbook, by golly." I always think of the "religious right" being further to the right than I am. I agree with them on lots of things, but the agreement's not always comfortable. For instance, I'm against abortion, too, but only by about 51 percent: It's taking a human life, but I also know enough people who shouldn't have been allowed to breed in the first place to feel like their kids would have been better off to have never been born. Some few of those -- more than a third, not much more than half -- go on to make a liar out of me and do well despite Mom and possibly Pop's shortcomings, which is what keeps me in the "no" camp. I see nothing wrong with doing away with an embryo when it's still in the snot stage, but once it's started with a heartbeat and fingers and toes and and a butt it's a person. "A woman's right to choose" at that point should be limited to what she's gonna name it and who she's gonna name as the father. That's because -- rape excepted -- her actual "right to choose" involves deciding whether or not to keep her pants on. Being a free person means dealing with the consequences either way.
A few weeks ago those people were called libertarians, the kind who probably hadn't voted for Representative Inglis in the past because they don't like the "religious right".
[edit 1:17 pm ET: My apologies, I forgot to highlight this bit when I wrote it last night.]
Even though I'm pretty conservative in lots of ways, I still regard myself as a libertarian -- I'm conservative in the sense that I want to preserve what used to be a pretty nice country and a pretty good system of government. That was a setup that allowed an awful lot of individual liberty, which in consequence allowed the invidual the freedom to do great things. Having the government out of our pocketbooks preserves that freedom. If we're working until the end of May or early June to pay our taxes then the system is busted -- we've allowed ourselves to become chattels of the political class. They've bound the mouths of us kine treading the grain, as the Chrisian right might put it.
Inglis said "hard-right" activists have told him that they are willing to let people without health insurance "die on the steps of the hospital" to make a point about the problem of "free riders."
Except that doesn't happen. Under current law the hospital must treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay or legal status. Should ObamaCare actually pass into law, I trust that requirement will continue to obtain. So that point is a straw man. Quite possible the people he's quoting are straw instead of flesh and blood, too -- a good reporter would ask him their names, locations, appearances for verification purposes.
"As a religious right guy, I'm thinking there was a guy named Jesus who had some things to say about these kinds of concepts," Inglis said. "And I don't want to live in a society that lets a few test cases die on the steps of the hospital. I can't go there."
I would certainly vote against him in the primary if one of his opponents met two criteria: budget balancer and war monger. Not a gullible fool or a liar, unlike Mr. Inglis, would be nice, too.
I'll bet if they look hard enough the people of his district can come up with somebody who represents their interests a little better than Mr. Inglis.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Now I am the bum, so I've got to figure out how to help people understand that maybe your local bum isn't so bad after all," Inglis told reporters
You sleep with the dogs, you get up with fleas. It's time to move on professional politician [he was first elected to Congress in 1992].
#3
18 years does seem to be a long time to be in one political office, doesn't it?
Mr. Inglis should try something different, something that would challenge him. Let a new person fill the job in the House. Inglis could run for the Senate, for Governor, for mayor of a town in his district.
Or (gasp) he could turn to the private sector and make stuff for a living. I suspect he's good at something. Or maybe get an academic job somewhere; those are cushy (don't I know).
Time to move on, Bob. You can leave ahead of the crowd or in their grasp.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/14/2009 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And by hard right, he means the work-a-day little people. He's been whoring at the Élysée Palace for so long and thinks he's now the Sun King.
Posted by: ed ||
11/14/2009 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
On Friday's edition of Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan featured fake photos of Sarah Palin during a mocking segment on why Americans are fascinated with the former vice presidential candidate. While listing the show's top ten reasons, Ratigan showed a doctored photo of Palin's head on the bikini-clad body of a woman holding a weapon.
The host never admitted or addressed the fact that his network was passing off counterfeit pictures to his viewers. Earlier in the segment, Ratigan displayed an image of Palin in a short, black mini-skirt. This photo is also not real. MSNBC should immediately apologize for presenting such false information.
It's important to remember, several hosts on the network, including Chris Matthews, have mocked Fox News host Sean Hannity for taking video images from the 9/12 rally and then portraying the footage as from a more recent tea party event. After it was brought to his attention, Hannity apologized on Wednesday. How long will it take MSNBC?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a great opportunity for FOX to have some fun, by showing Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann wearing bikinis and carrying machine guns.
#2
#1 This is a great opportunity for FOX to have some fun, by showing Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann wearing bikinis and carrying machine guns.
Or maybe Rachel Maddow in a dominatrix getup showing Keith "the ropes"....
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein may have had his tongue in his cheek when he said his bankers were doing "God's work," but the company's critics aren't laughing.
In fact, a couple hundred of them -- led by Service Unions International Union president Andy Stern -- plan to gather outside of Goldman Sachs' Washington offices Monday morning to protest the firm's mega-bonuses, and demand the end of the "too big to fail" doctrine, according to a press release.
The event will be held outside 101 Constitution Ave. N.W., an office building that's home to many of the most powerful lobbyists and corporations in town, including Goldman. It's also where you can find POLITICO's Capitol Hill bureau (in the basement).
Among their demands, the protesters will say that Goldman bankers should donate their reported $23 billion in bonuses to foreclosure prevention programs.
Public Citizen will release a new report during the event analyzing how much the various bailout recipient like Goldman are spending lobbying on financial reform, which the groups say is aimed at squashing real reform.
Goldman is one of the few large financial firms that early on chose not to lobby against the left's favorite part of the financial reform package -- the creation of a consumer financial protection agency. And most if not all of the major Wall Street players say they agree no firms should be too big to fail and support at least the principle behind Democrats' proposals to end the "too big to fail" era.
But Goldman and other Wall Street firms are very opposed to a new idea gaining traction on the "to big" front -- legislation that would empower the federal government to preemptively break up big, complex or interconnected firms even if they're healthy. Goldman is a member of a coalition, Partnership of New York City, that will meet with the New York congressional delegation next week to urge their resistance to such measures.
Measures like Kanjorski's would "inflict particular damage on New York, ... [and] we hope every member of the delegation will make it their business to oppose them," the group wrote in a Nov. 11 letter to the New York delegation, which was full of statistics showing the importance of the financial industry to News York -- directly employing more than 680,000 people statewide and each one of those Wall Street jobs generating or maintaining an additional 3.3 jobs in other areas.
"There are plenty of ways to achieve reform and reduce risk and taxpayer exposure without destroying institutions that are the anchors of our global financial center," the group wrote.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"There are plenty of ways to achieve reform and reduce risk and taxpayer exposure without preventing us from continuing to loot the global financial system destroying institutions that are the anchors of our global financial center,"
(CNSNews.com) -- Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told CNSNews.com that the constitutional authority for Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance is the same that allowed for Medicaid and Medicare, and for states to require driver's licenses. He also said critics who suggest the health care bill is unconstitutional are making a "spurious argument."
The health care bills in both the Senate and the House mandate that every American have health insurance. Back in September at a town hall meeting, Warner had also said there is "no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care" or education, but "we have made those choices as a country over the years."
On Tuesday on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Warner, "Does the Constitution give Congress the authority to mandate whether individuals should purchase health insurance, to mandate that they have to purchase health insurance?"
Warner said: "The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver's licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that's being made by some folks."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Congress mandating that people buy health insurance is like Congress mandating that people pay in advance for Medicare.
#2
Excuse me, Senator Brainiac, but you are only required to have a drivers' license if you want to drive. I can't think of a state that mandates drivers' licenses for everyone over a certain age, much less throws you in jail for walking around without one.
#3
No, it's like mandating that every citizen have automobile insurance whether he/she needs it or not in order to create a larger pool for those needing insurance. Someone living in a major metro area that uses subways or buses or bikes or just plain walks, doesn't need the insurance. However, you're make sure they pay any way. And those that don't, you'll fine and/or imprison.
(CNSNews.com) -- The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.
The e-mail message from agency spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer seemed urgent, as she wrote: "WH documents were sent in error. Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm you receive this e-mail?" Acting IG Kenneth Bach responded 13 minutes later writing, "Confirmed, documents were shredded."
The email exchanges between Bach and Schmelzer, as well as other documents pertaining to the firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general, were obtained by CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The documents referenced in the Bach-Schmelzer email exchange included a draft of a letter to be signed by President Obama that would be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inform her that Obama was firing Gerald Walpin as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which runs AmeriCorps, and also a set of talking points to be used in explaining to the media why Walpin was being fired.
An inspector general is the designated watchdog for a public agency who is supposed to have autonomy from the agency's officials in guarding against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The case of Gerald Walpin, the controversially fired inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), continues to raise questions about what the Obama administration is hiding.
Two new items and one previously overlooked item are of interest in the case. First, Mr. Walpin filed a legal brief on Nov. 6 that convincingly refutes the arguments in a White House motion to dismiss the lawsuit he had filed demanding that he be reinstated to his job. Second, White House officials met on Tuesday with staff of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and narrowed but did not solve their differences over the Obama administration's withholding of documents related to the firing.
Though the White House has shared with the senator several hundred pages of relevant material, it continues to claim that several hundred more pages are protected by various legal "privileges." Until Mr. Grassley is satisfied with the level of White House cooperation, he probably will continue his "hold" on the nomination of CNCS Chairman Alan Solomont to be ambassador to Spain.
The previously overlooked item, meanwhile, plays a significant (but not determinative) role in Mr. Walpin's court filing against the White House's motion to dismiss. It involves one of the main arguments belatedly advanced by the White House to try to justify the firing - a firing that occurred shortly after Mr. Walpin filed two reports highly embarrassing to political allies of President Obama's. To explain Mr. Walpin's termination, the White House had tacitly endorsed a complaint filed by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown of Sacramento concerning Mr. Walpin's behavior while compiling one of those two reports. But on Oct. 19, that complaint against Mr. Walpin had been summarily dismissed by the relevant investigator.
The Oct. 19 letter from the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency said Mr. Walpin had "sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and that further inquiry or an investigation regarding the matter was not warranted. The [Integrity Committee] has completed its review of the matter."
In other words, Mr. Walpin had done nothing wrong. The charges against him were bogus.
The rest of Mr. Walpin's brief makes mincemeat of the White House motion to dismiss his lawsuit. Past Supreme Court decisions show that for someone to be dismissed without even the benefit of oral argument, the court must determine that the plaintiff's case has no "plausible" grounds. So let's examine the plausibility:
The crux of Mr. Walpin's case is that the White House "removed" him from his job without providing 30 days' notice and without providing Congress with reasons for the removal, both of which requirements are mandated by law. The administration's legal brief asserts that putting Mr. Walpin on paid administrative leave did not amount to "removal." That's awfully odd, considering that the entire reason Congress provided the 30-day window was so IGs could not be blocked from continuing any ongoing investigations that might embarrass an administration.
In this instance, according to Mr. Walpin's brief, before the administration notified Congress in any way about its unhappiness with Mr. Walpin, it "terminated [his] access to his [own] email account and office, and denied him access to his staff. Mr. Walpin was prevented from performing even the most rudimentary steps in order to ensure that his termination did not prevent the Office of Inspector General from performing its duties."
A letter from the White House six days after that stated clearly that "Mr. Walpin was removed." Yet now the White House plays semantics by claiming that being "removed" does not constitute "removal." This all sounds a bit too much like another Democratic president arguing over the meaning of the word "is." It is dishonest on its face.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
DHS Secretary Napolitano introduced a broad outline for reform during a speech to the Center for America Progress this morning. In it she cited the many advances DHS has made in securing the US Border with Mexico. One of the centerpieces of this effort is the screening of 100% of southbound rail shipments for weapons and cash. While that sounds like a good thing for Mexico the logical question is this: What percent of northbound rail shipments are "screened" and what does "screening mean?
The plan calls for a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal aliens already in the US. On this the administration also seems a bit out of touch. That the vast majority of Mexican illegal invaders according to a recent Zogby Poll have no interest in becoming American Citizens and regardless would hold primary allegiance to Mexico is apparently lost on the President and Secretary Napolitano.
or they don't care
The White House also believes a temporary worker program will decrease the flow of illegal aliens heading north. Again, a fact unsupported by a Pew Study. His plan will provide for a temporary worker program and what a Mexican media report calls an establishment of:
"...guidelines for a migration plan that will end the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, to give a more humane treatment and tone to the immigration rules in order to end the family separation." (roughly translated).
Also contained in the proposed measures is the continued construction in some form of border barriers or fences and the use of virtual fences along the Mexican line.
The Secretary's speech, while citing the many successes necessary for the consideration of broad immigration reform neglected to mention that her agency has only secured about 10% of the nation's borders.
#2
they're trying to push everything through before the blue-dog minions realize they're going to be voted out
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/13/2009 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In other words, we gotta help a bunch of illegals making less than minimum jump ahead of hard working immigrants who actually, you know, played by the rules and pay taxes. Thanks, Manet!
#4
Need to get millions on the voter rolls for Nov. 2010. Basically disenfranchising every other American in the pursuit of power. Every act only undermines the legitimacy of the national government. When vast majority of people are no longer awed by the rituals and trappings, there will be nothing to protect perpetrators.
#7
The plan calls for a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal aliens already in the US.
Toro Mierda! With the unemployment rate at its current level Obama knows full well that amnesty for illegals is a non-starter. With some frequency, immigration has been a reliable distraction for whatever current illusion he is attempting to perform. His weary trick always follows the same routine. With absolutely no intention of action he throws a phantom bone to the immigration reform groups. Predictably, his audience is temporally enamored and at the same time his critics inevitably become agitated. And like any competent illusionist he utilizes the commotion to fabricate an alternative apparition. One wonders just how long the Amnesty folks are willing to be exploited as stage props.
#9
this needs to feel the searingly white hot anger of the actual AMerican people between the two coasts. This will be the death-knell of the Republic if they get this.....
We cannot let assumptions cloud our efforts to make them feel the heat on this, or 11 million democrat voters will tip the scales forever, until they run our of seizing our money, and then we meet Mugabe-like conditions!
#10
I had some hope when i first heard " doing miinimum wage jobs we won't do". I thought, heck ya.building the wall. first time caught,6 months of building wall. 32 feet tall, 32 feet wide. walk door every ten miles. minimum wage. do some nice stonework on our side. they get slick concrete. I'd also like to know how many guns they found screening southbound trains?
Melody Barnes, the head of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council, told students at Boston College Law School on Nov. 9 that she disagrees with her boss on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"I really appreciate your frustration and your disappointment with the President's position on this issue," said Barnes when asked by a student if she supported equal civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians. "[W]ith regard to my own views, those are my own views, and I come to my experience based on what I've learned, based on the relationships I've had with friends, and they're relationships that I respect, and the children that they are raising, and that is something that I support."
Barnes, who recently became the first woman to join President Obama on the golf course, said that "very robust" policy and constitutional conversations take place at the White House on this topic.
She noted, however, that President Obama "hasn't articulated a shift in his position".
Although President Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage, Barnes said that he is trying to "move the ball forward" for gay, lesbian, and transgendered Americans by wanting to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, encouraging changes to military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and taking action to combat hate crimes.
Barnes made her remarks in response to a Boston College Law School student who said that he was an Obama primary and general election voter who was deeply disappointed in the religion-based rationale that the president has offered to explain his opposition to civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ah, don't worry. He'll fondly remember the gay lobby when it comes time to fund-raise for 2012, and I'm sure he'll give a really touching, moving speech about how he supports all of their issues....but gosh darnit, he won't be able to get anything through a liberal Democrat controlled Congress right now, unfortunately.
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.
Three months after Kenneth Gladney and Kelly Owens were assaulted in the Bernard school parking lot following Russ Carnahan's town hall the charges still remain in hibernation at the County Counselor's office. Upon contacting Bob McCullough, I was told that Gladney's charges fall into Patricia Redington's jurisdiction.
A former Louisiana congressman who famously stashed cash in his freezer was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes in exchange for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.
The Obama administration, mindful of public anxiety over the government's mushrooming debt, is shifting emphasis from big-spending policies to deficit reduction. Domestic agencies have been told to brace for a spending freeze or cuts of up to 5 percent as part of a midterm election-year push to rein in record budget shortfalls.
On Friday's edition of Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan featured fake photos of Sarah Palin during a mocking segment on why Americans are fascinated with the former vice presidential candidate. While listing the show's top ten reasons, Ratigan showed a doctored photo of Palin's head on the bikini-clad body of a woman holding a weapon.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein may have had his tongue in his cheek when he said his bankers were doing "God's work," but the company's critics aren't laughing.
(CNSNews.com) -- Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told CNSNews.com that the constitutional authority for Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance is the same that allowed for Medicaid and Medicare, and for states to require driver's licenses. He also said critics who suggest the health care bill is unconstitutional are making a "spurious argument."
(CNSNews.com) -- The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.
The case of Gerald Walpin, the controversially fired inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), continues to raise questions about what the Obama administration is hiding.
DHS Secretary Napolitano introduced a broad outline for reform during a speech to the Center for America Progress this morning. In it she cited the many advances DHS has made in securing the US Border with Mexico. One of the centerpieces of this effort is the screening of 100% of southbound rail shipments for weapons and cash. While that sounds like a good thing for Mexico the logical question is this: What percent of northbound rail shipments are "screened" and what does "screening mean? 
Melody Barnes, the head of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council, told students at Boston College Law School on Nov. 9 that she disagrees with her boss on the issue of same-sex marriage.
