[GOOGLE] Two brothers who owned defense contracting businesses that benefited from earmarks obtained by the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha will plead guilty to charging the military $650,000 for parts that were never delivered and paying a kickback to another contractor, a defense attorney said.
Ronald and William Kuchera will waive their right to be indicted and plead guilty to charges filed late last week by federal prosecutors, said Ronald Kuchera's lawyer, Stanton Levenson. They're waiting only for U.S. Judge Kim Gibson in Johnstown to set a court date, Levenson said.
Murtha, the powerful Democrat who chaired the House Defense appropriations subcommittee, isn't mentioned in the twin four-page criminal informations charging the Kucheras with major fraud against the federal government and conspiracy via two companies they owned, Kuchera Defense Systems Inc. and Kuchera Industries Inc., of Windber.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrats?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/28/2013 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ex-Marine John Murtha
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2013 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
(Site disclaimer: These campaign contributions may be related to William Kuchera. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) maintains these records. The results below are based on a name and ZIP code proximity match and are provided as a possible research tool only. )
Contributions to Republicans:$4,100.00
Contributions to Democrats: $34,800.00
[NEWS.YAHOO] A hike in New York's minimum wage is a big win for Democrats, but a provision buried inside the tentative state budget shows taxpayers will be paying much of the bill.
The "minimum wage reimbursement credit" is spelled out at the bottom of a revenue bill in the budget separate from the minimum wage measure. The credit would reimburse employers for part of the difference in wages from the current $7.25 minimum wage as it rises to $9 an hour by 2016. I think this is known as "I'm my own grampaw economics."
Once it reaches $9 an hour, employers would pay 40 cents and taxpayers $1.35 of the extra $1.75 an hour workers are paid.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good, they get what they voted for. Cry me a river.
[DAILYCALLER] In Alabama, no state politician, Republican or Democrat, would ever question gun rights, given the state's conservative leanings and rural setting.
But Democratic Alabama State Rep. Joseph Mitchell of Mobile, Ala. has a curious take on why his constituents in his majority African-American district should appreciate their Second Amendment rights.
In emails sent from Mitchell's official state legislature account obtained by the blog Yellow Hammer Politics and published Wednesday morning, Mitchell had a heated exchange with a constituent identified as Eddie Maxwell and provided his own defense of the Second Amendment.
Mitchell contended that the self-defense argument behind the Second Amendment was never used to protect his "folk" from "slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suggest Rep. Mitchell read Condolezza Rice's autobiography, where she describes how her father patrolled the streets of Birmingham with a shotgun to defend the blacks there from more bombings.
I'm having trouble connecting 'slave-holding' with 'kin folk' though.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
03/28/2013 0:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wow! Tried to cut and paste his long rant sentence into this comment box and even the Rantburg Algorythym would not allow those words in the comment section!
Posted by: George Clunk4883 ||
03/28/2013 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A tragic waste of obviously diminished synaptic resources on both ends.
#5
I'm having trouble connecting 'slave-holding' with 'kin folk' though.
Think of dear Thomas Jefferson and his lovely slave mistress, Eric...and their recently acknowledged descendants, cousins of the very proud, white Jeffersons.
#12
Besoeker, are you in the neighborhood or did you go to Carson Long? That is a great statue in the center of town. And a great place for Memorial Day.
[CNSNEWS] One of President Barack Obama's They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... Supreme Court appointees was the one to ask a pointed question of Ted Olson, the attorney arguing in favor of overturning Proposition 8, the Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, law that reserves marriage for the union between one man and one woman.
"Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
"Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?" she asked.
"Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing," Olson said. "And if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.
"If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status," Olson said. We seem to be placed in the unusual position as a culture of marriage dying on the vine for heterosexual couples, while attempting to flourish for same-sex couples. I've nothing against same sex couples, as long as the activity doesn't become mandatory, but marriage is a different thing entirely. About the only thing I can think of in its favor is the issue of health insurance coverage. There are lots of factors against it, the biggest being that children need both male and female role models as they grow. A father teaches a boy to be a man, and accustoms a girl to dealing with men. A mother does the opposite, teaching the boy to deal with women and the girl how to be one.
It's my feeling (but wo the hell listens to me?) that the health insurance problem could be addressed as a matter of corporate policy, or even by legislation. It wouldn't even take 2700 pages.
Marriage is being replaced by what used to be called "common law" marriages, to whit, moving in together and setting up housekeeping. Somehow the health insurance issue is dealt with without benefit of clergy, children are born and raised, mortgages taken out, property inherited, and all the rest. So we're left with something you might call "lack of marriage in name only." I read somewhere recently that the majority of American children are born out of wedlock.
Meanwhile, perhaps as much to society's detriment as same sex marriage, since "common law" marriage isn't blessed by clergy or registered with the state, there aren't any bounds on its configuration.
Want to be a polygamist? Shack up with two women instead of one, three if you can afford it, or even four. You don't even have to put them in burkas.
Ladies, want to give polyandry a try? You can share a house with two or three gents, and with government kept out of the bedroom there's no limit on your activities.
You could even combine the two, with multiple male partners, multiple females, even multiple sexual preferences if that floats your boat. It'd make determining the parentage of any children resulting from the activity a bit difficult, but DNA testing is safe, affordable, and not even very rare. That's if you care who the father or mother is.
The advantage of all the approaches to 1:many relationships (a little DBA humor there) is that it makes things easier and more stable financially. Get tired of Tom and tell him to hit the road? That's okay. Dick and Harry are still working and bringing home the bacon. So are Darlene and Sheila, so the checkbook barely bobbles unless that bastard Tom cleaned it out when he left.
And the whole thing leaves open even more variations.
Incest? That one's a little more complicated socially, but with birth control the dangers of inbreeding are gone. Maybe you could even adopt a few kids and raise them fairly normally, something you couldn't do fifty years ago. Just don't mention that Mom and Dad have always had the same last name.
Think of an ancient taboo and it can be violated at will this year. Except for your dog. They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken.
Posted by Fred
Dear Fred: I sleep with a German duck down Batiste. Should I be concerned ? :-(
#3
Once the camel's nose under the tent "consenting adults" argument was taken [see - Lawrence vs Texas], the Fed are sliding down the quick slope to opening it all up without a fig leaf to show. Though I suspect in their twisted world of logic - commerce sex will still be treated not as consenting adults but as pure 'commerce' and subject to prohibition. Certain things should have been left to the states, but the central government can't help itself to expand its reach in into the minutia of everyday life and general society.
#4
The same sex issue is all about health benefits, inheritance of property and social security benefits for the "widow"
All of that can be covered without marriage.
Here in Californicate, the gay advocates wanted to limit the domestice partnership thing to gay couples, however, the state supreme(?) court said no it had to be everyone. So in a way the accommodation of gay partnership has allowed thousands in Californicate to garner most of the benefits of marriage without the "stigma" of a marriage...kind of part of that antiestablishment cancer that still lingers on after all the hippies went off to teach at colleges.
The title on a property can list both names and include "rights of survivorship" in the terms and conditions to protect the survivor from paying all kinds of taxes on the house and domestic partnership provisions cover the rest.
The gays do not want equal protection under the law, they want to be a priviledged group.
They should bring back the old Common Law definition of marriage and just leave it at that. If they did, the gays would get what they want and we would have more people getting married because the long term domestic partnership would be defined as marriage and if one left, the other could claim property rights.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
03/28/2013 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Civil Unions that grant all the same benefits would be an appropriate answer acceptable to most everyone I know. The Gay Marriage Industry demands that you call it marriage to force the acceptance. It's a "power and framing the argument" movement. Grant them a civil union? What are you? Racist bigotted homophobic and ignorant?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2013 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Sell me your women! How much for the little girl?"
-- The Blues Brothers
#10
I seriously believe the people who are pushing this are divorace lawyers. Think about all the 'landmark' gay marriages and how virtually everyone of them is now divoraced. Think of all the lawyers fees if gays, who generally don't have long lasting relationships even compared to the serially married on the hetero side, are now in the tank for divorace proceedings.
#11
They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken.
Only if you're active duty military. See United States v. Sanchez, 11 C.M.A. 216, 29 C.M.R. 32 (1960) (UCMJ Art. 134, indecent acts with a chicken). No one is quite sure about the, er, mechanics of that, nor which came first: the chicken or Sanchez? Tee hee!
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2013 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
#16
OMG, Fred. Dude. That is disgusting! In all the countless hours of late-night drunken lawyer debates in bars all over the world, I never heard that. And these were the kind of guys who made a deliberate effort to horrify the ladies.
So wow, yeah, ok, congratulations, you solved the mystery. Now, please excuse me while I go scrub with brain bleach!
#17
We all come here to learn things not found elsewhere, RandomJD. Aren't you glad today you made it here twice? I do wish I were a fly on the wall when you retail that particular bit of knowledge as if it were in passing -- if your response is any indication it will be absolutely delicious.
(That I learnt a number of things in just this thread doesn't count -- I learn things in every thread. just about.)
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.
