It was a strange case. The masseuse delayed filing the police report, then she backed away from it, then ages later she refiled, and talked to the reporters about it. All that makes a prosecutor think his odds of getting a conviction are not terribly high.
On the other hand, former Vice President Gore's marriage and reputation are ruined, so the lady still got her vengeance.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/31/2010 12:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
vengeance? Hmmm. Is that what a woman wants after allegedly being sexually assaulted? Some might prefer the word "justice". I acknowledge a conviction would have been difficult. I just wonder if he had been a Republican if everyone would have been so quick to shrug it off.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/31/2010 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
Well...knock me over with a feather. It's Christmas in July ...
WASHINGTON -- A House investigative panel has decided to charge Democratic Rep. Comrade Maxine Waters of California with ethics violations, raising the possibility of a second high-profile trial with political implications for Democrats this fall.
Insiders say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee (think of an escargot pretending it has a backbone) declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.
Waters has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank.
Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution. Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' front man has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged. But did he still own the stock?
Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.
#1
Helping minority owned banks huh?
So honky White owned banks and their investors (who are probably a bunch of moonbeams too) can go down the toilet?
#3
As a Threefer (black/female/leftist), this loud-mouthed harpy doesn't have anything more to worry about than a Strongly Worded Letter® - and maybe not even that.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/31/2010 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
The Los Angeles Times conveniently forgets to touch upon the fact that Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass) was also involved in the bailout of this bank. As head of the House Financial Services Committee, he was able to insert legislation designed to replenish the coffers of OneUnited with taxpayer money.
These efforts were made despite the FDIC and Massachusetts bank regulatory officials alleging that poor lending practices and executive-compensation abuses contributed to the failure of the bank. Barney Frank justified his actions, in part, by citing the bank as the state's only financial institution owned by African-Americans.
Or was Barney Frank just logrolling (the trading of favors in politics so that the true perpetrators fingerprints are left off actions designed to favor them) for his political ally Maxine Waters. One can only hope that Congresswoman Waters continues her defiant stand towards the Ethics panel, refuses to accept a trivial "reprimand" and that some facts about Frank's role in this scandal come to light. This is the type of oversight that would be done if the Republicans took over the House and Darrell Issa, who heads the Government Oversight Committee, took charge.
Come to think of it..maybe the Ethics Panel, whose docket is filled with Democrats in trouble, is trying to rush through resolutions of these problems before Republicans take over in January. After all, these issues have lingered for a long time; yet, only now as November approaches, are we seeing a rush in Congress to sweep them under the rug. Or is it just a Congressional Coincidence? Uh, no.
#5
The story behind the scenes is that Waters is the closest ally of Rangel. She is also very powerful on the Banking committee.
So add it all up: Rangel off Appropriations, and Waters off Banking.
Both of them have been breaking the rules forever, with no consequences from either party. So this just screams "purge". Getting them out of the way so that members of another faction can take their place.
And since the dominant faction right now is the 1960s radicals, they are who is responsible.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday called ethics charges against Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel "very troubling" and said he hopes the longtime lawmaker can end his career with dignity. Several House Democrats went further, flat-out urging the New York congressman to resign. It wuz you, Barry. Remember ya told me, "Charlie, it's not your night. We're going for the price on Pelosi. Not my night! I coulda taken Pelosi apart!"
"He's somebody who's at the end of his career," Obama said in an interview that aired Friday on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." "I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens." Okay...looks like open season on Charlie has begun. Cholle gets a deal: resign with dignity or get reprimanded and watch his opponent 'steal' the fall election ...
#1
Another one rides goes under the bus.
And another one gone, and another one gone...
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/31/2010 0:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Troubling" indeed. At 80, he's still got a couple of decades of congressional career yet ahead of him. Congressional "dignity"....ranks right up there with dehydrated water?
#3
NO, the reason Obama finds this "Troubling" is that Chollie's Black (Like Obama) and he thinks (Correctly) that once people see and do sonething about Black corruption he's next in line.
I just noticed they are also after Maxine waters so that's two in a row, hell yes he's "Troubled".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/31/2010 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Corruption doesn't have a skin colour, Redneck Jim, or a religion, or... It doesn't even have a party, sadly enough. However, there is a strong tie to longevity in public office.
At the moment, given the fragility of the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, corruption charges against yet another Democrat should be very troubling indeed to the leader of the Democrats in Washington, DC.
Finally, the vision of his party comrades turning on Rep. Rangel (D-Corruption) at the end of his career should also trouble President Obama, as the end of his own career may be only a few short years away. What a resume': BA Columbia, JD Harvard, Illinois State Senator (2 1/2 terms), U.S. Senator (1/2 term), U.S. President (1 term), has-been occasional speechmaker (2013 ff.)
After the Los Angeles Times reported that the blue-collar suburb of Bell, Calif., was paying its city manager Robert Rizzo $787,637 a year — with 12 percent annual pay increases — a crowd of indignant Bell residents waited almost eight hours outside the city council meeting last Thursday. At midnight it was announced that Rizzo, along with Police Chief Randy Adams and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia, were resigning without severance. The combined annual salary of these three highest-paid Bell employees was $1,620,925 in a city where one in six lives in poverty, property taxes are higher than Beverly Hills, and debt held by the city quadrupled between 2004 and 2009. To say the citizens of Bell weren't getting the management they were paying for would be a gross understatement.
Despite two corruption investigations of the city, taxpayers are still on the hook for Bell's obscenely overpaid officials. The likely reason why Rizzo, Adams and Spaccia resigned so readily is that they are eligible for public pensions. Under current formulations, Adams will make $411,000 annually in retirement, and Spaccia could make as much as $250,000 when she's eligible for retirement in four years at age 55.
Rizzo, who was arrested in March for driving over his neighbor's mailbox with a blood alcohol level nearly four times the legal limit, is set to become the highest paid public official in California's retiree system. He will collect more than $650,000 annually. Six years from now, when Rizzo turns 62 and starts collecting Social Security, his annual benefit rises to $976,771. When he turns 64, it tops $1 million, and if he lives to 83, he'll be pulling in $1.48 million a year — and again, all of this largesse is courtesy of state taxpayers.
California is but one of many states on the brink of fiscal ruin largely due to outrageous public employee benefits. Some 9,111 Californians have six-figure public pensions, as do thousands more public employees in other states. Maybe these retirees won't get a million a year like Rizzo, but they are, in effect, taxpayer-funded millionaires. Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are fed up with this state of affairs. Last week, the governor of Missouri signed a law requiring new state employees to contribute 4 percent of their pay to their retirement plan. The Show Me State is showing California and the rest of the country a path to public pension reform. In other news, the citizens of Bell, California have introduced legislation to bring back lynch mobs... A simple law capping pensions to a certain maximum is all they need. Public jobs used to be low pay with a sweet pension and good job security. Now it's high pay, absolute job security and a bigger pension. Cap the pensions, and don't let sick time, etc count for calculating a pension. No sane politician can oppose that publicly.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/31/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No sane politician can oppose that publicly.
Don't bet on it. Any "good" politician can turn that problem around so that it looks like they are being screwed if they have their pensions cut or even capped.
And by a good politician, I don't mean someone who is morally good, just that they are very effective at being politicians.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/31/2010 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The only publicly financed pensions should be for retired military. No other public employees should have them, they can save for their retirement like the rest of us do (or don't). If prospective public employees don't like that, they are always free to seek employment elsewhere.
#3
Plus they'll grandfather it. Anybody from here back, it's status quo. Fight it in court and they'll wave their legally binding contracts and you'll lose. Granted the new hires will have to abide by it, so in about 20 years maybe you start to get a handle on things. They've done it here in Mass.
#5
I agree. Just don't get impatient and expect to see progress overnight. Any return on the changes that will implemented won't really be seen until this current generation of public employees is retired, dead and gone. Unless, of course, the public entity responsible for these pensions goes belly up which is a far more distinct possibility.
#8
I know evry one is upset about public pension stories, but only the spikers and top managers get that kind of payment. I was an LEO for 27 years and 6 years active military prior to that. At 52 I was hit by a car while working a crash and my left knee was wrecked. Two surgerys and 9 months later I was forced to retire. If your over 50 no desk job for you. I paid 8% of my gross into my pension every month and no, I do not and never will see SSI - they reduce it dollar for dollar to your public pension. The retirement pays the bills but I'm not getting rich. Let the attacks begin.
Signed a real public servant
Posted by: retired LEO ||
07/31/2010 4:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
AH, exactly what public pension are you talking about that requires no contribution from the employee? Because I worked as a benefits advisor for a state pension plan, and I never heard of one that worked that way.
There are plenty of plans that had totally unrealistic investment plans and/or actuaries. Lots of them didn't deduct enough from employee checks because they thought the stock market returns that we saw in the 90's and early 00's would be there forever. There are also some plans that had overly generous payouts programmed in from the start (elected official retirement plans come to mind). But to say that the average guy or gal working in your least favorite guvmint office never contributed a dime towards their own plan is complete and total bullshit. (Yes, that's a technical financial term, but I'm sure you all know what it means.)
And before anyone here pipes up with the old favorite "well then....if you want your public pension, you better give up your social security" argument.....guess what? Most public employees, with the exception of law enforcement and firefighters, ALSO pay into social security like the rest of you do.
So, do the math. At the end of my employment with the pension fund, I was involuntarily contributing 8% to the pension fund....involuntarily contributing 8% to social security.....and then there was 10% to my deferred comp. (No employer match for that, BTW, like many of you have with your 401k's. That amount was voluntary, though.) Some years I even squeezed it further and made a contribution to a Roth if I skipped going to restaurants and movies. Yes, I'll (probably) have a nicer retirement payout than someone who worked at a comparable salary in the private sector. Gee....wonder why?
There should be a lifetime cap on payouts, and things like Rizzo's future paycheck should never have happened. But that's what happens when people don't bother to pay any attention to their local governments, and the media basically gives them a free ride by focusing on Lindsay Lohan's lack of skivvies.
#10
There should be a lifetime cap on payouts, and things like Rizzo's future paycheck should never have happened. But that's what happens when people don't bother to pay any attention to their local governments, and the media basically gives them a free ride by focusing on Lindsay Lohan's lack of skivvies.
Yep! Bread and Circuses. LOOK...OVER THERE...Brittany's SNAAAAAAATCH!!!!!!!eleventy!
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
07/31/2010 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#11
All such caps need to be amended into the state constitutions. Now tell me why should any public employee draw more than 50% of what the average taxpayer, not the per capita, of the state makes? The incentive of any public servant would seem to be to make the average taxpayer's income rise to raise their own long term benefit.
#12
Simple solution: structure the retirement like the military. , except wiht later collection eligibility, and keep the military limits. Rate job equivalent to a GS and transfer that over to military rank, and there's the pension amount. NO more million dollar a year pensions.
#13
I'll stand by my comment. Cap the total amount of a pension someone can have. That way the average workers in public service will be treated fairly, and people like Mr. Rizzo won't be able to scam the system.
Blondie: I'm told that we have public pensions in Illinois structured so that workers do not contribute. I can't put my finger on a link but I'll work on it.
LEO: In no way do I want to reduce pensions for average public workers who contribute to the system and who have done their jobs.
The key here is to ensure that the wolves and scam-artists can't enrich themselves the way Mr. Rizzo has. It would help if the press and the public were more engaged in state and local affairs.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/31/2010 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Defined benefit (DB) pensions supported by taxes are the issue. AFAICT such DB pensions are what military pensions are & have been for centuries. DB pensions may or may not involve employee contributions. But to say that the average guy or gal working in your least favorite guvmint office never contributed a dime towards their own plan is complete and total bullshit. I never implied that. What the employees have contributed is their property, IMO, and is properly a separate issue. DB pensions promised & backed by governments are otherwise an obligation of the government (i.e., paid for by taxes if all else fails).
Other DB pension plans (i.e. those not supported solely by taxes) always hinge on accurate predictions of future economic growth & future investment returns, predictions which have proven unreliable. Besides the need to predict the future, DB plans of private companies also depend on the continued existence of the company or its pension plan backers, &/or whether the government has volunteered to bail out the plans if all else fails, see PBGC. Private employers have by and large discontinued DB pension plans for the vast majority of employees except for their most privileged class, CEO's, etc. Otherwise private DB pension plans are unfeasible. I do not see why tax-backed public DB pension plans should continue either, excepting the military (a tradition going back centuries).
Social security is a modified DB pension plan. It also involves employee contributions. The level of future benefits paid and eligibility for same are not established by contracts, such as those that apply to the 3 highest-paid Bell employees. I don't know of any law forbidding the gov't from slashing social security payments to a trivial level and raising the bar of eligibility very high. This will likely happen if the US economy continues to stink over the next 30 years. that's what happens when people don't bother to pay any attention to their local governments, and the media basically gives them a free ride Government-backed DB pension plans are also moderately complicated taxation and economic issues which cannot be handled with sound bites and political slogans.
Tax-backed DB pension plans are a piece of the puzzle. The larger issue is how the electorate is to plan & pay for its own retirement. A century ago very few lived long enough to worry about a retirement. During the last century longevity has increased while the US economy grew so rapidly all sorts of extravagant spending plans were developed & planners were pleased to think this gravy train would continue indefinitely. 70% of the US economy depends on consumer spending. If Americans really took responsible for their own retirements & saved accordingly, the resulting economy would scarcely be recognizable.
#16
Many of us took big hits in our personal retirement when the economy fell apart in 2008. I'm talking about monies that were earned by the sweat of our brow and put into investment accounts. It has been overdue for public pensions to experience the same hits. California unions have resisted much of the proposed legislation which would rein in the high salaries and pensions in public jobs. The taxpayers are footing the bill for public employees to live opulent life styles and have posh retirements. Many of these taxpayers are about tapped out.
#17
How the Bell city council ripped off its taxpayers (LA Times).
They basically set up a special election to modify their form of government & excepted Bell from the statewide limitation on such shenanigans. Less than 1% of the city's population voted for the change.
#18
Quite frankly, if only 1% of the city's voters bothered to turn out for the election, and few if any of them studied the issue to find out precisely what they were voting for....they got pretty much what they deserve. It's not like it was passed at some super secret, inconveniently timed city council meeting.
Now...the rest of us should take note and make sure the same situation doesn't happen in our hometowns and/or states.
(BTW, Steve....I wouldn't doubt that Obama's home state has a plan like that. It's probably the elected officials one if it exists....go figure, right? ;) )
#19
Colorado public employees pay into the state retirement system and make adjustments to keep it solvent. This happened this year. Not all public retirement systems are screwed up.
The Prince of Wales says he believes he has been placed on Earth as future King 'for a purpose' - to save the world. Britain's so far had two King Charles'. Charles II was known as "Merrie Charles" and is remembered for his association with Nell Gwynn. Prince Chuck seems to be nearly as well-loved as Charles I, whose head was chopped off. There's still time to turn yourself around, Chuck.
Giving a fascinating insight into his view of his inherited wealth and influence, he said: 'I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.
'I don't want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, "Why the hell didn't you come and do something about this? You knew what the problem was". That is what motivates me.
'I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside... We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.' That whole milkmaid routine was very big in Marie Antoinette's time. They all wanted to be close to nature, as long as they didn't have to smell it.
His impassioned comments come during a film about his belief that unbridled commerce has led to the destruction of farmland and countryside. "Aye. Life wuz better when we wuz a nation of rustics!"
The documentary, called Harmony, is due to be aired on the U.S. network NBC in November to coincide with the launch of a book of the same name by the prince. Charles is understood to have waived his author's fee, and all royalties will go to his charity, the Prince's Trust.
But the Prince has previously come under fire for hypocrisy over his eco-values. Last year he commandeered a jet belonging to the Queen's Flight to attend the Copenhagen climate change summit, generating an estimated 6.4 tons of carbon dioxide - 5.2 tons more than if he had used a commercial plane.
Critics condemned his words as 'delusional'. Graham Smith, of the anti-monarchy group Republic, said: 'He is under the impression he has been sent to save the world and deliver us from our sins. It's quite delusional.
'He will have to be impartial and keep his mouth shut when he's king. If he really believes this is his mission and he disagrees with Government in future, he risks plunging us into a constitutional crisis.'
Senior royal aides denied the prince was attempting to mould his public image and pave the way to ensure a positive legacy. They stressed Charles also cared passionately about his other royal duties, such as defence.
One said: 'In private he has dismissed talk of legacies - that's not for him to say because it's for others to judge. But hopefully his charities will carry on for many years to come.
'He has said there is a reason why he's in a position to raise these issues - that there is some higher power. But there is more to his role than just green problems.
'It's true that outside royal duties, the environment is the thing he cares most passionately about.'
In a trailer to the film, the prince spoke passionately about his decades-long quest for what he described in a statement as 'a sacred duty of stewardship of the natural order of things'.
He said: 'I started 22 years ago on something that nobody really wanted to know about except a few people who thought it was pretty crazy. The way nature presents itself - we've turned it into merely a mechanical process. What is happening to the small farmers around the world is simply appalling, as a result of globalisation. Is that really the intention behind it all, just to sweep all these people off the land?'
An Asian woman, who is not named in the documentary, piled praise on the royal, saying: 'Princes Charles has been a very courageous man because he has never thought through the throne he will occupy - he has thought through the planet he lives on.'
#2
"Grandfather, why the hell didn't you come and do something about your F%^&up teeth? You knew what the problem was". Also, why the hell did you dump grandma for that hag Lady Camille?
#9
'I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.
Hell yes you were born with a purpose, it's to ensure the lineage of the Windsors should the heir die, NOTHING ELSE, YOU'RE A "SPARE".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/31/2010 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
'I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside... We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.'
What he 'feels inside' is a garbled bunch of rationalization and wishful thinking. Even the foremost spiritual leaders 'check' their intuitions with other people.
In Chuck's defense, the high-spiritual guide for the royal family is *supposed* to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. So the Prince is alone in the woods, so to speak.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
His impassioned comments come during a film about his belief that unbridled commerce has led to the destruction of farmland and countryside.
ItÂ’s easy to dismiss the man as an inbred dullard with a messiah complex. But, IMO, any person with his wealth and influence that has so much contempt for free market capitalism is flat out dangerous.
#17
I am defiled by the little people who intrude on my peaceful country setting. Why can't they just disappear and leave me to my peace. Hey serf, crank up the heat on my castle and bring me a latte. I have a private plane to catch.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/31/2010 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Prince Charles, the Joe Biden of the royal family.
#19
Why, why do you continue to humiliate all those who share your first name!? Why can't you just jump out a plane saying Jesus will save you to protect the world!?
Posted by: Charles ||
07/31/2010 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
Mike Grimm, a G.O.P challenger to Democrat Mike McMahon's Congressional seat, took in over $200,000 in his last filing.
But in an effort to show that Grimm lacks support among voters in the district, which covers Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, the McMahon campaign compiled a list of Jewish donors to Grimm and provided it to The Politicker.
The file, labeled "Grimm Jewish Money Q2," for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.
"Where is Grimm's money coming from," said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon's campaign spokeman. "There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees."
As a point of comparison, the campaign also provided in-district and out-of-district fundraising totals from McMahon and Grimm's G.O.P primary opponent, Michael Allegretti. However, they did not provide an out-of-district campaign filing from Grimm, but only a file of Jewish donors to him.
Nelson said that the list was compiled by the campaign's finance director, Debra Solomon and that she did not know exactly how the finance team knew who was Jewish and who was not.
"She herself is Jewish so she knows a lot of people in that community," Nelson said.
Nelson stressed that the point of compiling the list was not to show that Grimm had a lot of Jewish support, but that he had little support in the district.
"I don't think ethnicity matters. When people look at who is funding his campaign it's not people who have a direct vested interest [in the district.]"
The campaign also wanted to point out that Grimm benefited greatly from his endorsement by Rudy Giuliani, and made a separate column to denote donors who have to the former mayor's presidential or Senate campaigns. Only five appear to have done so.
Grimm recently went to a religious service led by Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, a Kabbalahist who is known as a rabbi to the rich and famous. Several of his followers, including Haim Revah, whose company owns the Lipstick Building and Ilan Bracha of Prudential Douglas Elliman, donated to Grimm.
McMahon meanwhile has been trying to make his own in-roads into the Jewish community. A source said that he is scheduled to meet next week with several major Jewish donors. But that's all right. My Jews are good Democratic Jews...
Reached by phone, Grimm, who is part-Italian, part-German, said he was proud of his Jewish support and said he was disturbed to hear that the McMahon campaign compiled a separate list of his Jewish donors.
"The fact that a U.S. Congressman would separate out any group by religion or even by ethnicity is nothing short of outrageous," he said. "This goes beyond politics."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/31/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If a Republican or his team had said that the howls would be deafening, demanding ouster and public humiliation. Where's the ADL? Just shows that their principles are partisan first
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Where's the ADL? Just shows that their principles are partisan first
Frank G., as far as I can tell the ADL doesn't get involved until it's a great deal more serious than this. If the Jews of that district, and more particularly the Democratic Jewish donors, choose to vote for Rep. McMahon, nobody can say they didn't know what kind of little rat they were going to get.
#3
Wow, trailing wife. You don't think this is serious? I wonder if your grandmother also pooh-poohed how serious it was when she first heard nonsense about the jewish money.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/31/2010 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
the ADL knows where the plantation is. I was being sarcastic, but I'd expect to hear Jesse or Sharpton outraged before the ADL.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Again, the ADL isn't needed. The Republican Jewish Coalition is on the case. Which is as it should be. Oh, and Rep. McMahon fired the idiot who made the list.
Godwin's law, Martin? My grandparents registered for visas to America in 1936 or so; my adult, unmarried aunt was able to exercise hers immediately, but my mother and her parents were wait-listed. When the SS came for my grandfather -- stopped in their initial effort because my grandfather's hunting dogs stood growling between them and Grandfather sitting in his office with his shotgun -- they escaped to Holland to wait until their number came up... which it finally did in 1946. One reason I feel so strongly about illegal vs. legal immigrants, as it happens.
This, to me, is the kind of thing that should be named, shamed, and lose the election. Mr. Grimm should campaign as the anti-antisemite, and he should win by a landslide. Bigotry is crushed when the peepul demonstrably reject bigots, that it's tarred as a loser's philosophy.
#6
thanks for the family hx, trailing wife. Great story about GP with the dogs and shotgun. Glad you became a part of the melting pot. We are all stronger for it.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/31/2010 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Thank you for your kind words, Martin. I'm grateful every day that my grandparents made that decision.
Frank G., it seems the ADL has chosen to put their resources into opposing the Ground Zero mosque instead. link
#8
Can't fight two battles? Or is one too close to their political masters? One is a no-brainer....the other is...a no-brainer too. Don't make excuses for their refusal to get all outragey on all MSM outlets, TW, you're better than that
Frank
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, ADL neither supports nor opposes candidates for political office.
They nonetheless seem to have released a statement on the subject, despite the other projects. I haven't noticed that anyone cared to report it, which is probably why none of us were aware of it.
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, ADL neither supports nor opposes candidates for political office.
puhleeeeez
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
you will not find a better supporter of Jews, Israel, their right to exist, their hereditary homelands, etc., than this Roman Catholic and I say the ADL is a bought-and-sold Democratic HQ. Take a look at their targets... see the Jesse Jackson (extended version) or Al Sharpton pages? I thought not. Where's the outrage over Hillary's comments as put forth by Dick Morris (D- present)? Spare me
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/31/2010 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#13
this is a dangerous game that ends badly every time it is played. Please don't forget that our current president sat and listened to Rev Wright for 20 years and he never got up and left.
The eery silence is enough to make one go deaf.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/31/2010 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
you will not find a better supporter of Jews, Israel, their right to exist, their hereditary homelands, etc., than this Roman Catholic
Agreed, Frank. And if you're right about the Anti-Defamation League, they'll be bypassed by the currents of history. But I think it's important to allow for intersecting sets of interests and passions, as long as in general we're fighting on the same side. The ADL has been tracking jihadis an awful lot longer than we have here at Rantburg, publicizing and fighting to contain them at the national and international level. Personally, I'd rather they worked on President Obama's Israel problem, persuading big pro-Israel Democratic donors to withhold, than on a local election issue that's being handled by local and national political organizations.
#1
I understand this is all about the procedure to introduce the bill.
What were the Donks up to this time? Trying to subvert the process with a politically charged bill in order to have an excuse to subvert it again in the future?
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.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday called ethics charges against Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel "very troubling" and said he hopes the longtime lawmaker can end his career with dignity. Several House Democrats went further, flat-out urging the New York congressman to resign.
The Prince of Wales says he believes he has been placed on Earth as future King 'for a purpose' - to save the world. 
