ترول ایرانی

گالری عکس

Category ““The People’s Party””

Filner Wants San Diego Taxpayers to Pay His Legal Costs

Seriously, this has got to be insulting on so many levels for many a San Diegan.

Embattled Mayor Bob Filner is asking San Diego taxpayers to cover the legal fees he’ll incur from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former staff member.

Filner’s attorney, Harvey Berger, sent a letter Monday requesting the city pay the mayor’s legal expenses. The City Council will consider the issue Tuesday in closed session and allow public testimony at 5:30 p.m. or whenever the regular council meeting ends.

Irene McCormack Jackson, the mayor’s former communications director, filed the lawsuit July 22 against Filner and the city seeking unspecified damages. She has accused Filner of creating a hostile work environment in which women were treated as “sexual objects or stupid idiots” and making unwanted sexual advances toward her, including kisses and derogatory comments.

Council President Todd Gloria announced the mayor’s request at the end of Monday’s council meeting and said it would be discussed by the council in closed session Tuesday. It’s not likely to pass given that seven of the nine council members have called on Filner to resign.

Filner isn’t be sued because as mayor he oversaw a new law or ordinance.  He’s being sued as a 70-year-old horn dog / serial hugger who clearly has issues on a personal level.  There’s little to no justification for the city to pay the cost for his misdeeds.

If he had a brain in his head, he’d just resign.  It’s just a pity that it took so long for his fellow Democrats in D.C and California to call for it.  Word is the state Democratic Party of California covered for him as late as two years ago.  That woman — a former Democratic California state legislator —  is now one of the seven or eight now suing Filner for harassment.

Liberals really need to decide what matters more to them, having a narrative where they say the Right is staging a “War on Women,” or covering for politicians who are actually attacking women on a frequent and almost daily basis by their personal actions.

But who am I kidding.  For the Left, it is always about abortion.  I think Nina Burleigh put that in enough context back in 1998, didn’t she?

Leave a Comment

Democratic Congressman’s Chief of Staff Resigns over Voter Fraud

And liberals in our state have the audacity to ask why there’s a move to seal up absentee ballot rules…?

It is reasons like this.

The chief of staff to freshman Rep. Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) resigned on Friday after he was implicated in a plot to submit hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots during the congressman’s primary election last year.

Jeffrey Garcia, who’s not related to the congressman, left at Rep. Garcia’s request after he took responsibility for the scheme, The Miami Herald reported. The resignation came hours after law enforcement officials raided the homes of former Garcia campaign employees as part of an investigation into the matter.

“I’m shocked and disappointed about this,” Rep. Garcia, who said he was unaware of the scheme, told the Herald. “This is something that hit me from left field. Until today, I had no earthly idea this was going on.”

Jeffrey Garcia declined to comment to the paper, which reported that he also worked for the campaign of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), who defeated Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) in 2012.

Rep. Garcia said he was likely to put his communications director, Giancarlo Sopo, on administrative leave after Sopo was served with a search warrant Friday.

The probe began after a Herald investigation found that 2,552 fraudulent requests for ballots from the Aug. 14 primaries came from Internet Protocol addresses in Miami, and most of the requests came from foreign IP addresses.

Also said to be implicated is Rep. Garcia’s 2012 campaign manager, a 26 year-old named John Estes.

Leave a Comment

Quote of the Day

All that really needs to be said about the latest redistricting / media fellatio session held by legislative Democrats in the state capitol today:

Those leaders did not advance similar legislation in 2009-’10, when Democrats controlled all of state government.

The true sign of the intent of any “power-sharing” legislation is to ask those proposing it, would you be proposing it if you ran the place?  If that answer is “No,” then you pretty much have all you need to know.

 

Leave a Comment

The Principles of One Gwendolynne Sophia Moore

Yesterday the House of Representative passed “HR 3567,” which after a read through pretty much forbids those on welfare benefits and food stamps from using them at casinos, strip clubs and the like.  After all, you’re poor, you should be spending your taxpayer handouts from the safety net on food, not the Champagne Room.

Here’s Politico explaining the bill in more detail as it waits action in the Senate.

The Republican-led House is going after strip clubs – again.

Voted on Wednesday evening was a bill that would ban welfare recipients from using their benefits at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. It’s the same measure that was included in a broader package pushed by House Republicans in December to extend the payroll tax holiday, and it overwhelmingly passed the House, 395-27.

When he introduced the bill in December, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the legislation was needed to address the “fraudulent misuse of funds” in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which give grants to states for them to develop their own welfare systems.

On the House floor Wednesday afternoon, Boustany said he hoped it would send a message that the “House is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children as intended.”

Republicans also hope that the so-called “strip club loophole” could be included in the ongoing negotiations to extend the payroll tax holiday through the end of this year.

According to a 2010 report in the Los Angeles Times, casinos in California allowed welfare recipients to access benefits, leading then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to ban the practice days later. The amount accessed at casinos was about four-tenths of 1 percent of all welfare funds, while funds accessed at adult-entertainment venues were one one-thousandth of 1 percent, according to the state.

The measure was brought up under suspension of the rules, which means it needs a two-thirds vote of the House to pass, not a simple majority.

As stated, this passed by a vote of 395-27.  The only one of the Wisconsin delegation to vote against (more on that later) was Milwaukee’s Gwen Moore.  Here’s part of her rant on the bill from video via Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit.

With a rant like that, you think Gwen was one of the 27 “Nos” right?

No, she was one of the 10 who slipped out of the chamber and didn’t vote.

—- NOT VOTING    10 —
Carson (IN)
Dicks
Filner
Herger
Hinchey
Mack
McMorris Rodgers
Moore
Paul
Roybal-Allard

Ron Paul’s out of DC running for President. Not sure what Gwen’s excuse was for not voting, given she had just made her speech right there on the floor of the chamber minutes before the vote.

Comments (1)

Voter ID Opponent Becomes Voter ID Proponent

H/T to my friend Soren Dayton, who posted this on Facebook last night.

Artur Davis is a former Congressman from Alabama.  He is a Democrat, he is black, and he was once opposed to Voter ID for the same rhetorical reasons most liberals do.

He now doesn’t, and in an op-ed to the Montgomery Advertiser, he explains why.

I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.

When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.

The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.

Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights — that’s suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don’t; I’ve heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I’ve been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.

There is no question that a voter ID law, in order to pass legal muster and in order to be just, must have certain characteristics. It should contain exceptions for the elderly or disabled who may not drive, and as a consequence lack the most conventional ID, a driver’s license. There should also be a process for non-drivers to obtain a photo ID, and the process has to be cost-free, for the simple reason that even a nominal financial impediment to voting looks and feels too much like a poll tax.

It is my understanding that the Alabama statute contains each of these exceptions and a few others, including a provision for on-site polling officials to waive the requirement if they attest that they know the voter.

The fact that a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter — and that only gives voting the same elements of security as writing a check at the store, or obtaining a library card — is controversial does say much about the raw feelings in our current politics. The ugliest, hardest forms of disfranchisement were practiced in our lifetimes, and its still conventional rhetoric in black political circles to say those times are on the way back. Witness a last-minute automated call to black voters in the 2010 general election by state Sen. Hank Sanders, an ingenious lawyer and a skillful legislator who knew better, but who also knew the attack would resonate.

It also does not help matters that Alabama has become a state where in a general election, race is a prohibitive indicator of how 2.5 million registered voters routinely behave. If in 2008 or 2010, you had observed a white Alabamian standing in line in any precinct in the state, and you had guessed he or she was voting Republican, you had an 80 percent chance of getting it right — there are few safer bets in politics, other than the near 100 percent certainty that an African American standing in the same line is about to vote Democratic.

Given those racial realities, any effort to regulate voting by a Republican-dominated Alabama Legislature will draw inevitable scrutiny. And Alabama hardly boosts its cause by passing an immigration law that ratifies every national jibe about us, and that has no real effect beyond putting a social fence around a certain class of Latinos. But demanding integrity in voting is neither racist, nor raw party politics.

It is interesting that with a few exceptions that reflect political pressures I understand pretty well, the new Alabama ID law still has not become that much of a political football. The same can’t be said in other states or at the national level. I was disappointed to see Bill Clinton, a very good president and an even greater ex-president, compare voter ID to Jim Crow, and it is chilling to see the intimidation tactics brought to bear on African American, Democratic legislators in Rhode Island who had the nerve to support a voter ID law in that very liberal state.

The case for voter ID, however, is a good one, and it ought to make politics a little cleaner and the process of conducting elections much fairer. I wish I’d gotten it right the first time.

Artur Davis, a former U.S. congressman from Alabama, now practices law in Washington, D.C.

Given his rhetoric in this recent article on Voter ID to the Journal Sentinel, one expects Dave Obey to read the riot act to his former colleague any day now.

Comments (10)

Cartoon of the Day

This must be the post-high school list.

Leave a Comment

Good to Know

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman, “If Obama weren’t black, we’d be marching on the White House!”

Unhappy members of the Congressional Black Caucus “probably would be marching on the White House” if Obama were not president, according to CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).

“If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House,” Cleaver told “The Miami Herald” in comments published Sunday. “There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.”

I don’t hate the president.  What I do is find the guy completely inept when it comes to the topic of economics.  He either has surrounded himself with incompetents (possibly) or is so entrapped by his ideological belief that government can and should be the source for economic growth he knows nothing else (more likely).

If it’s the latter, than it’s actually sort of sad that he’s done that to himself.  Nothing in his background seems to indicate to me that he’s either taken many, if any, Economics or Business Administration courses in his education.  So for all we know, Obama may honestly believe the New Deal honestly ended the Great Depression.

Even my college Economics professors didn’t wholeheartedly agree on that premise.  My college History professors sure did though.

Leave a Comment

Dr. Frankenstein Starts to Lose Control of the Monster

Half the fun of any alliance of convenience with complete anarchists is knowing that eventually they’ll stick a knife in your back because, well, they’re anarchists.

And only squares follow rules!

Budget opponents are trying to stop the JFC from doing its work tonight, with protesters being carried out by police.

The disruption started just as the meeting began, with three men who oppose Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to strip in-state tuition to UW System and state tech schools for children of undocumented immigrants commandeering the front of the room as the session was called to order.

The men refused to leave or stop reading their statements, and at least one was carried out by state troopers.

After that, the floodgates seemed to open, with protesters coming to the front of the room to berate the committee members. Assembly Co-chair Robin Vos, R-Rochester, tried to conduct the meeting over the disruption, putting an omnibus motion on the table on shared revenue. His voice could barely be heard among the din.

Rep. Jen Shilling, D-La Crosse, tried to quiet the crowd.

“Please stop,” she shouted. “Fellow Wisconsinites, in order for us to do our work tonight we need decorum.”

“We don’t want you to do your work,” one man shouted back. “We want to stop them (the Republicans) from doing their work.”

“This isn’t going to stop them,” Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, said.

Vos threatened to clear the room, but the disruption has continued as the LFB tried to explain the motion. Protesters are coming one by one to the front of the room and being carried out. Protesters chanted “police state” as their cohorts were carried out.

During all of this, the Twitter feeds of various Madison-area reporters were quite a hoot.  Protesters apparently were verbally shutting down every member of the Joint Finance Committee, Republican and Democrat alike.

It’s going to be an interesting month for Joint Finance; especially if that protest permit is granted by the Madison City Council for the tent city.

And up until now Legislative Democrats naively thought the protest monster was on their side; when in reality most of the hardliners in Madison were nothing more but professional agitators waiting for the right moment to strike.  They may have just found it.

The true “Capitol Chaos” has begun, and it may get only worse.

Addendum: Good to see the email meme went out to all liberal parts of the CheddarSphere about last night to urge for “Calm.”  Yes guys, convince yourself that this is just an isolated incident and a bunch of bad apples.  Except of course, that it’s a bunch of bad apples who are there every day, with nothing to do, led by a nutcase on a Segway.

Your movement is very close to being hijacked if you don’t wake up.

Comments (2)

Liberal Logic at Work

The liberal economic mind at work…

Okay, so killing a train project no one wanted in the State of Wisconsin – BAD

Changing a report inside the White House to force an off-shore drilling moratorium which could end up killing 32,000 jobs in the Gulf Region where they want to drill for oil and natural gas – GOOD

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was intentional attempt to mislead the public.

The six-month ban on offshore drilling installed in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill became a major political issue over the summer, as Gulf State lawmakers and industry groups charged the White House with unfairly threatening thousands of jobs. House Republicans have said they plan on investigating the circumstances surrounding the moratorium when they take power next year.

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and several other Gulf State members of Congress asked the Interior IG to investigate the moratorium and the peer review claim.

“The inspector general’s finding that the blanket-drilling moratorium was driven by a politics and not by science is bitter news for families who, because of it, lost their jobs, savings, and way of life,” Cassidy said Tuesday. “Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology. If that were true, at least 12,000 jobs and 1.8 billion dollars of economic activity would have been saved on the Gulf Coast.”

The Interior Department personally and publicly apologized to the panel members in June for the insinuation they publicly supported the drilling moratorium.

During my HUD days, I had to read a few IG reports.  So, I can understand the “edit” argument the White House is making…to an extent.  But how, during the levels and levels of review — even inside the IG’s office — no one spoke up and said, “Hey, I have an issue with this change.” is simply amazing.

By letting that change go unchallenged, the White House intentionally turned the Interior Department’s IG report from being an investigative document to a political one.

Comments (1)

Politicians for “Free Speech”

Oops, wrong definition of “free” I suppose. (h/t Rob Port at SayAnything)

Television station owners are mobilizing against a new Democratic campaign finance bill that would force them to slash prices for many political advertisements.

The National Association of Broadcasters confirmed late last week that it will oppose provisions of the DISCLOSE Act, an attempt by House and Senate Democrats — and a handful of House Republicans — to roll back elements of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The high court’s decision tossed out most restrictions on political ad buys on television by corporations, trade associations and nonprofit groups.

The bill would require television, cable and radio outlets to offer the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee and other political party committees the same deeply discounted price — the “lowest unit rate,” in industry jargon — that television stations are now required to offer only to political candidates. Although advertising rates fluctuate dramatically, veteran media buyers estimate that candidates’ campaigns often pay two-thirds of the retail price that regular television advertisers such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola pay.

“NAB is reviewing the bill,” spokesman Dennis Wharton said in a statement April 29. “We would have concerns with provisions in the legislation that would expand the lowest unit rate discounts now afforded federal candidates to political parties and political committees.”

The upcoming fight over political advertising rates also will offer a first look at NAB President Gordon H. Smith in a full-scale lobbying battle. The former Oregon senator, a moderate Republican, replaced GOP lobbyist David Rehr last year.

In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Rules and Administration Chairman Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold (Wis.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.). The House version is sponsored by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Republican Reps. Walter B. Jones (N.C.) and Michael N. Castle (Del.).

Consultants who specialize in purchasing airtime for political campaigns were split on what the bill may mean for TV station owners. If it passes, media consultant Doc Sweitzer said, stations would bleed revenue. “It would effectively be a government mandate to lose income,” he said.

It has often been the dream of the campaign finance lot to pretty much give — for nothing — airtime to politicians on television.  This new bill seems to be a run-around on that.

Wonder if this suddenly starts some ill-will towards Russ Feingold when for once, his quest to silence all speech but his and other incumbents running for re-election effects the bottom-line local affiliates in Green Bay, Madison, La Crosse, Milwaukee, and other markets in Wisconsin.

Leave a Comment