Clinton Funny Money... Again!

This is getting old. The Democrats illicit fundraising has once again reared it's ugly head. The big questions is, will the liberal media report on this latest criminal act, or just continue to blather on about the disgusting Senator Craig?

WSJ online:

Norman Hsu is one of the leading political fund-raisers in the country this year. In fact, many fund-raisers say he is one of a small handful of people capable of raising more than $1 million -- a major feat considering the maximum donation allowed by an individual for 2008 races is $4,600 per candidate.

One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.

That total ranks the house with residences in Greenwich, Conn., and Manhattan's Upper East Side among the top addresses to donate to the Democratic presidential front-runner over the past two years, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of donations listed with the Federal Election Commission.

It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.

Mr. Hsu supports other Democrats besides Mrs. Clinton. On June 23, he helped throw a "6th Anniversary of his 60th Birthday fund-raiser" for California Rep. Mike Honda. A few days later, he joined Blackstone Group Chairman Stephen Schwarzman and lawyer David Boies to host a $1,000-a-plate 40th-birthday bash for Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

In the email to the Journal, Mr. Hsu listed several Democratic politicians to whom he has given money, and said he has never asked any for favors. They include Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell; New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine; Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy; California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Los Angeles Times:

The Los Angeles Times reports on this website tonight and in Wednesday's print editions that a major Democratic Party fundraiser named Norman Hsu is wanted by authorities for skipping out on an agreement to serve up to three years in prison after pleading no contest to grand theft swindling charges.

In a story by Chuck Neubauer and Robin Fields, The Times reports that for three years Hsu has been carving out a place of political and financial influence by funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Democratic Party coffers, much of the money earmarked for Sen. Hillary Clinton. He has earned the ranking of Hillraiser for pledging to raise at least $100,000 for her.

In just the last 36 months Hsu has been involved in raising more than $1 million for Clinton and other Democrats. Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, confirmed today that Hsu had been a "longtime and generous supporter" of the party including Clinton. "We have no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them," Wolfson added.

Hsu has developed a specialty of bundling hefty campaign contributions from obscure citizens who live modest lives and have never before given money to campaigns. Many are not even registered to vote.

Over the years other recipients of Hsu donations have included Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Edward Kennedy.

Hsu's lawyer confirmed today that his client was the one involved in the California case but said he did not remember pleading to a criminal case nor facing jail time.

"He is a fugitive," said Ronald Smetana of the California attorney general's office. "Do you know where he is?"

Remember Johnny Chung and the Clintons in 1996... illegal campaign contributions of more than $300,000 just attributable to him. The other Asian illegal donors all fled the country and prosecution.

How will the Dems spin this one? It's pretty ugly. Hillary can complain all she wants about the Right Wing conspiracy to get her, but her operatives are doing more harm than the right ever did.

When the Jack Abrahamof scandal hit, the liberal media was on it relentlessly. He was a criminal, was convicted and is serving his time. I don't care what side of the aisle political scumbags come from, however to be a Democrat scumbag is apparently a badge of honor. William Jefferson, Barney Frank, Bill and Hill, Sandy Berger, Ted Kennedy, Marion Barry, Alcee Hastings... should I keep going?

Where is the shame? How about some standards? Never mind, we're talking about liberals. At least we throw our bums out.

Oh...My...God... As IF!

Was she nervous, or too stupid to know the difference? Miss South Carolina (can she spell South Carolina?) stammered out the most ridiculous and stupid answer every heard in a Miss-Anything pagent:

(WorldNetDaily.com) Was it nerves, pressure or just a plain ol' case of "the lights are on, but no one's home"?

Many today are questioning the state of American education after Lauren Caitlin Upton, Miss Teen South Carolina, suffered an apparent and oh-so unfortunate "extreme blonde moment" during Friday night's NBC broadcast of the Miss Teen USA Pageant in Pasadena, Calif.

When asked about the reason why some Americans could not locate the U.S. on a world map, Upton provided an answer that some call moronic and hilarious, while others say it's painful to watch and typical for young people in America today.

The 18-year-old Upton, who hails from Lexington, S.C., made it to the final five round where she was competing against contestants from Colorado, West Virginia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

As part of the competition, Upton was asked what host Mario Lopez called a "thought-provoking final question" selected at random.

Upton selected judge Aimee Teegarden, an actress from NBC's "Friday Night Lights," who asked her this question: "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

The South Carolina beauty gave this strange, grammarless response:

I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.

Her answer was so stupid, as a U.S. American, I think I got stupid just watching.

Your tax dollars at work.

AS IF!...

Another Sac Bee Columnist Is Judgment Challenged

Sac Bee columnist Marcos Breton wrote a real whopper last Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - a whopper full of irrational emotion usually found in only in unstable teenage girls, ACLU lawyers and "Progressives."

Breton wrote about Jose Eduardo Moran-Marques, the illegal alien being after indictment by the grand Jury, and for further investigation into the trestle fire March 15th. Moran-Marques deliberately lied to police, giving a false name and birthdate and was indicted last week. While he hasn't been named a "person of interest," the police are obviously interested in this lying, criminal of an illegal alien who has been deported 10 times, always to return to his American life of crime.

Where Breton goes so wrong in his opinion column is when he mocks the feds for indicting Moran-Marques for lying, saying that "Maybe next he'll get indicted for being short." What a stupid thing to say. Moran-Marques has a rap sheet as long as my legs. He's more than a "nuisance" as Breton tries to imply; Moran-Marques is a bad dude who should be locked away in an American prison, since he seems to love being in America so much.

Breton unsuccessfully tries to make this look like a racial profiling case, mistaking the police and fed interest in Moran-Marques because he is an Hispanic.

Yes, he's only been deported 10 times, so I guess we all know he's here illegally, which is a problem. And that he is here illegally and continues to commit crimes is another problem Mr. Breton.

(KCRA.com) Investigators believe the Trestle fire was started with the use of an accelerant, but the fire burned too hot for any other forensic evidence. Witnesses led the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Jose Eduardo Moran-Marques, a national from El Salvador. Originally arrested as a vagrant, federal authorities have charged Marques with lying to investigators about his whereabouts during the time of the fire.

Officers said Marques has a history with run-ins with park rangers and the law -- six times this year -- in connection with illegal camping, drugs and having his dog off its leash.

A witness told investigators that because Marques was angry about being constantly pushed out of this area, he set the fire in retaliation.

IN addition to making false statements to police and federal agents, Moran-Marques, has six aliases and has provided authorities with at least two birth dates, was arrested in February in Sacramento County on a misdemeanor drug possession charge, according to court and jail records.

His criminal history in Sacramento includes three separate drunken driving charges to which he pleaded no contest in 2005, resulting in just over a year in prison and five years of probation, court records show.

Tell me again Mr. Breton why you are defending this guy? Lying, arson, multiple aliases, drunk driving, drugs, homelessness, illegal camping... he's a real stand up guy.

Mr. Breton is letting his emotion take over any common sense he may have. Or perhaps he is falling prey to a cultural phenom... either way, stick to the facts, then draw conclusions.

It's okay to trust, but at least verify. That's pretty basic stuff for such an experienced journalist.

Carol Migden: Another Power Abuser (and all around crook)

I'm a little late following up on this however, nothing I or anyone else can say or do would make one bit of difference to this deplorable woman.

(San Francisco Sentinel) State Sen. Carol Migden was sentenced this morning in Solano County Superior Court to two years summary probation for a reckless driving incident in May, the Solano County District Attorney’s Office said.

The San Francisco Democrat pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor reckless driving charge that was filed this morning and was also assessed $710 in fees and fines, the district attorney’s office said.

Migden, 58, did not appear in court. The plea was entered by her Ukiah attorney Ann Moorman. Migden must also be formally booked, then released from the Solano County Jail by Oct. 9.

The Solano County District Attorney’s Office said under summary probation, the defendant is not required to report regularly with the county probation office.

The California Highway Patrol had recommended Migden be charged
with reckless driving causing bodily injury.

The CHP said Migden’s 2007 Toyota Highlander collided with a Honda that had stopped on Beck Avenue at state Highway 12 in Fairfield injuring a Vallejo woman May 18.

The CHP also said Migden’s vehicle hit a guardrail on Interstate Highway 80 in Fairfield before that crash.

Migden later revealed she has been taking medication to fight leukemia and that might have contributed to her behavior.

In California, California Vehicle Code§ 23103.5 states:

a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(b) Any person who drives any vehicle in any offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104. Amended Sec. 19, Ch. 739, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.

Reckless Driving: Bodily Injury Vehicle Code 23104

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), whenever reckless driving of a vehicle proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver, the person driving the vehicle shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(b) Any person convicted of reckless driving which proximately causes great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7 of the Penal Code, to any person other than the driver, who previously has been convicted of a violation of Section 23103, 23104, 23109, 23152, or 23153, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both the fine and imprisonment. Amended Ch. 216, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985.

Do you think that an ordinary citizen - let's say for instance, one of the people Migden hit, would receive the unusually light sentences she received?

Migden was described by the 41 callers to 9-1-1 as "obviously drunk," "swerving, speeding, hitting the median," "she's talking on her cell phone and she's been all over the lanes the last two or three miles."

At some points, he reported, she was driving above the speed limit, at times below it.

Near the American Canyon Road exit, a male caller reported, "There's an impaired driver who's going to cause a major injury accident," "She's crossing three lanes at a time, wandering back and forth," he said. "She's been on the phone, reading a book ... She's really scary. Watch out."

She finally rear-ended another car on Beck Avenue at state Highway 12 in Fairfield -- sending a Vallejo woman and her 3-year-old daughter to the hospital. I wonder what happened to the woman and her daughter... haven't heard a word. I truly hope the state did not pay them off... now wouldn't that be a scam? I mean sham.

Migden claimed that her wild driving was a result of leukemia medication. However, Migden has not been treated for leukemia for more than one year.

(Marin Independent Journal) Bob Jordan, 57, of Turlock was involved in the crash Friday. He said immediately after the accident he saw two men confront Migden for her erratic driving prior to the accident. They apparently followed her when she turned off the freeway in Fairfield, then confronted her about her poor driving after the subsequent accident.

"They were getting onto her and all she was saying was, 'You can't talk to me like that, I'm a state senator," Jordan said. "That's all she would answer."

Jordan said he heard one Fairfield police officer say to another, "This must be the car we got the call about driving erratically on Highway 80." Fairfield police officials could not be reached Tuesday for comment.

Jordan was struck by Migden's behavior.

"There was something wrong with her. I told both the highway patrol and the city police that arrived that either she's drunk or on something. She just wasn't coherent, nor could she stand there steady," Jordan said.

Migden was required to submit a report of the accident to police unless she decided to use her own insurance to cover the costs, said Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for state Senate Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. Isn't it funny how we haven't heard how this was handled. Take a guess.

(Marin Independent Journal) After announcing that Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, was at fault for rear-ending another car and reckless driving that included twice striking a guardrail in the center median on Interstate 80, the California Highway Patrol reversed itself Friday.
"Unfortunately, there was information that was related incorrectly," said CHP Sgt. Les Bishop.

Bishop said that despite CHP reports to the contrary, the CHP's investigation into Migden's accident on May 18 is not complete. Migden's 2007 Toyota Highlander struck a 2005 Honda, injuring a Vallejo woman and her toddler daughter in a crash near Fairfield.

No stupid, her car did not strike a 2005 Honda - she recklessly and wilfully drove her Toyota Highlander into a Honda driven by a woman.

And this is not Migden's first brush with bad driving: Migden was sued in 1997 for her role in a car accident that involved injuries, when she ran a stop sign near the Capitol, according to the woman whose car was hit.

Teresa Latham, a tax technician at the state Board of Equalization, said she still harbors bitter feelings about the accident that totaled the car she had paid off eight months earlier.

She said Migden barely spoke to her and didn't seem worried about her welfare after Latham's car was spun onto O Street from 15th Street, causing the air bag to go off.

"It's really odd at my age that I just can't get over it," Latham, 47, said. "I think it was just the whole situation. There was no concern on her part." (Sacramento Bee)

Carol Migden is a despicable person who has abused her office and the power that goes with it.

Now, how do we get her thrown out?

Government Bailout For Irresponsible Homeowners?

Our government is now talking about bailing out irresponsible homeowners who found themselves in over their heads with bad mortgages.

Responsible homeowners should be outraged. While we stayed put in our homes instead of buying newer, bigger, grander homes, while we paid down mortgages and acted responsibly, people who knew they couldn't qualify or afford the loans they took out, did it anyway. Since when can you buy a house for no money down and think you'll have equity?

In America we are free to make our own mistakes, and even free to be stupid, but bailouts are not part of that freedom.

(SFGate.com)President Bush said Thursday concern should be shown those who've lost their homes but it's not the federal government's job to bail them out.

"Obviously anybody who loses their home is somebody with whom we must show an enormous empathy," Bush said. Asked whether he would champion a government bailout, Bush responded: "If you mean direct grants to homeowners, the answer would be `No, I don't support that.'"

New home foreclosures have climbed to record highs. Homeowners with poor credit have been hardest hit as higher interest rates and weak home prices have made it impossible or difficult for them to keep up with their home loans.

Americans will fight this ridiculous bailout idea. Greedy, irresponsible people and people who have behaved with such stupidity, need to learn the lesson: when you behave stupidly, or greedily, or irresponsibly, you will pay for it.

One Mortgage blogger wrote: I told you it was only a matter of time until the politicians started talking BAILOUT for people that bit off more than they could chew. They can't have it both ways (or can they). They can't have 70% 'home ownership' (more like home mortgageship) on one hand, and then use taxpayer money to say that nobody loses a house on the other. The thing is, 70% of the population probably shouldn't be owning a house, and certainly not at the prices that many of them paid. The coming 'foreclosure boom' is going to realign the home ownership percentages to more realistic levels and realign housing prices to levels that reflect incomes.

Creative financing, no risk assessment, and loose credit created this monster...risk assessment, tighter credit, and traditional financing (fixed rate loans paying principal) will rein it back in. If the mortgage industry and the secondary market didn't discard risk assessment the past 5-6 years to get these 'high risk' people loans, they would NOT be defaulting today.

And of course, Mrs. Clinton jumped on the bailout bandwagon: If you thought Hillary Clinton’s health care takeover plan was bad, wait ’til you see what she has in store for the housing sector. As always with the Clintons, the market is the problem and Big Nanny (and Big Fannie and Big Freddie) are the solution. Last week, she unveiled her “four-point plan” to protect the American Dream of homeownership. She’s wildly waving around $1 billion promises here and $1 billion promises there. Look out:

In her address to about 250 people in a Derry elementary school gymnasium, Clinton criticized unscrupulous mortgage brokers who push customers into borrowing more to pad their commission or are dishonest about the true cost of the loan. To help curb the number of foreclosures, Clinton proposed setting up a $1 billion fund to assist homeowners in making arrangements with lending companies to stay in their home.

She also discussed the lack of affordable housing, an issue that is particularly a problem in New England. To promote more affordable housing construction, Clinton proposed another $1 billion fund which would be distributed to state, county and local affordable housing programs. (Michelle Malkin)

Owning real estate is a privilege that takes saving, discipline, and lots of restraint to accomplish. Owning real estate is not a God-given right in America as the entitlement party works hard overtime to convince the public.

People are losing homes to foreclosure because of their own actions, primarily. The institutions that acted illegally will pay. But ultimately, the buck stops with the individual. Individual responsibility is still the name of the game; those who don't believe in this probably should lose their homes and let the government take care of them.

One final note from Jonathan Hoenig at Smart Money: "The more the government gets involved in mortgages and banking, the tighter credit will become. But beyond the impractical reality of collectivist economics, a bailout of homeowners facing foreclosure would be an immoral violation of the property rights of the millions of citizens who live within their means and pay their bills on time. The responsibility of paying back subprime mortgage rests with those who took them, not the publicity-seeking politician eager to sacrifice the individual for the “public good.”

The Truth About Liberals

Anytime someone denies what they are, question their motive. Why, for instance, would someone deny being a liberal if they are one?

Besides lacking a spine, when someone tries to distance themselves from their core beliefs, they are manipulating you.

Take Hillary, please (old joke). Hillary Clinton has decided that she doesn't want to be called a liberal anymore. She is now a progressive. She thinks that progressive sounds more hip, more positive. Hillary's roots are very liberal however, apparently today's liberals just aren't liberal enough for her. She mistakenly believes that progressive sounds more moderate. Wrong.

When Hillary wrote her college thesis the summation of it is best explained by Amanda Carpenter of Human Events: Mobilizations of communities, labeling adversaries as enemies and working through proxies are all Clinton trademarks. She is not a Saul Alinsky 1960s radical, but she has adapted and improvised his radical tactics to her own advantage.

Before Barbara Olsen was killed in one of the planes on 9/11, she wrote about Hillary's thesis: "He who fears corruption fears life." — Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" This quote immediately came to mind after my reading of Hillary Rodham's Wellesley College senior thesis — a document kept under lock and key since the 1992 elections. Back then, when researchers and journalists were searching for information on the newly elected First Couple, Wellesley suddenly declared that it would seal the thesis of any graduate who became President or First Lady.

My senior thesis in college was the usual fare: "The Liberalization Movement in Czechoslovakia in 1969." Pretty exciting stuff, but nothing I would require to be held under lock and key up if I ran for public office. In fact, nothing I ever wrote in college would bring me any embarrassment, except for the inexperienced style of writing.

So why the secrets Hillary? Why the big cover up?

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily suggests that Hillary believes that liberals are not radical enough, nor were they in the 60's. That is the reason why she adopted the Progressive Movement. "In fact, who were the leaders of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century with whom Hillary so closely identifies" Among the most notable leaders were W.E.B. Du Bois, a Communist Party member, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an advocate of racial eugenics, an idea that inspired Adolf Hitler to kill six million Jews. I don't exaggerate. These are people and ideas that get Hillary's adrenaline pumping."

So, for once Hillary is being honest when she says she's a "Progressive" and not a liberal. Joseph Farah says that it's so seldom one witnesses such candor from her.

Liberals have discredited themselves in the last 40 years. They have proven to be incapable of running our country. Why? Liberals believe in big government because they believe that government must fix everything wrong in our lives. And the lazy subscribe to this theory. Liberals believe in social engineering, they lack respect for life - young and old, and they lack respect for the the vast majority of Americans - the working middle class. If they respected you, you wouldn't pay such outrageous taxes for programs you'll never avail yourself of.

Progressives on the other hand should be feared. They will nationalize every remaining segment of your private life - with Hillary happily leading the way.

Another Nunez Scam

Slippery thug, Fabian Nunez is at it again, this time trying to save his job using the initiative process.

"The term-limits initiative is backed by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, both Democrats who must leave office next year under existing law. If the term-limits change passes, Núñez could control the Assembly for six more years while Perata could stay in the Senate for another four years." (Sacbee.com)

Fabian the Union-thug and master criminal Don Perata have figured out a way to keep their jobs while pretending they are supportive of term limits.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Kevin Spillane, a GOP consultant representing U.S. Term Limits, said his group opposes the initiative because it would give Perata, Núñez and other lawmakers a "dramatic increase" in power. He said very few legislators serve the full 14 years to which they are entitled, while he believes the ballot language implies most lawmakers stay in office that long.

"The Legislature's failure to pass a budget has marginally increased support for the initiative, underlying the political strategy of trying to fool voters into thinking this strengthens term limits when it really weakens term limits," Spillane said. "But the Legislature's abysmal approval numbers are going to come back with a vengeance to defeat the initiative."

But where is the scam? The initiative is being run by Richard Stapler who left Núñez's office this summer to work for the term-limits campaign, and Núñez political consultant Gale Kaufman.

Could Fabian Nunez be more of a thug? Not likely.

Forgive My Absence

I'd like to apologize for being somewhat absent in my own blog lately. The column I write at the Sacramento Union has taken much more writing/researching time than I expected, even though it is only weekly.

I work full-time, and write for the Sac Union. And lately I've traveled back east twice to visit my son at the USNA. Been a bit busy.

But I am a blogger at heart; I'm going to try to get back to my daily posts.

fetching jen

Illegal Activist Arrested... FINALLY!

An illegal alien who stayed in a Chicago church for more than one year to avoid deportation and separation from her 8-year-old son, a U.S. citizen, was arrested Sunday and being processed for deportation.

The Sacramento Bee reports that Arellano, 32, "has become a symbol of the struggles of illegal immigrant parents and a source of controversy. She had said Saturday she was not afraid of being taken into custody by immigration agents."

Ahhhhh. Doesn't that feel good. She represents the struggles of illegals... She is also a law breaker.

"We are sad, but at the same time we are angry," said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with her. "How dare they arrest this woman?" (Sacto Bee)

How dare they arrest this woman? You've got to be kidding. Illegal aliens are emboldened because America has not enforced immigration law. However, their demands for entitlements, support and a life outside our laws has got to stop.

Arellano came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August.

She sought refuge at the storefront church on Chicago's West Side Aug. 15, 2006. She had not left the church property until deciding to be driven to Los Angeles, Coleman said.

Instead of celebrating her lawbreaking ways and putting on a pit party for her, The Sacramento Bee once again demonstrates their politics by making a hero out of her. She's a lawbreaker and she's an illegal activist in a country that is quickly growing weary of people like her rubbing our faces in her disdain for everything American... except our nice entitlement programs.

Try behaving this way in Mexico. We know where she'd be right now.

What A Hefty Fraud!

In yesterday's Sacramento Bee, columnist Anita Creamer wrote a story about a handicapped driver who was accused very rudely by a group of young women, of being a fraud. A group of maybe a dozen young women -- a pack of wolves, he calls them -- picked a fight with him when he walked back out to his truck, a gray Silverado with a California Disabled Person license plate, the kind with the handicapped symbol on it.

The women looked to be college age or in their 20s, he says, just ordinary, middle class, suburban young people."They said, 'You drive an awfully nice truck for someone who's disabled,' " he says, "and, 'You walk awfully good for someone parking in a disabled spot.'"

Apparently his disability is not apparent but severe enough for him to have a special license plate allowing him to park in disabled parking. Or so we are led to believe about all persons who sport the license plate or placard.

Ms. Creamer writes, "You can't always tell someone's disabled just by looking at him, though that fact tends to escape people who prefer dealing in assumptions.

Someone with end-stage lung cancer won't be on crutches, for example, and neither will someone with a serious heart condition."

Hmmm. That is probably true. However, while the behavior of the young women was obviously very rude, they represent the larger resentment felt by the general public, weary of the fraudulent use of this entitlement.

But Anita Creamer never mentions this angle. She just calls the group of young women "Angry young people who probably had bad childhoods" with a "serious deficit of compassion or common sense."

Yes, there are plenty of people with no common sense or compassion. But why are all people with disabilities victims to liberals like Ms. Creamer? The man in her story explains his "disability:" he's been retired from the state for the past four years, ever since his doctor diagnosed him with severe neck problems. Through the years, he's suffered from a list of health issues, everything from a fractured spine to disc problems to ulnar nerve damage.

"I don't complain much," he says, "because who the hell likes to hear somebody whine?"

He can walk unassisted, but that doesn't mean he's not in pain.

Severe neck problems, nerve damage, spine and disc problems. Well, sign me up for my own disability license placard! I've had four back surgeries and experience plenty of nerve pain. Only, I never thought about moving less, I move more, work harder, stay strong and fight back. I walk from the back of the parking lot. Silly me.

Perhaps I am being unfair. But do you feel my anger? It's not at the bloke in the story. He may well have horrid pain and be disabled. I, as with most able-bodied people, am furious at the cheaters, and at the system that allows the flimsiest excuses handicapped placard and license plates.

Usually, I see women and men who weight 400 lbs. parking in these coveted and plentiful parking spaces. Instead of handing out handicapped placards, shouldn't their physicians hand out running shoes and gym memberships, and suggest they park far away and walk. Perhaps if they carried less weight, their hearts, and knees, and backs and feet would feel better and they would be healthier. Think of the money the state would save handing out gym memberships instead!

Where is the dignity? Why is it okay to be a fraud and use your grandmother's handicapped placard? It is illegal, by the way, but when was the last time you saw anyone get cited for this kind of fraud? Where is the dignity in weighing 400 lbs. and calling yourself handicapped and not just plain, old, fat? Doctors that allow this fraud should be cited as well. Overweight is not a disability, yet. They're trying to add it to the long list. Why is our society making so many excuses and concessions for overweight people?

And apparently Californians suffer the most from this fraudulent behavior. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, "The number of Californians who have placards that allow them to park their vehicles in spots designated for handicapped drivers has soared in the past decade.

While an aging population and looser rules on who qualifies are two reasons, another major cause appears to be that many who shouldn't have the privilege are abusing the system so that they can park for free on city streets.

While there was 1 placard for every 32 state residents in 1995, by 2005 the ratio was about 1 in 16, the Chronicle says."

The primary benefit of disabled parking placards is the free parking. Parking officials in Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and other cities across California have noticed that the use of disabled placards increases as parking costs rise.

On one side of one block in downtown Oakland -- 17th Street near Broadway, where off-street lots cost $10 per day -- seven of the nine metered spaces were taken by cars with disabled placards one recent morning. The ratio was similar on adjacent streets.

What is the correlation between being disabled and one's ability to pay for parking? Why does being disabled automatically mean they do not pay for parking? I'd love to know the rationale for this form of welfare.

According to the Chronicle, the state Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't keep statistics on all of the fraud cases. But it does know that last year, after a check of state death records, it canceled 25,352 permits after determining that the people to whom they were issued had died.

After four back surgeries I've had my physical battles. Everyday my 45-year-old back hurts. But I am pretty proud of the shape I am in, and the fight I put up. I'm not interested in using disabled parking - au contrair! But one should have a real disability to require the special parking spaces. I'll walk and stay fit.

What Constitutes A Disability? Here it is, straight from the DMV:

You can be certified disabled by a physician if you have limited mobility or if you have one of the following conditions:
Heart or circulatory disease
Lung disease
A diagnosed disease or disorder that significantly limits the use of lower extremities
Specific, documented visual problems, including low vision, partial-sightedness, or blindness
The loss, or loss of the use, of one or both lower extremities or both hands In some cases, including those related to lack of mobility in the hands, arms, or lower extremities, a disability can be certified by a licensed chiropractor.
The blindness of any disabled parking applicant must be certified by a licensed physician or surgeon (eye specialist) or by a licensed optometrist.

I would like to know why blind people are even driving, but hey... never mind.

There is an organization online where you can report fraudulent Handicapped Licence and placard fraud: HandicappedFraud.org. Make a note of the license plate of the abusing vehicle and send it to this organization. You can even send them a photo of the scene.

As usual liberal Anita Creamer misses the point. Her feel-good attempt at a story failed. The driver in her story says he doesn't like to whine, but her story is one big liberal whine. And what she doesn't realize is that she is supporting handicapped placard fraud by condoning and minimizing the flimsy reasons for the plates.

Liars & Cheaters - At Any Expense

Winning to the Dems, justifies how they win; cheating and lying are just means-to-an end tactics.

(Politico.com)In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions, Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.

The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and an unprecedented low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber.

The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.



One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call - a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling “shame” on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own.

When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result.

“Obviously, the Democrats don’t want to stand up against illegal immigration – so much so that they’re willing to cheat in order to win a vote,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said in an e-mail. “They’re desperate – and it shows.”

The official House website did not show a record of the vote as of 1 a.m. Friday.

*********************

Behavior exhibited in the past by leaders such as Chairman Mao, Adolph Hitler, and Stalin and todays Communists - Chavez, and Castro.

Which party communist "leader" gave McNulty the nod?

Another Attempted Judicial Nominee Quagmire

The Senate Judiciary Committee just wrapped up business for the week, and they heard statements from all the members of the committee as to how they were going to vote on the matter of the Leslie Southwick nomination. If you will recall, yesterday, Republican leader Mitch McConnell went through the steps of offering a Sense of the Senate resolution to try and get some kind of a vote on the floor for the 5th Circuit Court nominee that had been languishing in the Judiciary Committee. Predictably, members indicated they were going to vote along party lines, defeating the nomination of Southwick in committee, until California Senator Dianne Feinstein broke ranks and indicated she was going to vote him out.


While she was reading her statement, the camera showed New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the man who last week indicated that President Bush should not get any more judicial picks because he says so, showing an expression that went from stunned to bilious.


The vote just concluded in the committee, and Judge Southwick has been reported out favorably to the full Senate for consideration, 10-9. Senator McConnell, not wasting any time, has already publicly called for quick floor action on Southwick. The Sense of the Senate amendment he offered yesterday has apparently served as a shot across the bow to at least one Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee. Now the fun begins on the Senate floor, where McConnell can really go to work on Senator Reid. Senator Reid, your move. Now that Southwick has been reported to the floor for a vote, you might have trouble getting unanimous consent to ask for the time and temperature to be read aloud.


While the path to the Appellate court for Judge Southwick still has some bumps ahead, the biggest hurdle to his confirmation, approval from a Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee, has now been cleared. Congratulations to the Republican leadership for its persistence, and thanks to Senator Feinstein for looking past the left-wing smear campaign and recognizing the qualifications and accomplishments of the judge and voting appropriately.
(Hugh Hewitt blog)

Schumer's Sewer Mouth

Speaking yesterday at the American Constitution Society's National Convention, Senator Charles Schumer said that the Senate was "duped" and "hoodwinked" by John Roberts' and Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing performances and explained that he would "do everything in [his] power to prevent" the confirmation of another justice like John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Here are some excerpts:

"Although we have only experienced one full term with both Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, it appears that we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed.

After hearing Roberts wax philosophic about judicial modesty at his confirmation hearings, and then reading his calculated decisions furtively defying stare decisis, I can only conclude that we were presented a misleading portrait.

And so, every day, I feel more comfortable with my vote against Chief Justice Roberts.

And every day, I am pained that I didn’t do more to try to block Justice Alito. Every two years, I look back and take stock of my greatest failings and regrets in the past Congress. Without question, my greatest regret in the 109th Congress was not doing more to block Alito. Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed. I should have done a better job; my colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more. . . .

We now have the most conservative Supreme Court in memory. And, as everyone knows, the Justices who are – actuarially speaking – most likely to step down next are the liberal ones.

The Court is, interestingly, at odds with the country. As the Court grows more conservative, the rest of the nation is in the midst of a pendulum swing in the progressive direction.

Unless we are vigilant in our efforts to moderate the Court, that institution will stand in the way of a much-needed and long-overdue swing back to moderation. . . .

[F]or the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this:

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.

They must prove by actions—not words—that they are in the mainstream, rather than the Senate proving that they are not."
Jonathan Adler, The Volokh Conspiracy Blog)

Just a reminder that Chuck Schumer was the ringleader of the appalling circus that the Alito hearings devolved into last year. The made-for-TV antics and bloviating prompted none other than Robert Byrd to take to the floor to condemn the proceedings. (Michelle Malkin)
In addition to Robert's confirmation process, Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation process is already considered to have been one of the most grueling gone through by any Supreme Court nominee. His confirmation proceeded after arm-twisting from Sen. Ted Kennedy forced Mrs. Alito to break down in tears at the judicial hearings, creating a public embarrassment for the Democratic party. The inappropriate behavior, lack of professionalism and frankly embarrassing, idiotic questions that our Congress tossed at the nominees made me hope that it wasn't televised outside of America.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."

Schumer, apparently an untalented artist when it came to Alito, knew just what he was getting with both if you read below. He just didn't have the political capital to fight the nominations. Now he thinks he does, so he's pretending he was duped? What a schmuck! Both nominees answered a lot of questions and in fact, ran circles around the Senate Dems. It isn't Robert's and Alito's fault Schumer wasn't bright enough to keep up. He had everything he needed to fight the nominations more aggressively at the time, he lost.

The Constitution places no burden of proof upon nominees. They are appointed by the President (not recommended, but appointed) with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.

While idiot liberals may try sophomorically to argue that “advice and consent” means a burden of proof upon the nominee, they would be, as always, dead wrong. Advice and consent is the mildest of standards. Where the framers believed a strong burden existed upon one party in order to prevail, they said so.

President Bush may still have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court, since Justice John Paul Stevens is 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74. However, since both justices are pro-abortion and leftist, they are likely, barring ill health or sudden death, to attempt to hold off retirement until the election of a Democratic President. (Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews)

And when just days later, Chief Justice John Roberts ended up in the hospital for a "seizure," some are calling this no coincidence. Yikes, is America going "Communist Russia" with our politics?

Finally, here's a Chuck Schumer flashback, to one of his earlier idiotic tirades against John Roberts. Somebody really needs to take a plunger to Schumer's mouth, because nothing but a lot of raw sewage comes out of it.

New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, began with some observations about Judge Roberts' "troubling" record on "the issue of civil rights." Ah-ha! "Many of us consider racism the nation's poison," he said sternly. And then he dropped the big one: Twenty-five years ago Roberts had inappropriately used the word "amigos" in a memo.

I yield to no one in my disdain for Schumer, but at that moment my heart went out to him. If I'd been president, I'd have declared his mouth a federal disaster area and allocated $200 billion so FEMA could parachute in a reconstruction team to restore his tongue to its previous level of toxicity.

Alas, two days later the watery gush that had transformed Schumer into his own devastated wetland had still not dried up. He'd pretty much abandoned the racism angle of the inappropriate "amigos," though he trotted out some boilerplate about how it reflected the "misguided" and "cramped view of civil rights professed in the early Reagan administration." But by Day Four, he'd moved on to "the question of compassion and humanity," telling the judge that he had grave concerns about "the fullness of your heart.''

And what was Exhibit A for the heartlessness of Roberts? Well, back in the early '80s it seems he wrote this memo containing the word "amigos."

Oh, dear. With enemies like Chuck, who needs amigos? Whatever happened to the party's fearsome forensic skills at "the politics of personal destruction"? Granted, blathering on about how, if the other guy doesn't agree with your views, he must be deficient in "compassion and humanity" is a lot of baloney even by mawkish Dem standards. But, if you're going to twitter about the fullness of somebody's heart, why get Chuck Schumer to play Senator Oprah? He has the shifty air of a mob accountant, even with every intern on his staff holding onions under his eyes. Likewise, sneering at Roberts' life of privilege may be a smart move, but not if you entrust it to Dianne Feinstein, one of the wealthiest women in the galaxy.

But, like Lord Cardigan's 13th Light Dragoons facing the Russian guns at Balaclava, onward they rode into the Valley of Death -- or the Valley of Continuous Cable News Coverage, which boils down to flogging your dead horse through a Valley of Living Death. (Betsy Newmark via Ed Driscoll blog)

I am reprinting Hugh Hewitt's column verbatim, as have nothing to add. he says everything that needs to be said about the crazy, out-of-control and ignorant liberal media.

************************
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Jack Cafferty seizing on the seizure
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 7:35 PM
Posted by Generalissimo.

You usually don’t have to wait very long for the fever swamp to seize upon news and completely overplay their hand. Take the news of the seizure suffered by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The scare for the chief apparently wasn’t serious enough for Wonkette’s liking, a sentiment which should be repulsive to all Americans regardless of political ideology, but that’s not the only reaction that’s outrageous and offensive.

Today on CNN’s Situation Room, The Cafferty File, the regular segment that could just as easily be called Let’s See What The Ill-informed, Lefty New York Crank Thinks, Jack Cafferty offered the following as one of his questions of the hour.

Hi, Wolf. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts released from the Maine hospital where he was taken after suffering a seizure yesterday. Good news, doctors say test results show no cause for concern, diagnosed the seizure as benign, with no apparent damage, and no identifiable cause. But it turns out that Roberts suffered a similar seizure in January of 1993. Senator Arlen Specter says that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee knew about that seizure two years ago, but didn’t think it was significant enough to bring up during Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Say what? Arlen Specter and his colleagues don’t think we the public need to know that the man nominated to be chief justice of the United States is prone to seizures. I wonder how many medical degrees there are on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Consider this, Roberts, like other federal judges who have these jobs for life, are not required to divulge any information about their health or medical conditions, none whatsoever. Just this year, FBI files were released that showed when the late chief justice, William Rehnquist checked into a hospital for treatment of back pain and an addiction to a prescription pain killer, he suffered from hallucinations. One doctor said a then-associate justice tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas, and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him. But the public didn’t know a thing about this. These Supreme Court justices arguably have as much or more influence over all of our lives in America than anyone else in this country. So with that in mind, here’s our question. Should Supreme Court justices be required to disclose their medical conditions?

In a word, no.

There is still something resembling a representative government in this country, with a Constitution that says the United States Senate, duly elected by the residents of all fifty states, shall provide advice and consent. If there is a medical condition that would be deemed disqualifying of government service, that’s technically up to the executive branch to discover in the vetting process, and then up to the Senate in the confirmation process.

The example that Cafferty used in his diatribe was that of a medical episode by Chief Roberts well into his term at the Supreme Court, a medical condition that didn’t exist at the time of his confirmation, unless Cafferty is hinting that the Senate should have probed and disclosed publicly any backaches the Chief might have had as a young person, just in case he someday might get progressively worse and develop additional problems. It’s nonsense.

Chief Roberts had one previous seizure, not exactly what one would consider to be a chronic condition. If he had had a concussion as a child, would that raise concerns about his potential fitness on the Court? What if he ate French fries every day when he was at law school? Is his caloric content and dietary regimen now something that should be disclosed, and given as much weight as his intellectual capacity? Considering the frailty of Justice Ginsburg, does Cafferty and the left really want to go here the next time a Democratic president gets to nominate someone for the Court?

Cafferty’s question is of course inappropriate, and deserves to be ridiculed. John Roberts is the Chief Justice because of a lifetime of extraordinary work in and around the federal judiciary, and his near encyclopedic recall of past Court cases impressed even the most harsh critic in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the end of the confirmation hearing, there was nothing Chuck Schumer had as a reason to scuttle his nomination. There might be some Supreme Court justices that have more credentials than Roberts, but there’s not very many of them.

Once again, it’s nice that The Situation Room has Cafferty on twice an hour, every day, to give voice to the fever swamp of the left, apparently with little or no editorial oversight. I’m still waiting for a conservative to be given the same opportunity on a daily basis to vent unencumbered, without having to share the table with Paul Begala or Donna Brazille to counter every word they say.

I’m also more convinced than ever that the same CNN executives that bring you Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room will bring the same sense of fair play and balance to the GOP YouTube debate next month, and not try to sandbag the Republican candidates with Santa Claus questions…not.

***************

Where's the outrage? The ignorance is blatant and inappropriate. Jack Cafferty should be relieved of his job for this rookie journalism.

When Libs Are In Charge

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Golden Gate Park is littered with thousands of used hypodermic needles. Why? Because the City of San Francisco, in their infinite liberal wisdum, have an annual needle give-away program that costs the city $800,000. Brilliant. And when the druggies use their free needles and get high, they forget to turn their needles back in.

Can you say Duh?

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who has picked up needles in the park and who co-authored the bill allowing them to be sold over the counter, said it's up to the city to keep the parks syringe-free -- either through more cleanups or tighter controls to make sure needles are returned.

"We need to come up with a better system,'' Mirkarimi said.

Oh, it's the City's responsibility, is it?

One idea to deal with the syringe problem came from Homeless Youth Coalition, is to put biohazard boxes in the park where users could drop their needles. A sort of drop-off-box for druggies. I wonder if they will be able to find the used-needle boxes when they get all tooted up? Some in the City have suggested using the restrooms in Golden Gate park for the drop-off-needle-boxes, but that is being met with resistance.

But as park spokeswoman Dennis noted, "Many people are completely against that route. The questions are: 'Do we really want them in the bathrooms? What if a kid popped one open or they were vandalized?' "

Plus, she added, "Some people think it sends the wrong message."

Duh? Do ya think?

This is the leadership we get when Libs are in charge.