Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The UAW golfed. While carmakers soak up $17 billion in taxpayer bailout funds and demand more for their ailing industry, United Auto Workers bosses have wasted tens of millions of their workers' dues on gold-plated resorts and rotten investments. The labor organization's money-losing golf compound is just the tip of the iceberg.
The UAW owns and operates Black Lake Golf Course -- a "championship caliber" course opened in 2000 that's part of a larger "family education center" and retreat nestled in 1,000 acres of property in Onaway, Mich. Spearheaded by former UAW president Steve Yokich, the resort also includes "a beautiful gym with two full-sized basketball courts, an Olympic-size indoor pool, exercise and weight room, table-tennis and pool tables, a sauna, beaches, walking and bike trails, softball and soccer fields and a boat launch ramp." Like everything else we're subsidizing these days, the UAW's playground is a money pit. The Detroit Free Press reported earlier this year that the golf course (valued at $6 million) and education center (valued at $27 million) have together lost $23 million over the past five years. While membership in the union has plummeted, the UAW retains assets worth $1.2 billion.
Curious about how the UAW will be spending my money and yours, I sifted through the union's most recent annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (which you can find at unionreports.gov). Who knew hitting the links was so central to the business of making cars?
In May and November 2007, the UAW forked over nearly $53,000 for union staff meetings at the Thousand Hills Golf Resort in Branson, Mo. In September 2007, the UAW dropped another $5,000 at the Lakes of Taylor Golf Club in Taylor, Mich., and another $9,000 at the Thunderbird Hills Golf Club in Huron, Ohio. Another bill for $5,772 showed up for the Branson, Mo., golf resort. On Oct. 26, 2007, the union spent $5,000 on another "golf outing" in Detroit. In May and June 2007, UAW bosses spent nearly $11,000 on a golf tournament and related expenses at the Hawthorne Hill Country Club in Lima, Ohio. And in April 2007, the UAW spent $12,000 for a charity golf sponsorship in Dearborn, Mich. In August 2007, the UAW paid nearly $10,000 to its for-profit Black Lake golf course operator, UBG, for something itemized as "Golf 2007 Summer School." UBG had nearly $4.4 million worth of outstanding loans from the union. Another for-profit entity that runs the education center, UBE, had nearly $20 million in outstanding loans from the union.
Perhaps, the union bosses might argue, they need all this fresh air and exercise to clear their heads in order to make wise financial decisions on behalf of their workers. If only. UAW management has proven to be a money-squandering corruptocracy with faux blue-collar trim. Former UAW head Yokich, who built the Black Lake black hole, is also responsible for bidding $9.75 million of workers' funds in a botched bid to purchase the gated La Mancha Resort Village in Palm Springs. The 100-room walled resort with spas, poolside massages and a "croquet lawn lit for night use" was on the verge of bankruptcy with $5.2 million in debt. Despite outrage from rank-and-file union members who thought one gold-plated golf resort was quite enough, leaders defended the La Mancha bid because, as union spokesman Paul Krell put it, "'You can never tell if you are going to become snowbound." Always putting the workers first!
That deal didn't go through, but the UAW's quixotic dalliance with a failed airline did. In February 2000, the union poured $14.7 million into Pro Air, a Detroit start-up airline that, well, didn't get off the ground. Plagued by safety problems, the feds shuttered the company less than a year later. The union didn't fare much better in its venture with a liberal radio network. In 1996, union heavies got the bright idea to invest $5 million in United Broadcasting Network, a left-wing precursor to Air America that the UAW hoped to use to spread its corporate-bashing propaganda. They shelled out for a $2 million, state-of-the-art studio in Detroit and incurred years of losses of a reported $75,000 a month before closing the network down in 2003.
And while the UAW and carmakers cry poor, they've operated massive joint funds for years that have paid for lavish items such as multi-million-dollar NASCAR racer sponsorships and Las Vegas junkets. The dire economic downturn hasn't changed the behavior of profligate union bigs at the front office or the shop floor. Local Detroit TV station WDIV recently caught local UAW bosses Ron Seroka and Jim Modzelewski -- both of whom make six-figure salaries -- on tape squandering thousands of hours of overtime on such important labor security matters as on-the-clock beer runs and bowling tournaments.
At least the groveling Big Three CEOs gave up their corporate jets. Where's the public flogging for the greed-infested UAW fat cats reaching into our pockets to keep them afloat?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Clinton Donors Are Massive Conflict of Interest
Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it is clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.
Compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.
Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East. How can a secretary of state possibly be impartial in conflicts involving Israel when her husband has gotten tens of millions of dollars from Arabian governments and high-ranking people. Specifically, Clinton got:
Between $10 million and $25 million from:
-- The government of Saudi Arabia
Between $1 million and $5 million from:
-- Friends of Saudi Arabia
-- The Dubai Foundation
-- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid
-- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
-- Former Lebanon Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares
-- The government of Kuwait
-- The government of Qatar
-- The government of Oman
-- The government of Brunei
-- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates
He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.
Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return on their investment. Will that return now come with the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state?
After all, the next secretary of state will be called upon to mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East as her first assignment. How can Hillary Clinton undertake to do so impartially when her husband's library and foundation -- over which he has total control -- have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?
The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."
Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.
In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.
Given the complexities of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.
One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million. And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign. Corporate bailout recipients and wanna-be recipients donated to the Clinton fund. They include: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors.
And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $450,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.
How could a United States senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this kind of scale? And how could we have almost elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed? And how on earth can a secretary of state function with these conflicts hanging over her head?
Compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.
Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East. How can a secretary of state possibly be impartial in conflicts involving Israel when her husband has gotten tens of millions of dollars from Arabian governments and high-ranking people. Specifically, Clinton got:
Between $10 million and $25 million from:
-- The government of Saudi Arabia
Between $1 million and $5 million from:
-- Friends of Saudi Arabia
-- The Dubai Foundation
-- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid
-- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
-- Former Lebanon Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares
-- The government of Kuwait
-- The government of Qatar
-- The government of Oman
-- The government of Brunei
-- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates
He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.
Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return on their investment. Will that return now come with the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state?
After all, the next secretary of state will be called upon to mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East as her first assignment. How can Hillary Clinton undertake to do so impartially when her husband's library and foundation -- over which he has total control -- have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?
The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."
Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.
In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.
Given the complexities of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.
One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million. And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign. Corporate bailout recipients and wanna-be recipients donated to the Clinton fund. They include: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors.
And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $450,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.
How could a United States senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this kind of scale? And how could we have almost elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed? And how on earth can a secretary of state function with these conflicts hanging over her head?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Enables "Culture of Corruption"
Even as the country reels from the seamy details of the Blagojevich scandal, Nancy Pelosi is standing firmly by her man, Charlie Rangel, resisting any effort to remove him from his committee chairmanship -- despite credible allegations against him of tax avoidance and other chicanery.
Neither party does as well as it ought in prospectively tossing out wrongdoers. But once credible allegations of wrongdoing are tendered, Republicans do tend to clean house, where Democrats rally 'round (some of the difference may be attributable to the way the press covers one party's scandals vs. the other's, as noted here).
It's remarkable that Nancy Pelosi would rather defend Charlie Rangel's prerogatives than clean House. That, coupled with the irony of Rangel continuing to head the committee that writes legislation raising our taxes -- even as it appears he may have declined to pay his own -- seems to be sending a message that would have made Leona Helmsley proud: Paying taxes is just for the "little people" . . . or those not fortunate enough to hold government office.
Is this really the way the Democrats want to kick off their overwhelming majority session?
Neither party does as well as it ought in prospectively tossing out wrongdoers. But once credible allegations of wrongdoing are tendered, Republicans do tend to clean house, where Democrats rally 'round (some of the difference may be attributable to the way the press covers one party's scandals vs. the other's, as noted here).
It's remarkable that Nancy Pelosi would rather defend Charlie Rangel's prerogatives than clean House. That, coupled with the irony of Rangel continuing to head the committee that writes legislation raising our taxes -- even as it appears he may have declined to pay his own -- seems to be sending a message that would have made Leona Helmsley proud: Paying taxes is just for the "little people" . . . or those not fortunate enough to hold government office.
Is this really the way the Democrats want to kick off their overwhelming majority session?
The Democratic Culture of Corruption
Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi can stop clucking now. For the last three years, Democratic leaders cheered GOP ethics woes. Dean accused Republicans of making "their culture of corruption the norm." Pelosi touted cleanliness as a liberal virtue. But with the eye-popping pay-for-play and bribery case against Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich topping a year of nationwide Democratic scandals, the corruption chickens are coming home to roost.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called the breadth and depth of charges against Blagojevich and his Democratic Chief of Staff John Harris "staggering." That's an understatement. Anything that breathed was a potential shakedown target. It's the Chicago way. Democrat Blago's so dirty he'd hit up a children's hospital for money. Oh, wait. He's accused of doing that, too.
Democrat Blago allegedly conspired to use his power to appoint President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat as a bargaining chip for financial payment. He explored trading on that authority for an appointment as Health and Human Services secretary or as an ambassador or for installment in a cushy union position. (He discussed his trading scheme with an unnamed "SEIU (Service Employees International Union) official" and unnamed "various consultants" in Washington.)
According to the criminal complaint released yesterday, he also tried to leverage his influence over the sale of Wrigley Field (owned by Tribune media company) in an attempt to get Chicago Tribune editorial writers who called for his impeachment fired -- which illustrates the very perils of media/government entanglements I warned about in my newspaper bailout column last week. His wife, Patricia Blagojevich, was apparently in on the thuggery, too. Taking a break from her first lady duties advocating "on behalf of women and children," she is heard in taped discussions about the Chicago Tribune/Wrigley Field deal telling a governor's aide "to hold up that f**king Cubs sh*t. … F**k them."
Pelosi, champion of women as political cleaner-uppers, was unavailable for comment.
Fitzgerald says President-elect Obama was not implicated in the plethora of charges against Democrats Blago and Harris. The national media went out of their way to absolve him, too. But declaring Team Obama's hands clean -- especially with Blago crony and indicted Obama donor Tony Rezko in the middle of it all -- is premature. (And if you're wondering why I keep putting "Democrat" in front of the accused corruptocrats, it's because the mainstream newspapers can't seem to remember to identify their party prominently the way they do when Republicans are nabbed.)
Chicago's Fox affiliate reports that Obama Chief of Staff and Chicago hometown heavy Rahm Emanuel was the catalyst for the Blago takedown and suggests Rahm-bo tipped off the feds. If so, this raises more questions than it answers about who on the transition team may have talked to Blago and his shakedown artists about what and when. Needless to say, if it were the Republican Bush administration tied to the Blago bust, the White House press corps would be frothing like a pack of Michael Vick's pit bulls.
Democrats and the media can no longer rest on the old rationalization that Blago is an exception to the "we're cleaner than thou" rule. 2008 was the year of Democratic Reps. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Charlie "Sweetheart Deals" Rangel, and former Detroit Mayor Kwame "Text Me" Kilpatrick. It was the year Democratic Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson got caught stuffing bribes from an FBI informant down her shirt. It was the year 12 Democratic leaders and staffers in Pennsylvania's state Capitol were stung in a massive corruption scandal involving cash, sex and abuse of public office. And it was the year of multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandals at Democratic satellite offices of ACORN and the SEIU.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called the breadth and depth of charges against Blagojevich and his Democratic Chief of Staff John Harris "staggering." That's an understatement. Anything that breathed was a potential shakedown target. It's the Chicago way. Democrat Blago's so dirty he'd hit up a children's hospital for money. Oh, wait. He's accused of doing that, too.
Democrat Blago allegedly conspired to use his power to appoint President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat as a bargaining chip for financial payment. He explored trading on that authority for an appointment as Health and Human Services secretary or as an ambassador or for installment in a cushy union position. (He discussed his trading scheme with an unnamed "SEIU (Service Employees International Union) official" and unnamed "various consultants" in Washington.)
According to the criminal complaint released yesterday, he also tried to leverage his influence over the sale of Wrigley Field (owned by Tribune media company) in an attempt to get Chicago Tribune editorial writers who called for his impeachment fired -- which illustrates the very perils of media/government entanglements I warned about in my newspaper bailout column last week. His wife, Patricia Blagojevich, was apparently in on the thuggery, too. Taking a break from her first lady duties advocating "on behalf of women and children," she is heard in taped discussions about the Chicago Tribune/Wrigley Field deal telling a governor's aide "to hold up that f**king Cubs sh*t. … F**k them."
Pelosi, champion of women as political cleaner-uppers, was unavailable for comment.
Fitzgerald says President-elect Obama was not implicated in the plethora of charges against Democrats Blago and Harris. The national media went out of their way to absolve him, too. But declaring Team Obama's hands clean -- especially with Blago crony and indicted Obama donor Tony Rezko in the middle of it all -- is premature. (And if you're wondering why I keep putting "Democrat" in front of the accused corruptocrats, it's because the mainstream newspapers can't seem to remember to identify their party prominently the way they do when Republicans are nabbed.)
Chicago's Fox affiliate reports that Obama Chief of Staff and Chicago hometown heavy Rahm Emanuel was the catalyst for the Blago takedown and suggests Rahm-bo tipped off the feds. If so, this raises more questions than it answers about who on the transition team may have talked to Blago and his shakedown artists about what and when. Needless to say, if it were the Republican Bush administration tied to the Blago bust, the White House press corps would be frothing like a pack of Michael Vick's pit bulls.
Democrats and the media can no longer rest on the old rationalization that Blago is an exception to the "we're cleaner than thou" rule. 2008 was the year of Democratic Reps. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Charlie "Sweetheart Deals" Rangel, and former Detroit Mayor Kwame "Text Me" Kilpatrick. It was the year Democratic Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson got caught stuffing bribes from an FBI informant down her shirt. It was the year 12 Democratic leaders and staffers in Pennsylvania's state Capitol were stung in a massive corruption scandal involving cash, sex and abuse of public office. And it was the year of multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandals at Democratic satellite offices of ACORN and the SEIU.
Rangel's Problems Dog Democrats Article
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Charles Rangel, the charismatic, powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, spoke grandly at a news conference this week about the need to fund urban projects and keep the nation competitive. Then the New York Democrat was chased down the hall by reporters demanding to know whether he was going to temporarily give up his chairmanship over ethics allegations.
"I don't see what purpose that would serve," Rep. Rangel said. "I don't think reporters should be in the position to remove chairmen, not even temporarily, especially when the reporting is false."
The exchange highlighted the danger for congressional Democrats that Rep. Rangel's problems could be a distraction as they return to Washington this week and prepare for a bigger majority. Rep. Rangel's plight creates a discordant note as the party seeks to enact sweeping overhauls. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi further roiled the waters recently by suggesting the Ethics Committee would quickly wrap up its investigation of Rep. Rangel, prompting Republicans to charge that she was trying to manipulate the process.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Rep. Charles Rangel is under investigation by the House ethics panel over renting apartments at below-market rates, among other things.
Rep. Rangel has been accused of, among other things, not paying taxes on rent from a Dominican Republic beach house, renting several New York apartments at below-market rates, and, most recently, doing favors for a donor to a school named after him.
He has denied any willful wrongdoing, and has asked the Ethics Committee to investigate the first two allegations. The committee announced Tuesday that it was expanding the inquiry to examine the third allegation.
The party has closed ranks around the veteran, and no Democrats have called on Rep. Rangel to step down.
During the recent congressional campaign, Mark Begich, the Democratic Senate candidate in Alaska, returned contributions he had received from Rep. Rangel. The tight Alaska race, against Sen. Ted Stevens, hinged on allegations of corruption and abuse of power after Sen. Stevens, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, was convicted of lying about gifts he had received. Two Democratic House candidates also returned Rep. Rangel's money.
As the new Democrat-led Congress gets set to convene, the allegations are an unwelcome intrusion for the party, which is hoping to show the country it is governing under a banner of change. "I think it's a big problem for them," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "Rangel's ethics problems get worse on a nearly daily basis."
Rep. Pelosi's recent comment that she had "been assured" the Ethics Committee would finish its report by Jan. 3 prompted questions from Republicans about how she knew the committee's schedule when its work is intended to be confidential. Critics have said that she either improperly received information about the committee's inquiry or was trying to pressure its members to wrap up their investigation hastily. "How is it that she knows it will only take one more month?" said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), one of Rep. Rangel's most outspoken critics.
Rep. Pelosi's office has said she wasn't manipulating the process but was simply relying on the committee's history in assuming it would finish work by the end of the current Congress.
Rep. Rangel, 78 years old, was first elected from his Harlem district in 1970 and has become a Capitol Hill institution. A large man with slicked-back hair and a gravelly voice, he is well-liked by colleagues and given to colorful comments.
When the Democrats captured the House in 2006, Rep. Rangel became one of its most powerful lawmakers. Because it oversees tax policy, his committee is among the most sought-after in Congress.
The New York Times and New York Post have reported in recent months that Rep. Rangel occupies several rent-controlled apartments in New York; that he failed to report rental income from a vacation home; that he took a tax break for primary residences on a Washington, D.C., home while he also had a rent-stabilized apartment in New York that required a similar residency claim; and that he worked to preserve a tax loophole that benefited a company at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million for the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service.
House Republicans, joined by several newspapers and watchdog groups, have asked Rep. Rangel to step down from his chairmanship while the Ethics Committee is investigating.
Rep. Rangel doesn't appear in jeopardy of losing his gavel. Even if the Ethics Committee concludes he violated House rules, the panel is known for light punishments. A Pelosi spokesman said nothing she has seen suggests he should give up his gavel, though she is awaiting the report.
Minnesota Ballots: Land of 10,000 Fakes
What is the point of having a hand recount of ballots in the Minnesota Senate race if the Democratic secretary of state is going to use the election night totals in precincts where it will benefit Democrat Al Franken?
Either the hand recount produces a better, more accurate count, or there was no point to the state spending roughly $100,000 to conduct the hand recount in the first place.
But that is exactly what the George Soros-supported secretary of state has agreed to do in the case of a Dinkytown precinct near the University of Minnesota. The hand recount of the liberal precinct produced 133 fewer ballots than the original count on election night and, more important, 46 fewer votes for Franken.
So he's proposing to defer to the election night total over the recount tally.
There are no "missing" ballots in Dinkytown. Ballots were run through the voting machines twice on election night. Last week, Minneapolis elections director Cindy Reichert explained they already knew for a fact that 129 ballots had been run through machines twice on election night, which pretty closely matched the 133 allegedly "missing" ballots.
As Reichert said, "There are human errors that are made on Election Day." According to an article in the Dec. 2, 2008, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Reichert was "confident that that's what happened" and that "we have all the ballot envelopes here."
But after relentless badgering by the Franken campaign, now Reichert isn't so sure anymore. So the new plan is for Minneapolis to submit both the election night total from Dinkytown -- which gives Franken an extra 46 votes -- and the meticulous hand recount total, which does not, and allow the canvassing board to decide which to use.
The 129 ballots that Reichert said were run through the machines twice on election night could end up being counted twice.
In all other precincts, the initial tallies from election night are treated as highly unreliable rough approximations of the actual vote, while the results from the hand recount are regarded as the absolute truth.
Only in the Dinkytown precinct, where the election night total gave Franken an additional 46 votes, does the state treat the hand recount as an error-prone joke compared to the highly accurate election night vote.
The Soros-supported Secretary of State Mark Ritchie explains that there is "precedent" for counting election night totals rather than the recount totals. If so, how about using the election night tally from some of the precincts that gave Coleman more votes on election night?
Highly implausible, post-election "corrections" in just three Democratic precincts -- Two Harbors, Mountain Iron and Partridge Township -- cost Coleman 446 votes. But I note that Ritchie doesn't propose deferring to the election night totals there.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed the 436-vote "correction" in Franken's favor to "exhausted county officials." Were they more exhausted in those three precincts than in Dinkytown?
Either the post-election tally is better than the election night tally or it isn't. Cherry-picking only those election night results Ritchie likes isn't an attempt to get an accurate vote-count; it's an attempt to get a Democrat in the U.S. Senate.
If Minnesota is going to accept the election night tally from Dinkytown, why not from any of these precincts where Coleman lost votes under far more suspicious circumstances? And why are guys named "Al" always caught trying to steal elections?
Wholly apart from the outrageous inconsistency of deciding that some election night tallies trump the hand recount and some don't, Franken's miraculous acquisition of more than 500 votes from heavily Democratic precincts in post-election "corrections" wasn't believable on its face -- and that's even accounting for the fact that Franken voters tend to be stupider than average and therefore more likely to fill out their ballots incorrectly.
Corrections in all other 2008 races combined led to only 482 changes in the entire state of Minnesota. The idea that typo "corrections" in one single contest from only three precincts, out of more than 4,000 precincts, could lead to 436 "corrections" benefiting Franken is manifestly absurd.
Ritchie's proposal to accept the election night count from one precinct is a stunning admission that even he doesn't believe a hand recount is any more accurate than the original election night tally.
To be sure, endlessly recounting ballots doesn't yield more accurate results, it just creates different results. There is no reason to think a tabulation is more accurate because it occurred later in time.
But then why have a recount at all? If the state of Minnesota is going to spend $100,000 and endless man-hours to conduct a meticulous hand recount on the grounds that it is more accurate, the state ought to at least pretend to believe in its own recount.
Election recounts are never intended to get more accurate results. They are simply opportunities for Democrats to manufacture new votes and steal elections.
And once again, Republicans are asleep at the wheel while another close election is being openly stolen by the man whose contributions to western civilization include the "Planet of The Enormous Hooters" sketch on "SNL."
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Most Overlooked News Story of 2008
Have you noticed lately that mainstream media are giving less attention to the war in Iraq, especially concerning our troops' progress? Who doesn't recognize by now that we live in a time in which there's little, if any, publishing space for positive military stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
CNSNews.com recently reported: "There were only two front-page New York Times stories that mentioned 'Iraq' in the headline in October 2008 -- there were 11 in October 2006 and 17 in October 2004. The Washington Post ran four front-page stories that had headlines using the word 'Iraq' in October 2008 -- in October 2006 there were 17 stories, and 27 stories in October 2004."
In July, The Times, a newspaper in the U.K., ran a column that commended American and Iraqi forces in making significant progress in Mosul, Iraq, and reaching the "final purge" of al-Qaida in Iraq. Investor's Business Daily echoed the same sentiment but sharply criticized American mainstream media for completely overlooking that military success. The media indictment became so widespread on the Internet that it left the global audience wondering whether such an oversight was an urban legend.
TruthOrFiction.com, an urban legend-debunking Web site, affirmed this media Mosul omission by saying: "At the time of our investigation, US media reports of this were hard to find but we did manage to find a report of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's announcement on the Fox News site. For the most part, it appears the mainstream media missed this one."
Here's what they missed:
During the surge in 2007 and early 2008, U.S. forces intensified efforts in Mosul by pushing out into small-neighborhood bases -- a strategy that proved successful in routing insurgents from other large cities in the country.
In February 2008, Col. Michael A. Bills, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, predicted that U.S. and Iraqi troops would be in full control of the city by the end of July.
By March 2008, Brig. Gen. Tony Thomas, second in command of coalition forces in northern Iraq, already was reporting: "So again, we can go anywhere we want to in Mosul and we're now forcing the enemy -- boxing them in, if you will -- into areas that they otherwise had free play in the city. So we've seized the initiative, and we're slowly but surely eliminating their toehold in the city."
By June 2008, this city of 2 million people had 14 Iraqi army battalions, 10,000 Iraqi police and 4,000 coalition force soldiers. And they were utilizing the "Sons of Iraq" (paid volunteers by the U.S.) to control neighborhoods better. And it was working.
Despite the fact that July 2008 saw an increase in insurgent activity, Lt. Col. Robert Molinari reported that it was really "nothing out of the norm." A senior Iraqi commander added: "We've limited their movements with checkpoints. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding." American and Iraqi forces clearly were getting the upper hand, demonstrated then through the dip in the number of U.S. casualties to the lowest number since the start of the war -- 11 deaths in the entire country.
Overall, attacks in Mosul and in Ninevah province have declined from 50 a day at the start of the year to the present number of 10 a day -- almost the same as the number was in 2006. Open street fighting is a rarity. That is why Maj. Ra'ad Jalal, an Iraqi officer, said: "The security situation in Mosul is improving. It's safe here now. I'd be happy to come here even without all of this protection."
Of course, assaults continue. But they don't diminish the momentous progress. Capt. Hunter Bowers, who presently is serving on the battlefield in Mosul, summarized his upbeat thoughts about their progress to me by e-mail Monday: "We have had some great success here and a lot of it has to do with the integration of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police."
Unfortunately, instead of reporting these substantial advances being made in Mosul, mainstream American media have chosen to ignore them, favoring to continue to report only negative news from the war zones or repeated jabs by Democratic leaders about the unfounded grounds for the war. (I've been sadly amazed and gravely amused how often progress in war is played out not on the battlefield, but in the backrooms of news broadcasting studios.)
With another Pearl Harbor anniversary approaching and in a Christmas season when the sacrifice of our troops is accentuated by their absence from loved ones, it's fitting to honor, not overlook, those who fight for freedom. Find ways to commemorate their courage and commitment. Admonish others to watch positive and honorable tributes to our service members, such as those on the Military Channel and those created by director Mike Slee of Zaragoza Pictures, a documentary filmmaker whose mission also is to capture the progress of our troops -- including those in Mosul.
The fact is American coalition forces have reduced the number of al-Qaida fighters in Iraq from roughly 12,000 to 1,200, have cornered them in Mosul, and are successfully gaining the upper hand on their remaining strongholds. That is why Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summarized, "Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al-Qaida." In fact, he says that security is so good around the country that for the first time, it "smells like victory," adding that next year, as many as 20,000 Marines currently deployed will return home.
And just in time for President-elect Barack Obama to begin his withdrawal of our troops -- an act that likely will be a signal broadcasting victory in Iraq and likely will earn the new commander in chief credit for military success. Now there's a 2009 news story that America's mainstream media will be guaranteed to run over and over.
CNSNews.com recently reported: "There were only two front-page New York Times stories that mentioned 'Iraq' in the headline in October 2008 -- there were 11 in October 2006 and 17 in October 2004. The Washington Post ran four front-page stories that had headlines using the word 'Iraq' in October 2008 -- in October 2006 there were 17 stories, and 27 stories in October 2004."
In July, The Times, a newspaper in the U.K., ran a column that commended American and Iraqi forces in making significant progress in Mosul, Iraq, and reaching the "final purge" of al-Qaida in Iraq. Investor's Business Daily echoed the same sentiment but sharply criticized American mainstream media for completely overlooking that military success. The media indictment became so widespread on the Internet that it left the global audience wondering whether such an oversight was an urban legend.
TruthOrFiction.com, an urban legend-debunking Web site, affirmed this media Mosul omission by saying: "At the time of our investigation, US media reports of this were hard to find but we did manage to find a report of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's announcement on the Fox News site. For the most part, it appears the mainstream media missed this one."
Here's what they missed:
During the surge in 2007 and early 2008, U.S. forces intensified efforts in Mosul by pushing out into small-neighborhood bases -- a strategy that proved successful in routing insurgents from other large cities in the country.
In February 2008, Col. Michael A. Bills, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, predicted that U.S. and Iraqi troops would be in full control of the city by the end of July.
By March 2008, Brig. Gen. Tony Thomas, second in command of coalition forces in northern Iraq, already was reporting: "So again, we can go anywhere we want to in Mosul and we're now forcing the enemy -- boxing them in, if you will -- into areas that they otherwise had free play in the city. So we've seized the initiative, and we're slowly but surely eliminating their toehold in the city."
By June 2008, this city of 2 million people had 14 Iraqi army battalions, 10,000 Iraqi police and 4,000 coalition force soldiers. And they were utilizing the "Sons of Iraq" (paid volunteers by the U.S.) to control neighborhoods better. And it was working.
Despite the fact that July 2008 saw an increase in insurgent activity, Lt. Col. Robert Molinari reported that it was really "nothing out of the norm." A senior Iraqi commander added: "We've limited their movements with checkpoints. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding." American and Iraqi forces clearly were getting the upper hand, demonstrated then through the dip in the number of U.S. casualties to the lowest number since the start of the war -- 11 deaths in the entire country.
Overall, attacks in Mosul and in Ninevah province have declined from 50 a day at the start of the year to the present number of 10 a day -- almost the same as the number was in 2006. Open street fighting is a rarity. That is why Maj. Ra'ad Jalal, an Iraqi officer, said: "The security situation in Mosul is improving. It's safe here now. I'd be happy to come here even without all of this protection."
Of course, assaults continue. But they don't diminish the momentous progress. Capt. Hunter Bowers, who presently is serving on the battlefield in Mosul, summarized his upbeat thoughts about their progress to me by e-mail Monday: "We have had some great success here and a lot of it has to do with the integration of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police."
Unfortunately, instead of reporting these substantial advances being made in Mosul, mainstream American media have chosen to ignore them, favoring to continue to report only negative news from the war zones or repeated jabs by Democratic leaders about the unfounded grounds for the war. (I've been sadly amazed and gravely amused how often progress in war is played out not on the battlefield, but in the backrooms of news broadcasting studios.)
With another Pearl Harbor anniversary approaching and in a Christmas season when the sacrifice of our troops is accentuated by their absence from loved ones, it's fitting to honor, not overlook, those who fight for freedom. Find ways to commemorate their courage and commitment. Admonish others to watch positive and honorable tributes to our service members, such as those on the Military Channel and those created by director Mike Slee of Zaragoza Pictures, a documentary filmmaker whose mission also is to capture the progress of our troops -- including those in Mosul.
The fact is American coalition forces have reduced the number of al-Qaida fighters in Iraq from roughly 12,000 to 1,200, have cornered them in Mosul, and are successfully gaining the upper hand on their remaining strongholds. That is why Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summarized, "Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al-Qaida." In fact, he says that security is so good around the country that for the first time, it "smells like victory," adding that next year, as many as 20,000 Marines currently deployed will return home.
And just in time for President-elect Barack Obama to begin his withdrawal of our troops -- an act that likely will be a signal broadcasting victory in Iraq and likely will earn the new commander in chief credit for military success. Now there's a 2009 news story that America's mainstream media will be guaranteed to run over and over.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Forget Santa! Obama's Coming to Town
Forget about Christmas! Obama is coming to Washington and a $500-700 billion stimulus package is going to be wrapped and ready for passage! With the Bush administration's help, financial institutions are already getting their funds. The auto industry is next in line, and with more money for the taking, cities, states, companies and citizens are lining up to compete for a share of the pie!
Why should you be left out! You too should be able to grab your share from Santa’s bag! Here are ten sure-fire tips on how you can be bailed out of your debt. Hit-or-miss approaches aren't sufficient. This is your sure-fire strategy to join the coming Barack Obama gravy train.
1. If you want God to speak to you through a lottery, you have to buy a ticket. If you want an Obama bailout, you have to get in line! Don't wait until there’s no money left in Washington. As always, the early bird gets the worm…and the federal money! Start complaining now!
2. Now, if you want a handout, you can't be working! Quiting sounds extreme, but, with any luck, this bailout could pay better! The unemployed move to the front of the line, and you certainly don't want to be one of the working fools who will be stuck paying the tab!
3. To build a good case, stop paying your mortgage! You can't claim poverty when you're up-to-date on your house payments. Why should you be paying your full payment when, with a little pending foreclosure embellishment, you can get your mortgage renegotiated and have the government pay the difference.
4. Start weaving "hope," "change" and "middle class" into your vocabulary to help you connect with the Obama people you'll have to win over along the way. Put a smiley face at the bottom of all your forms with the statement—"Obama is the change we can finally believe in; he's our hope for the middle class to share in the American Dream!"
5. It shouldn't matter, but contributing to Obama's campaign can't hurt. Don't worry; no matter who you voted for, you contributed! The financial industry was the number one source of funds for Obama's campaign. Since your tax money has funded their bailout, you and I are part owners of the preferred stock the government got in return. So, let them know, as a contributor, you expect better treatment.
6. If your case is a bit flimsy, add a tear or two to your interviews. Democrats value emotion over reason. Don't lose control; you want funds, not pity! Just let them know that the funds you set aside for your children's education is gone. OK, so you only had $10 in savings, but it is gone! It's the old "baby needs shoes" gambit, but now baby needs shoes, healthcare, preschool and a college education fund! If you don't ask, you don't get!
7. Throw in a little environmental sensitivity. Let them know that because of the recession, you can't afford your organically grown vegetables. Tell them your limited budget has forced you to feed your children hamburgers! Let them know that you're losing sleep over the fact that your purchase of such animal products is contributing to America's growing carbon footprint and to the increase in cow flatulents in the atmosphere. Just keep saying, "You don't want to do anything to make global warming worse!"
8. Express your joy that a black American of mixed race has finally been elected President. Let them know that your family's mixed ancestry need no longer be an embarrassment, but a badge of honor. They'll be too uncomfortable to ask you what that means, and it just might earn you affirmative action consideration. With any luck, there might be a mule and 40 acres of land in your future!
9. Mention that in coming across the border as a child, you never realized what a great country America really was. Enough said. You certainly went over some border somewhere, and America always looks better in comparison. Just know that if they suspect that you might be an illegal immigrant, they'll give you anything you want. Don't risk a bad Spanish accent; just say that you're so glad your family made you learn "good English!"
10. Now, if you're feeling guilty about any part of this strategy, don't worry! Ethics are all relative, and you can’t let doubts about your integrity and character get in the way of your needs. Besides, self-reliance is overrated, and the work-ethic requires work! Remember, it takes a village-a village of givers and takers! Be the best taker you can be and be proud of it. After all, the rich probably cheated to get their money, and now it's your turn to get yours!
With these helpful hints, you're sure to move to the front of the line. Getting something for nothing will feel good for awhile. On the surface, people will pretend to care about you. You'll get funds, no respect and a lot of government interference in your life. But don't let petty gossip and loss of liberty get in your way. A final note: The Surgeon General warns that using these tips may be hazardous to your career, mental and spiritual health and a disaster to the country you love.
Why should you be left out! You too should be able to grab your share from Santa’s bag! Here are ten sure-fire tips on how you can be bailed out of your debt. Hit-or-miss approaches aren't sufficient. This is your sure-fire strategy to join the coming Barack Obama gravy train.
1. If you want God to speak to you through a lottery, you have to buy a ticket. If you want an Obama bailout, you have to get in line! Don't wait until there’s no money left in Washington. As always, the early bird gets the worm…and the federal money! Start complaining now!
2. Now, if you want a handout, you can't be working! Quiting sounds extreme, but, with any luck, this bailout could pay better! The unemployed move to the front of the line, and you certainly don't want to be one of the working fools who will be stuck paying the tab!
3. To build a good case, stop paying your mortgage! You can't claim poverty when you're up-to-date on your house payments. Why should you be paying your full payment when, with a little pending foreclosure embellishment, you can get your mortgage renegotiated and have the government pay the difference.
4. Start weaving "hope," "change" and "middle class" into your vocabulary to help you connect with the Obama people you'll have to win over along the way. Put a smiley face at the bottom of all your forms with the statement—"Obama is the change we can finally believe in; he's our hope for the middle class to share in the American Dream!"
5. It shouldn't matter, but contributing to Obama's campaign can't hurt. Don't worry; no matter who you voted for, you contributed! The financial industry was the number one source of funds for Obama's campaign. Since your tax money has funded their bailout, you and I are part owners of the preferred stock the government got in return. So, let them know, as a contributor, you expect better treatment.
6. If your case is a bit flimsy, add a tear or two to your interviews. Democrats value emotion over reason. Don't lose control; you want funds, not pity! Just let them know that the funds you set aside for your children's education is gone. OK, so you only had $10 in savings, but it is gone! It's the old "baby needs shoes" gambit, but now baby needs shoes, healthcare, preschool and a college education fund! If you don't ask, you don't get!
7. Throw in a little environmental sensitivity. Let them know that because of the recession, you can't afford your organically grown vegetables. Tell them your limited budget has forced you to feed your children hamburgers! Let them know that you're losing sleep over the fact that your purchase of such animal products is contributing to America's growing carbon footprint and to the increase in cow flatulents in the atmosphere. Just keep saying, "You don't want to do anything to make global warming worse!"
8. Express your joy that a black American of mixed race has finally been elected President. Let them know that your family's mixed ancestry need no longer be an embarrassment, but a badge of honor. They'll be too uncomfortable to ask you what that means, and it just might earn you affirmative action consideration. With any luck, there might be a mule and 40 acres of land in your future!
9. Mention that in coming across the border as a child, you never realized what a great country America really was. Enough said. You certainly went over some border somewhere, and America always looks better in comparison. Just know that if they suspect that you might be an illegal immigrant, they'll give you anything you want. Don't risk a bad Spanish accent; just say that you're so glad your family made you learn "good English!"
10. Now, if you're feeling guilty about any part of this strategy, don't worry! Ethics are all relative, and you can’t let doubts about your integrity and character get in the way of your needs. Besides, self-reliance is overrated, and the work-ethic requires work! Remember, it takes a village-a village of givers and takers! Be the best taker you can be and be proud of it. After all, the rich probably cheated to get their money, and now it's your turn to get yours!
With these helpful hints, you're sure to move to the front of the line. Getting something for nothing will feel good for awhile. On the surface, people will pretend to care about you. You'll get funds, no respect and a lot of government interference in your life. But don't let petty gossip and loss of liberty get in your way. A final note: The Surgeon General warns that using these tips may be hazardous to your career, mental and spiritual health and a disaster to the country you love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
