Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Richard Blumenthal destroying business big and small, now he wants CVS

The obvious point here is that currently Connecticut is not business friendly, nor has it been in about ten years. CVS, a corporation in the private sector is being attacked by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. They want to end a voluntary, I stress the word voluntary here and is not mandated by any State law. Fearing a threat to a loss of business, what does Richard Blumenthal do? Rather than work with the company to find out why it wants to end it's Health Pass discount program, he demands a bunch of paperwork to defend CVS's claims that it would no longer be feasible to offer it's discount program if Connecticut demands access for Medicaid. Why should a private sector corporation have to defend any claims if the program is only voluntary? Just another way Richard Blumenthal is a business killer, he has made this State the most unfriendly state to businesses highhandedly. Is this the man you want to elect to create jobs and bring economic prosperity to this State? Another 50 years of Democratic rule wasn't enough for you? It's about to get a whole lot worse if Connecticut voters don't get out of they're haze soon and start doing some hard research in Attorney General Richard Blumenthal because they're job could be next and they'll have only themselves to blame.

A story by Steven G Erickson

Attorney General Blumenthal and other co-conspirators are allegedly using your tax dollars to high jack the people's voice, spewing propaganda about how honest reforms in the Connecticut Constitution will some how harm the citizenry. I believe the Constitution has already been altered dissolving the Sheriff system, because it is a Patronage System, to be take over by the Judicial Branch which is even more of a Patronage System, operated illegally by taxpayer paid organized criminals with the "boss" allegedly being "Uncle Joe D." So, if the Connecticut Constitution has already been altered without proper procedures, why not have an honest way to amend it to fix the major holes in it that currently exist?

The Grand Jury System has been rendered useless to the people, but works well as a retaliation machine.

When Judge Arthur L. Spada became Connecticut State Police Commissioner he was also, allegedly, the one man Grand Jury system of Connecticut, the people's really only remaining check and balance.

So when Spada was allegedly committing fraud, possibly forgery, and felony theft by doing such things as putting in official logs that he was being chauffeured to golf outings by logging the theft of taxpayer funds on official logs, appointments with "Dr. Flog", "Golf" spelled backwards. If a Connecticut police officer can be felony arrested and hauled off in handcuffs for using taxpayer paid for gas to go a mile or two home for lunch, why hasn't Spada been charged with felony theft, arrested, and hauled off in handcuffs?

If you wanted to complain about Spada, you had to complain to Spada.

I proposed legislation to elected officials to clean up Connecticut Courts and Connecticut State Police. I believe I was then put on the secret State Police "Enemies List" as was Ken Krayeske.

I believe Spada conspired with Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan to railroad me to prison to shut me up, ruin me financially, break up my family, and make me unemployable, poor, and unable to get most housing.

I contacted your office about this issue, Mr. Blumethal, and got no response. Congressman Simmons' staffer told me that Simmons contacted you by phone, email, and by letter asking you to review my trial transcripts for crimes committed. You allegedly failed to respond, ignoring felonies, allegedly committed, reported to you officially. If you are to defend the state against lawsuits, that is a smart move. It also proves you are not the people's Attorney General, so we the people need to be our own Connecticut Private Attorney Generals when laws have been broken and there is no action through standard channels.

We need to be our own, Attorney General, when there is public corruption or laws broken by anyone where police and official investigators drop the ball. We should be able to walk into any courthouse, find a grand jury room, and give evidence of crimes being committed orally, by telephone, by letter, by email, and then if the independent from all 3 branches of government and the "Judencia", panel of Grand Jurors with the power to have citizens and officials arrested, hauled away in handcuffs, independently investigated, and prosecuted in legal proceedings, unlike a large number of case currently handled in Connecticut's rigged court system.

If Judges "pay to play", as former Judicial Marshal Jim Parks claims, these Judges should be investigated for their crimes, removed if found to be guilty, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law possibly doing hard jail time.

I wish to meet with you, Mr. Blumenthal, and wish to ask you questions regarding the Connecticut Constitution, live on television, and will ask you, under oath, have you ever awarded former law partners, friends, or family, millions or any amount, in no bid contracts? If so, would you be in charge of investigating and prosecuting yourself?

Thank you,
Steven G. Erickson

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Linda McMahon and the WWE

The central attack by Linda McMahon's opponents seem to be that she was the CEO of a company that marketed steroids, an alleged abuse of women, violence, sex etc. The bottom line is, WWE is meek compared to the reality of other contact sports in which the contests are NOT scripted. Parents push they're children to perform at very high levels at a very young age, why isn't anybody criticizing the parents for giving they're children cortisone injections when they tear a ligament during a soccer game or dislocate a shoulder during a football game? If Linda McMahon were the CEO of a company that promoted boxing or mixed martial arts, would she be receiving the same criticism? I doubt it. I don't hear anybody complain about the millions Dana White has made with his human cockfights. The bottom line is the wrestling industry has evolved and yet the critics seem to be stuck in the past, WWE promotes more family friendly programming these days so the argument that the WWE is still about steroids, sex and violence isn't sticking anymore. The bottom line here is and always will be, it is the parent's responsibility to be informed as to what they're children are watching and be able to regulate they're viewing habits, this is what the V-Chip allows parents to do. You can't complain that your son or daughter watches violent television if your not doing anything about it. The violence portrayed during WWE programming is soft compared to HBO shows like the Sopranos or shows like Weeds or the L Word. Desperate Housewives, anything on MTV these days and the list goes on and on about the amount of things on television that are far worse than WWE programming. You cannot shelter your children forever and if I had a choice for my child to be watching WWE television or doing drugs, gang banging, drinking and staying out all night, I think the choice is pretty clear. This is an old argument that has no factual basis. An intelligent person knows the difference between reality and illusion and our children are more intelligent than ever, ultimately though it is up to the adult authority to decide what is best for they're child, the television and the internet are no substitute for good parenting or a good babysitter so don't blame the purveyors of these programs when your child is mentally warped with the inability to distinguish reality from illusion. As a human being, Linda McMahon is the best choice for the US Senate because she cares about families, cares about Connecticut and cares about it's residents. She honors the military in a way only WWE could, sincerely wants Connecticut to be a better place for all and cares about those who want to start a business in this State. This argument needs to come to an end and the candidates all need to focus on real issues, like the economy, national security, the national debt, this country's global relationship, education, taxes, constitutional rights and more. If you insist on continuing to argue about Professional Wrestling, then perhaps you should get off the playground, go back into your parent's basement and let the facts surface.


Andrew Dziedzic
271 Avery St.
South Windsor, CT

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Experience issue

A lot of talk has been made as of late regarding the experience of both Linda McMahon and Dick Blumenthal. So let me break it down for you, Linda McMahon has been experienced in leading a commanding role in a successful company (whether or not you like the content of the company is irrelevant, the company is successful, provides jobs and makes stock holders money, nuff said) Dick Blumenthal on the other hand, has experience suing people, his comments on Vietnam just prove why you can't trust lawyers anyway. You want to talk experience, I happen to remember a freshman Senator from Illinois who has no experience and he became President. Connecticut needs a business leader now more than ever, not another silver spoon lawyer. Just because people honestly believe that Dick has worked very hard for this position is no reason for CT voters to blindly vote for a guy who has violated the constitutional rights of others in his pursuit of power, lied about his military service, misappropriated funds intended for victims of deceptive tobacco companies, misdirected on a national scale his team of lawyers at Craigslist, when he totally ignores the Advocate which does the same thing as Craigslist but on a local level. So before you start trying to hammer Linda McMahon for her alleged lack of experience, know the facts. She is an experienced business leader, knows how to work on a team to get things done, has bailed out her company without big government, and knows more about how to fix the economic situation in this State better than anybody. Dick Blumenthal would sue everybody, put them out of business and then you'd have to go to Massachusetts to even have a prayer of getting a job. Linda creates jobs, Dick destroys jobs. Experience? The choice should be obvious to even the dumbest of CT Voters.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

More questions about Dick's credibility

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal provided information for a 1991 biographical listing in a national lawyers' directory that summarized his military service this way: "With USMC., active duty and reserve, 1970-1976."

This was the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee's last entry in the annual Martindale-Hubble Law Directory of attorneys at private law firms — since then he's held his government post — and it has not attracted any notice up to now. But everything that Blumenthal has said about his Vietnam-era military service has become noteworthy since his misstatements about it have become a major campaign issue.

It started with The New York Times' disclosure last month that in a videotaped 2008 speech, Blumenthal referred to "the days that I served in Vietnam." Then other misleading statements surfaced, such as when he was quoted in 2009 as saying: "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered."

[Sample Our Free Breaking News Alert And 3 P.M. News Newsletters]

The facts are that Blumenthal served from 1970 to 1976 in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, was never activated for duty overseas, and remained in this country. Blumenthal said after the Times story that "on a few occasions, I have misspoken," and later apologized. He and supporters say that he's never intended to misrepresent his military record, and that his official biography and campaign literature have always had it right.

But now there's increased scrutiny each time a new statement surfaces that he's made about his military service — and veterans interviewed by The Courant were divided in their opinions about his capsule biography in the 1991 edition of the nationally prominent Martindale-Hubble Law Directory.

Again, the listing was: "With USMC., active duty and reserve, 1970-1976."

"I think [active duty] was probably put in there to be misleading, based on all these other things," said Randall H. Collins of Waterford, who served in Vietnam in the late 1960s in the U.S. Army military intelligence division. An unaffiliated voter, Collins, 65, who is Waterford's superintendent of schools, is in the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame, established in 2005 to honor those who served honorably and "continue to serve and inspire their fellow man."

"I was repulsed by his comments" in the 2008 videotaped speech, said Collins. "I consider it a lie, not a misstatement."

As to the Martindale-Hubbell entry, he said: "I think it's both accurate and misleading: It's true that boot camp [training] is considered active duty," Collins said, "but when people think of active duty, they think of something longer than six months…. They think of a longer period of time" of "full-time" military service – not part-time reserve status in this country for six years with weekend duty once a month, and two-week drills in the summer.

"It's hard to say it's not technically accurate," Collins said. "I really think it would be insignificant if it weren't for the comments he made publicly about his duty. But when you contextualize it in a pattern, it becomes a little more suspicious. Rightly or wrongly, you read into his motivation of why he put it there."

Blumenthal, 64, voluntarily signed up for the Marine Corps Reserve in April 1970, and served six months' "active duty in training" at Parris Island, S.C., at the beginning of his six-year reserve stint, said campaign spokeswoman Marla Romash. She released a military document listing six months of "total active service" for Blumenthal as of October 1970.

The Courant had asked to interview Blumenthal, but Romash returned the call and responded to questions, saying, "He's addressed all these issues."

Before joining the reserve, Blumenthal had received student and occupational deferments during college and his work as a young staff assistant in the Nixon White House. He had drawn a relatively low number, 152, in the Dec. 1, 1969, draft lottery.

Concerning the language in the lawyers' directory, Romash said that "everything is highly condensed [but] certainly the intent was not to be anything but straightforward." She said she agrees the listing could be "confusing," but it "was not meant to communicate" that Blumenthal had seen "active combat duty." Most other lawyers who said they served in the reserves did not mention "active duty" in their listings. When asked why Blumenthal's listing did, Romash said it might have involved "something intrinsic to the form you fill out."

Collins, the former military intelligence officer from Waterford, was one of several members of the Veterans Hall of Fame who were asked by The Courant what they thought of Blumenthal's Martindale-Hubbell listing — and he was the most critical. Others were more charitable — saying that the item made no claims about Vietnam, and that it's true to say his reserve stint involved months of active duty, even though it was in the U.S.

"I don't see anything wrong with him saying that at all," said Jack Dougherty of Branford, another Veterans Hall of Fame member. Dougherty, 65, enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1966 and served in Vietnam as an infantryman and squad leader. He was awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded at Phou Noui.

"At that time, the reservists and the guys who were going to be there forever and ever were side by side in the same, exact boot camp," said Dougherty, who works as a mechanical engineer and is an unaffiliated voter. Dougherty said that the reservists "served their active duty for six months. The balance would be … reserve status," with periodic activities such as drills.

Asked what he thought of the recent disclosures about Blumenthal's misstatements, Doughterty said, "I'm not bent around the axle about it like some people are." He said, "I don't know if he misspoke in the past," but "my personal opinion is that he's a nice guy and does a great job in the category we find him in," as attorney general.

The 1991 volume of the who's-who-style directory of lawyers in private practice was the last of seven or so annual editions covering Blumenthal's time from 1984 to 1990 as a partner in the Stamford law firm of Silver Golub & Teitell; that was his last job before winning the 1990 election for attorney general and assuming office in January 1991. Earlier editions of the directory worded Blumenthal's military history one word differently — with the word "in" instead of "and," as follows: "With USMC., active duty in reserve, 1970-1976." Romash had no explanation for that difference.

Part of the problem for Blumenthal, said one Democratic political consultant, is that he has established an atmosphere that invites questions about credibility. "The problem facing the Blumenthal campaign is that these kinds of situations become fair game," the consultant said, referring to matters such as the Martindale-Hubbell entry, or last week's news reports that a Blumenthal subordinate said the attorney general had told him in the past that he'd served in Vietnam. Such things "might not have come forward as a news story if it hadn't been for the misstatements about Vietnam."

But one of Blumenthal's assets is the reservoir of goodwill he has built up with veterans over decades of attending their events and responding to their requests for assistance.

Another member of the Veterans Hall of Fame, Marine Corps Vietnam veteran Bob Janicki of Guilford, said that he has "struggled for years with impostors," and noted that recently he'd said after Blumenthal's apology, "I don't forgive him."

But now, Janicki, 63, a Republican voter who works for the federal Veterans Administration, said he is writing a letter to newspaper editors about a conversation he had since then with Blumenthal. Part of it says: "Mr. Blumenthal shared with me his personal feelings on what he may have said over the years, and I truly feel that he was honestly sincere, and I believe him. Personally I am not about to go back in time and review every quote presented by the media. I will never trust them, to determine if they were in context or taken out of context."

Courant Senior Information Specialist Cristina Bachetti and Jon Lender contributed to this report.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Dick Blumenthal's REAL Record

Until Monday, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal seemed to be a shoo-in for retiring Sen. Chris Dodd's Senate seat. He appeared to have the perfect political resume: Harvard College (magna cum laude, editor in chief of the Harvard Crimson, captain of the swim team), Yale Law, a Supreme Court clerkship, staff positions in the White House and Senate, U.S. Attorney, state representative, state senator. Along the way, he served in the Marines in Vietnam. Robert Redford wasn't this well put together in "The Candidate."
[Blumenthal_Supp]

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Then came revelations on the front page of the New York Times that Mr. Blumenthal had deliberately misled people about key parts of this history. Contrary to what he claimed in various speeches to veterans' groups, Mr. Blumenthal never served in Vietnam. He received at least five deferments, ultimately serving in the Marine Reserves in Washington. Nor did Mr. Blumenthal bother to correct multiple profiles that described him as having been captain of the Harvard swim team; he was not.

For two decades as attorney general, Mr. Blumenthal's word was rarely challenged. Now his credibility is damaged and his aggressively antibusiness record is being publicly scrutinized for the first time.

Mr. Blumenthal became the prototype for hyperactive attorneys general across the country following his first election to the post in 1990. Not content to serve as in-house counsel for state government, he has used the office to advance by litigation what the left could not achieve through legislation.

He made a name for himself early on by taking on Big Tobacco, playing a leading role in the precedent-setting national tobacco lawsuit of the 1990s. The resulting settlement transferred $246 billion from smokers to state governments via cigarette companies.

The suit gave Mr. Blumenthal a taste for massive multistate, class-action lawsuits. His jurisdiction in the name of consumer protection has since known no bounds. During the browser wars of the late 1990s, Mr. Blumenthal sued Microsoft over the marketing of Windows 98. He filed a supportive brief in a suit against Smith & Wesson that would have held gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed by third parties using the manufacturer's products.

When the collegiate Atlantic Coast Conference poached some schools from the rival Big East Conference, of which the University of Connecticut is a member, Mr. Blumenthal sued. When sub prime mortgage shop Countrywide Financial was in trouble, the attorney general piled on with his own lawsuit. When AIG's bonuses became controversial, Mr. Blumenthal issued a wave of subpoenas. Most of these efforts went nowhere, but they did get Mr. Blumenthal in the news.

The attorney general has also used the power of the state to bully small businesses. In 2003, he sued Computers Plus Center for $1.75 million in damages for allegedly selling state government machines without specified parts. Mr. Blumenthal issued a press release accusing the business owner, Gina Malapanis, of fraud: "No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the State without severe consequences," he said. "We will vigorously pursue this case to recover taxpayer money and send a strong message about zero tolerance for contractor misconduct." Ms. Malapanis was even arrested in her home on seven first-degree larceny charges.

In 2008 the charges against Ms. Malapanis were dismissed. As for the civil case, she refused to plead guilty and counter-sued the state for abusing its power and violating her constitutional rights. The jury, recoiling at the overly aggressive action that ruined her business, awarded her a whopping $18 million in January. In a handwritten note on court documents, the jury foreman said the state had engaged in a "pattern of conduct" that harmed Ms. Malapanis's reputation, and cited the state's press releases impugning her integrity, some of which came from Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal is appealing the decision.

Journal Editorial Report discusses the latest problems facing Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal. Courtesy Fox News.

An eminent domain case involving a working quarry taken in 2004 to expand a highway in the town of Brookfield ended up in court. The quarry owners, who were originally paid about $4 million for the property, felt cheated by the state. They sued, and Mr. Blumenthal defended the state's action, bringing in new appraisers who also low-balled the property's value. Judge Barbara Sheedy concluded the state had been "unprofessional" and "less than scrupulous" in its handling of the case, having hand-picked unqualified appraisers for the purpose of deliberately underestimating the quarry's value. The owners were awarded another $28 million, including interest payments.

This spring, the exasperated CFO of Hartford-based United Technologies Corp. blurted out that doing business "anyplace outside of Connecticut is low-cost." The company was frustrated in part by a union lawsuit—supported by Mr. Blumenthal—challenging the company's plan to close a local factory as part of the firm's response to the recession. UTC—with $53 billion in revenue last year and 26,000 employees in Connecticut—is the state's largest private employer. It's exactly the sort of company other states would love to host.

So it's no wonder Connecticut's business community quietly greeted Mr. Blumenthal's candidacy for federal office with relief: Anything to get him out of state.

A liar and a cheat

He made a name for himself early on by taking on Big Tobacco, playing a leading role in the precedent-setting national tobacco lawsuit of the 1990s. The resulting settlement transferred $246 billion from smokers to state governments via cigarette companies.

The suit gave Mr. Blumenthal a taste for massive multistate, class-action lawsuits. His jurisdiction in the name of consumer protection has since known no bounds. During the browser wars of the late 1990s, Mr. Blumenthal sued Microsoft over the marketing of Windows 98. He filed a supportive brief in a suit against Smith & Wesson that would have held gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed by third parties using the manufacturer’s products.

When the collegiate Atlantic Coast Conference poached some schools from the rival Big East Conference, of which the University of Connecticut is a member, Mr. Blumenthal sued. When sub-prime mortgage shop Countrywide Financial was in trouble, the attorney general piled on with his own lawsuit. When AIG’s bonuses became controversial, Mr. Blumenthal issued a wave of subpoenas. Most of these efforts went nowhere, but they did get Mr. Blumenthal in the news.

The attorney general has also used the power of the state to bully small businesses. In 2003, he sued Computers Plus Center for $1.75 million in damages for allegedly selling state government machines without specified parts. Mr. Blumenthal issued a press release accusing the business owner, Gina Malapanis, of fraud: “No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the State without severe consequences,” he said. “We will vigorously pursue this case to recover taxpayer money and send a strong message about zero tolerance for contractor misconduct.” Ms. Malapanis was even arrested in her home on seven first-degree larceny charges.

In 2008 the charges against Ms. Malapanis were dismissed. As for the civil case, she refused to plead guilty and counter sued the state for abusing its power and violating her constitutional rights. The jury, recoiling at the overly aggressive action that ruined her business, awarded her a whopping $18 million in January. In a handwritten note on court documents, the jury foreman said the state had engaged in a “pattern of conduct” that harmed Ms. Malapanis’s reputation, and cited the state’s press releases impugning her integrity, some of which came from Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal is appealing the decision.

So he promoted himself using a fake Vietnam history AND through high-profile worthless lawsuits against businesses that he knew would go no where but it did get his name in the paper. The effect it had on his victims didn’t matter one iota to him I suppose.

Worthless.

Dick and Craigslist part thrice

Well, this one was rather easy to predict. Way back in November, after coming under pressure from various grandstanding state Attorneys General (who seem wholly unfamiliar with Section 230 of the CDA), Craigslist caved in to pressure (despite no legal basis requiring them to do so), and it changed the way its erotic services section worked. The various AGs claimed they were satisfied. But it took all of a few months before some misguided news report showed that people were misusing Craigslist again, and suddenly these AGs sensed an opportunity to get press... so they went on the offensive again, blaming Craigslist for the actions of its users. It makes for a good headline.

Once again, in May, Craigslist caved again and further changed how the site worked and handled "adult" type ads. It also showed that the ads on its site were a lot less graphic than those found on many sites run by traditional newspapers. But, suing the local newspaper doesn't generate headlines like suing Craigslist. And, given that it did such a good job generating press (and got Craigslist to cave when it didn't need to), you had to assume that it wouldn't take long for politicians to start complaining again.

And... here we go. Connecticut's AG Richard Blumenthal, who has milked the bogus Craigslist story for a while, along with Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who sued Craigslist earlier this year, have both come out to once again grandstand against Craigslist and insist that the company still isn't doing enough.

Seriously. Can someone send either of these gentlemen a copy of Section 230 of the CDA, along with a nice side dish of common sense. To wit:

* It is not Craigslist that is the problem. It is the users of the site who are advertising prostitution. They are the ones violating the law. Not Craigslist.
* Not only that, but Craigslist is very cooperative with law enforcement officials in helping them track down those who break the law via the site. Plenty of law enforcement officials have figured this out and know to use Craigslist as a tool to help them crack down on prostitution.
* Cracking down on Craigslist doesn't slow down or prevent the illegal activity at all. Those who are involved in prostitution (i.e., the actual law breaking) are still out there, and are quick to find other sources in which to advertise.
* So cracking down on Craigslist is blaming the messenger -- and making it more difficult to really crack down on prostitution, by driving it further underground.

You would think that such common sense (and the fact that the law makes this clear as well) would have, perhaps, sunk in by now. But, alas, common sense doesn't get you headlines in the paper.

More on Bloomie and Craigslist

We've been covering Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's totally misguided crusade against Craigslist on the topic of prostitution. For years, he's complained and threatened Craigslist because prostitutes use the service. Of course, he's never taken legal action because he must realize that there is no legal action he can take. The law is pretty clear: the liability is on the users of the service, not the makers of the service. Even so, Craigslist has repeatedly changed the way its service works to appease Blumenthal, and while he initially seems happy with those changes, months later, he's always back to complaining (just in time for elections too...).

Of course, the point we've made all along in response to Blumenthal is that for smart law enforcement officials, Craigslist is an excellent tool for monitoring and cracking down on prostitution. In fact, it appears that some police in Connecticut are doing exactly that. Eric sends in the story of police in Naugatuck, Connecticut using Craigslist to crack down on prostitution in their city.

The police responded to a few ads that they believe were from prostitutes seeking money for sex, and arrested two women. Separately -- and a bit more questionably -- the police also put up an ad themselves, waiting for men to reply, and eventually arrested eighteen men who replied (including a city official). It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment, but they insist it's not. Either way, it does seem like a bit of a contradiction when the state's Attorney General is seeking to block Craigslist from dealing in such ads entirely while police in the state are using it as a tool against prostitution at the same time. Maybe they should talk to each other. But, of course, when Blumenthal's real purpose is not about stopping prostitution, but instead making sure he's re-elected, suddenly the seemingly contradictory actions make a lot more sense. Oh, and if Blumenthal is really looking to grandstand about Craigslist, why not complain about the fact that the guy who bought the Nissan Pathfinder used in the failed Times Square car bomb attack this weekend supposedly bought it via Craigslist. Surely, if Craigslist can be blamed for prostitution, now it can also be blamed for terrorism..

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Story taken from Big Journalisim's Gregg Opelka

As the nearly two-year-old Palin piƱata-fest demonstrates, for the devout liberal the intersection of Sorority Street and Politics Avenue is left-turn only.
To no one’s surprise, Sarah Palin remains the left’s First Lady of political feminae non gratae, the gold standard. The needle on the left’s Feminometer moves from the safe green left-hand side (Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi) to the beige neutral middle (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins) to the hazardous red-hued right-hand zone (Michele Bachmann) to the far-right crimson danger area (Sarah).

Palin’s status as the left’s lead whipping girl is not news. What is news is that women like Eleanor Clift (Hell hath no fury like a liberal feminist scorned) are using the same elitist Palinesque prejudices to bash this year’s crop of wrong-turning conservative women.
One of them is Linda McMahon, the Republican candidate for the Connecticut Senate seat soon to be vacated by writing-on-the-wall-peruser Chris Dodd. Here’s Clift in her May 28 column “2010 Likely to Bring a Crop of One-Term Senate Wonders:”
Another candidate who has lurched to unlikely electoral prominence is Linda McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. We don’t know enough about her yet, other than the fact that she’s prepared to spend $50 million of her own money to win a Senate race in Connecticut, where there are fewer than 2 million registered voters, a cost per capita that should break a record. Her Republican primary opponent, Rob Simmons, a Vietnam veteran, backed out of the race, saying he couldn’t compete with her money, and warning that some of the practices associated with the WWE will make voters queasy and go to McMahon’s character.
No one expects Clift (or anyone) to defend McMahon (or anyone) on the basis of shared gender. The broader matter of just what causes liberal women’s conservative misogyny is a discussion best left for another day. A very long day.
But one can expect Clift, and her liberal ilk of either gender, to refrain from the hypocrisy of attacking McMahon for spending $50 million of her own money to finance her campaign. According to Bloomberg, in the nearby state of New Jersey, Jon Corzine spent “a total of $100 million of his personal fortune” on his Senate and first gubernatorial campaigns. Let’s see now, 100 million divided by 2. Hey, whaddyaknow? That’s 50 million per campaign! The same amount that McMahon is accused of spending. Crazy.

In that 2009 gubernatorial race Chris Christie was “limited to spending $10.9 million” because he accepted public funding for his campaign. Christie attempted “to focus the campaign on corruption and the state’s financial plight.”
Where was Clift’s outrage then? Did Corzine’s gender or party affiliation, or both, shield him from the prickly swift Clift kick? Did Clift dismiss then candidate, now Governor, Christie as a man “of unlikely electoral prominence” as blithely as she does McMahon?
The Palinesque portion of the Cliftian riff on McMahon is the unsupported insinuation that “some of the practices associated with the WWE will make voters queasy and go to McMahon’s character.” In today’s liberal playbook, when attacking candidates on substance fails, you provincialize them—especially if the candidate has the ill fortune to have been born a woman. And of course, since you have no actual substance to work with, you slather on the innuendo.
With middle America—Pennsylvania and the Midwest being the proxy this time—provincialization came in the form of Obama’s April 2008 guns and Bible diatribe. Safely ensconced at a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama had his arrugula game face on when he enlightened:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them….So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Once again, our founders would have been the first to applaud such a humble, nonjudgmental view of the role of religion and arms in the republic they’d created.
Wrestling isn’t polo. It’s not even that Harvard swim team Richard Blumenthal never captained. But according to E*Trade, WWE, McMahon-and husband’s publicly-traded Stamford-based company, enjoys a market cap of $1.2 billion, keeps 585 people employed, and pays an 8.8% dividend to its shareholders.
The overall point of Clift’s Newsweek article, however, is not to attack McMahon per se. Linda’s just one stop on Clift’s oddly defeatist quest to find a silver lining in anticipated Democratic Senate losses in the upcoming midterms. Clift’s bizarre balm is that even if candidates of “unlikely electoral prominence” such as McMahon should win, they probably will be one-term wonders. Why? Because it happened once before in 1980. Persuaded? Me, too.
Surveying the landscape for November, Democrats should take heart. It could be a long six years, but the tide that washes in some of these outliers will be there to carry them out, just as it has in elections past.
Nevertheless, one question is begged of Clift: Throwing in the towel so soon? That’s not exactly what you’d expect from a progressive twenty-first century woman.
At least, it’s not what Sarah would do.

Richard Blumenthal Vs. Glenn Beck Story taking from Richard Poor

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck has already shown he's a rating success and is leaving a mark in cable news. However, he may have pulled one of his most successful performances yet.
Beck interviewed Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on his March 30 broadcast. But, the radio and TV host took the opportunity to tell Blumenthal what he thought of his investigation into the bonuses received by American International Group (AIG) executives - whose company received federal bailout money.
"Look, you know what you have done, know what you have done?" Beck said. "You have - you are an insult to George Washington, sir. George Washington made it very clear that we are a respecter of laws, not of men. For your own political gain, you have decided to go after these people at AIG because it is a popular thing."

Beck pressed on, demanding to know what law the AIG executives broke that warranted Blumenthal's involvement.
"And while I may agree with you that it is obscene, I would like to know, is not what's right as a rule of thumb - not what makes us feel good," Beck continued. "You, sir, are to protect people and, and to stand for the law in Connecticut, so, again, I ask you, sir - what law gave you the right to go after them? What law did they break?"
Blumenthal claimed the AIG executives were "undeserving" of the bonuses. Blumenthal also pointed out the bonuses paid out were to increase next year. However, Beck pressed Blumenthal on the legality of that and Blumenthal came up blank in this exchange:
BECK: Is that against the law?
BLUMENTHAL: Well, it is against public policy. And it is unsanctioned by law.
BECK: Is that against the law?
BLUMENTHAL: It should be against the law.
BECK: Is it against the law?
BLUMENTHAL: It's against the public policy and against the taxpayer...In my view it is unrequired by law.
BECK: It is a yes or no question. Counselor, it is a yes or no question. Is it against the law?
BLUMENTHAL: It is not against the law and I have never said that it is against the law, and I have never said that we would bring an action.
BECK: Then you know what you should do? You should enforce the law. You shouldn't use your bully pulpit to gain popularity.
After another exchange over Blumenthal's behavior, Beck likened Blumenthal and New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to a "vampire," accusing him of capitalizes on a populist sentiment.
"You are twisting it," Beck said. "It has everything to do with the excuse that AIG used to say we had to do that. And you're exactly right - it has nothing to do with that. But that has nothing to do with the little vampire fangs that you all of a sudden sprouted and tried to grab on to - to make yourself, you and Andrew Cuomo, tried to make yourselves the king of the world, and look at me - I'm the savior here. I'm going to help everybody, the little people. All you're doing is trying to make yourself look good in a populist move. I think it's wrong

Friday, June 11, 2010

Stupid Obama Democrats

The Obama Democrats in the U.S. Senate are at it again. Frustrated by lack of support for their absurd, economy-killing scheme to raise taxes on every American and throttle energy availability known as "Cap-and- Trade," they are opportunistically taking advantage of the tragic Gulf oil spill to push it back to the top of their disastrous socialist agenda. Not satisfied with the massive growth of Big Government they have imposed upon the American taxpayer after the "Stimulus," takeovers of private enterprise, and the atrocious seizure of our health care freedoms, they are desperate to squeeze even more income and liberty from our citizens with their greedy assault on energy production and use. Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid, with the blessing of President Obama, has said he wants a Cap-and-Trade Bill by the end of July. He has informed his committee chairs to look for every possible way to extract more punishing taxes from energy producers -- who will be forced to lay off workers or pass along the higher costs to consumers, already staggered by the Obama Democrats' economy-crippling dithering and spending. And Washington's leading Cap-and-Trade proponent, Sen. John Kerry, couldn't be happier, saying, "this is just what we needed with Congress coming back into session...just as we saw with health care, when the president throws down the gauntlet, and puts his prestige on the line and puts the full weight of the White House behind it, we can do big things." Big things, like foisting yet another oppressive and unnecessary leftist boondoggle on the overburdened backs of the American taxpayer.

Musings from Facebook

If you honestly believe that you will have freedom in 3 years, support Obama, believe that his health care plan is constitutional, believe cap and trade is good for this country and believe that 2nd amendment rights are a privilege more than right, want a nanny state in this country where the Democrats give handouts and take care of everyone, if you believe in wealth distribution then please move to France and let a REAL American vote this November. Did you know that when our Founding Fathers founded this country, government was NEVER intended to be involved in education? It was a State's Right. The Department of Education is an illegal enterprise and is unconstitutional. It tramples the State's right to provide education to our children, rather than indoctrinate them with secular progressive ideology. I only hope that when I have children, I have enough money left to send them to a private school where they can receive a REAL education based on conservative principles.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Message from Michael Steele RNC Chairman

During his campaign, President Obama promised voters the "most transparent" administration in American history. Yet less than two years into his presidency we are regularly reminded of his failure to live up to that promise.

Presidential press conferences are rare, White House staffers interview Supreme Court nominees in place of the free press, and the President even refused to take questions at a signing ceremony for the "Freedom of the Press Act."

Perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that the White House has been stonewalling on conversations in which Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) alleged he was offered a job if he dropped his bid for Pennsylvania's Senate seat. In a Friday news dump on Memorial Day weekend, the White House released a memo stating former President Bill Clinton, at the behest of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, made an offer to Rep. Sestak of a position in the Obama Administration.

But this unsubstantiated memo raises more questions than it answers.

What was Bill Clinton authorized to offer Rep. Sestak? And did President Obama sign off on this conversation before it took place?

If there was an offer of a job to Rep. Sestak for dropping out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, that would be a violation of
U.S. Codes 18-600 and 18-595.

Now more than ever it is clear that this White House is not capable of policing itself and needs to open itself to an independent investigation. I support Republican members of Congress who have asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the allegations.
 The Republican National Committee is taking action as well by demanding the Obama White House tell the American people what Bill Clinton was authorized to offer Rep. Sestak and whether President Obama signed off on this conversation before it took place.
Please sign the RNC's petition today insisting President Obama come clean about his administration's dealings to directly affect the outcome of a primary election by allegedly offering a government position to Congressman Sestak. 




Obfuscation and stonewalling is not what Barack Obama promised Americans, and it's not what you deserve. This is YOUR government -- it's time to hold it responsible.