Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

My ADHD: Started on Rush, Ended on Something Else

I had posted a link on Facebook about Rush Limbaugh getting ousted from a group that was planning to buy a sports team.

His involvement in the business deal drew fire from people that disagree with him ideologically, such as the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they raised enough noise that the business group decided to drop him from the deal so as not to endanger the deal.

So, a friend replied, and as I replied to that reply, I went off on a thought, and figured I'd post it here:

I totally agree with the business decision on the part of the other buyers. ... My beef is that none of us would even have known Rush was a part owner if he wasn't who he is. Without looking back at the story, can you tell me any of the other guys' names?

Off the top of your head, other than Steinbrenner, can you name any other teams' owners?

And, I find it amazing that a guy who *says* offensive things is treated worse by the left than people who *do* offensive things.

But check this: The whole concept of "owning" a sports team is garbage anyway, long before you bring Limbaugh into the picture.

Teams -- and players -- are bought and sold as investment properties by wealthy people. Sure, good players are paid tons of cash so they can buy shiny things to enjoy when their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore. And, if they get treated badly by the rich owner, well they can go be owned by someone else instead, and get shiny things from them until their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore.

And, no team *needs* to be owned. Imagine if people that lived in a state played a sport, and competed against other states? And non-players from those states would all get together and watch the games, and pitch in money for uniforms and equipment so they could enjoy the game?


And anyway, being a boss and having a stake in a team are two different things. Rush would have just been another one of the guys getting rich off the investment.

As an aside: Our culture treats athletes and entertainers better than teachers, soldiers, veterans and senior citizens. If all the athletes gave 25% of their huge salaries they get for playing a frigging game, and Hollywood actors did movies for $4 million instead of $6 million, there'd be no homeless problem, no hunger problem. Seeing as their wealth came directly from our adulation, shouldn't they "give back" a "fair share" ... ?

Maybe You Don't Like Glenn Beck, But I Don't Like Dylan Voltaire

Glenn Beck has a new book, "Arguing With Idiots," ranked #3 on Barnes & Noble.

I wanted to see some of the reviews, and I found this:

Who's the idiot?by DylanVoltaire

Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings

"September 22, 2009: After listening to the preview and reading the excerpt I can see that Beck is a master at arguing with straw men he constructs. I love the idea of a domino effect mindset of people who argue that the Second Amendment is out dated; as though these people want to nefariously end free speech and jury trials. I would like him to produce one serious critic of the NRA who has this in mind. The better argument against the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the founders always believed in a state's power to regulate guns. The arguments that surrounded the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were centered on the power of states to maintain and train virtuous male citizens for their militia to provide for the "common defense" of a young untested republic against the manifold threats extant. One of those perceived threats was the standing army of the National Government. In those days (and I suppose Beck would consider me an idiot for understanding this) "the people" feared a regular army in the hands of the national government; they wanted a small force if any. Today I would suggest that Americans want a well trained regular army to defend our nation. Therefore, in a very real sense, the idea of the Second Amendment is outdated. Now, that doesn't necessarily call for massive gun control, but it does lend to the understanding that states should, and always did, retain the power to regulate gun ownership according to their unique circumstances. In other words, a guy living in Wyoming has very different needs and concerns surrounding gun ownership than a family living in an apartment building in Philadelphia. The family in Philadelphia would like to go to bed at night knowing that the persons living on either side of them isn't going to accidently discharge their AK-47 and kill their child sleeping in its crib.

Here's an idiotic use of evidence: In 1831 the state of Missouri limited the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. This was a factor in the case State v Mitchell. The statute, a state regulation of gun ownership, was found to be constitutional. That shows that states had the power to regulate gun ownership. Wow, what an idiot I am.

Hey, but Beck is dressed up as a soldier for Halloween this year. I'm convinced. At least he didn't try to dress up as a scholar."

Wow, Dylan, all that and you didn't even have to read the book.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

If you don't know what this story is about, that's exactly the point. Google Van Jones and see for yourself.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

Shared via AddThis

The Times Conveniently Leaves Out Details

Here's a story about U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel -- seems he has a problem with paying his "fair share" as the Dems keep saying "the rich" should do.

Best part is, the article never mentions that Rangel, under two House ethics investigations, is a Democrat.

In fact, the word "Democrat" never appears in the story.

Odd, how this rich guy keeps refusing to admit what he owns or pay taxes on it, and the fact that his party is the one complaining about the rich not paying enough to cover the poor, and the Times leaves out his affiliation.

I truly believe that if Rangel were a Republican, it would say so somewhere in the story.

Just another example of (a) shoddy writing, (b) left-wing bias or (C) both.

Here's the story:

Rangel Failed to Disclose $500,000 in Assets for ’07

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund-raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month.

Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,0000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.

The updated forms report that Mr. Rangel’s total net worth is between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000 — about twice the amount listed in the original disclosure statement, filed in May 2008, which declared assets totaling between $516,015 and $1,316,000.

Mr. Rangel declined to discuss the matter, saying he did not want to comment publicly while the investigations continue. In the past, he has explained omissions on financial statements, including his failure to declare $75,000 in rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic or pay $10,000 in taxes on it, as unintentional bookkeeping errors. A spokesman for the congressman issued a statement saying the amended disclosure forms were Mr. Rangel’s attempt to rectify recently discovered omissions in his financial reporting.

“Congressman Rangel is confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests,” said the aide, Elbert Garcia.

Republicans said that Mr. Rangel’s inaccuracies in disclosing his assets and income, along with other ethics questions, were so egregious that he should be removed from his powerful position as chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees the tax code.

“This, again, raises serious questions about whether he should continue as chairman, given the multiple ethics investigations,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Representative John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio and the House minority leader.

Two House subcommittees are investigating Mr. Rangel’s financial dealings. One is examining his failure to report, or pay taxes on, the income from the Dominican beach house; whether Mr. Rangel may have violated the ban on taking gifts worth more than $50 by accepting four rent- stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer at a price thousands of dollars per month under market value; and whether he improperly used his Congressional office to raise money for a charity — the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service — from donors with business interests before his committee.

The other subcommittee is investigating a complaint from an ethics advocacy group that has accused Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress of violating the restrictions on accepting travel from donors who employ lobbyists by attending a conference last November in St. Maarten. It was sponsored by Citigroup, which received billions in federal bailout money.

In his amended disclosure form, however, Mr. Rangel reported that his trip was paid for by The Carib News Foundation, which had underwritten the congressman’s travels in the past.

Ethics experts say that although members of Congress are required to fully disclose their assets, omissions do not usually result in sanctions unless they are part of an effort to deceive. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, said Mr. Rangel’s haphazard approach to his finances had undermined his credibility in Congress.

“Sloppy bookkeeping is not a valid excuse for a sophisticated member of Congress who is chairman of the committee that handles complex financial issues like the tax code,” she said.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Dirty Martini: How Do You Boil A Frog

The Intolerance of the Left

I won't even comment, just read the story:

Conservative kiosk not allowed at mall

By BETH SHAYNE / NewsChannel 36

July 22nd, 2009

CONCORD, N.C. -- “Impeach Obama. “

“Al Qaeda’s favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08.”

“Work Harder. Obama needs the money.”

The bumper stickers and posters sold at “Free Market Warrior” at Concord Mills are meant to be “biting,” the kiosk’s owner Loren Spivack said.

At least one passer-by found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.

Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, “Free Market Warrior” will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain’s owner shared e-mail correspondence with Newschannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not “neutral” enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.

Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.

“Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective,” he said. “Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side.”

Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician, and wants a fair exchange of ideas. “The material that I sell is about politics and ideas,” he told Newschannel 36. “It’s all legitimate criticism.”

Concord Mills, owned by Simon Property Group, would not comment for this story, cited a policy against talking about tenant and landlord situations.

Spivack says the company first contacted him about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer. The author, recent UNCC graduate Jennifer Ibanez, wrote,

““Free Market Warrior,” a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

Ibanez told Newschannel 36 she was so offended, she wrote the mall as well. She says a friend of hers also wrote in. Both threatened not to return to Concord Mills.

The owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, has been a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama. Spivack thinks the decision about his lease is political.

“If they have decided to make their malls conservative/libertarian free zones, where those opinions can’t be expressed, I do think it’s their right to do that, but it’s our rights to publicize the fact that they are doing that,” he said.

If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent Newschannel 36 pictures of several t-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we’ve chosen not to share them.

“What I think the mall should have done if they thought that we were expressing one set of ideas and not another, is that they should have gotten another store to come in and sell their ideas,” he said. “I would’ve been all in favor of that. I would have helped them move in.”

Something to Think About

From my inbox this morning .... feel free to cut and paste and send to everyone you know.

WHEN A SOLDIER COMES HOME
This email is being circulated around the world - please keep it going

When a soldier comes home, he finds it hard....

..to listen to his son whine about being bored.

....to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.

to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.

...to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.

..to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.

...to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.

..to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying.


....to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.


....to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.


....to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.


....to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog.


.....to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.


....to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.


....to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.


The only thing harder than being a Soldier..


Is loving one.

Campaign Donors Get All the Good Stuff

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. John Murtha steered millions of dollars in defense work to a campaign donor and the Pentagon went along with it, even though two convicted drug dealers had been deeply involved with the company.

Records filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh starting in 2005 raise questions about whether the government ever checked into the background of William Kuchera of Windber, Pa., a constituent who has been doing government work for over 20 years.

The records point to the political peril of Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, and other members of Congress directing federal funds to particular contractors, an oft-criticized process known as earmarking that has directed hundreds of billions of dollars in the federal budget to favored contractors and programs over the past two decades.

The companies owned by William Kuchera and his brother Ronald — Kuchera Defense Systems and Kuchera Industries Inc. — have received $53 million in federal contracts in this decade alone.

According to the court records, Kuchera was convicted of marijuana distribution in 1982 in Wisconsin.

In addition, a man who describes himself as an early partner in Kuchera’s business in the 1980s is a convicted cocaine dealer who has served two terms in prison, according to the records.

The man, Peter Whorley, sued the Kuchera companies and William Kuchera for a share of the money the companies have collected in federal contracts. Whorley lost the case when it went to arbitration.

On Friday, Kuchera’s lawyer said that his client had served nine months in prison and since that time "has built two highly successful and reputable companies with enviable records of quality, first-rate work."

In April, the Navy suspended Kuchera Defense Systems, William Kuchera and his brother for "alleged fraud," including "multiple incidents" of incorrect charges, along with allegations of defective pricing and ethical violations. Kuchera is appealing the suspension.

In 2007 and 2008, Murtha sponsored $14.7 million in defense earmarks for Kuchera Defense Systems. Before 2007, Congress did not disclose the identities of earmark sponsors, so it is impossible to say how much in earmarked funds Murtha directed to the Kuchera family business.

In one early link to Murtha, Kuchera made a $1,000 campaign contribution to the congressman in March 1992.

Kuchera and his uncle started doing business in the mid-1980s and Murtha became chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee in 1989.

According to the court records, in 1985 William Kuchera approached his uncle, Michael, who was just starting up Kuchera Industries.

William Kuchera "confided to me that he had just spent time in prison and he was looking for a fresh start," Michael Kuchera said in an affidavit filed in federal court in 2005.

"After I agreed to go into business with my nephew, he introduced Peter Whorley to me," Michael Kuchera’s affidavit states. "One day shortly after I had met Mr. Whorley, Bill told me that Peter had agreed to invest in the business."

Under questioning in the lawsuit, Whorley said that he had invested $50,000 in the Kucheras’ new business. Before that, Whorley said, he had been in prison for drug trafficking. Answering questions in the lawsuit, William Kuchera said that the $50,000 from Whorley was a personal loan that "helped for my living expenses, it helped with marketing expenses, it helped with sales expenses."

Whorley said that he and William Kuchera were best friends and that they had been involved in "drug dealings."

In the statement Friday, Kuchera’s lawyer pointed to findings by the federal court in the lawsuit rejecting Whorley’s claims in their entirety. The court split the costs of the case, ordering Whorley to pay one-third and the Kuchera defendants to pay two-thirds.

"William Kuchera has built two highly successful and reputable companies with enviable records of quality, first-rate work," said Kuchera attorney Dennis McGlynn. "In doing so, he has also created 360 new jobs in the Johnstown area. He should be applauded for his accomplishments and not denigrated for a crime he committed almost three decades ago."

The government’s overall earmark spending reached $18 billion in 2009 and $18.3 billion for 2008, and adding to that to the decades of earmarks before, "you easily top a $100 billion and even more, into the hundreds of billions of earmark spending, in the last few decades," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional earmarks.

Savage to Continue Libel Suit

Very interesting ....

The US "shock jock" banned from entering the UK said today that he would carry on with defamation proceedings against outgoing home secretary Jacqui Smith, saying he had never incited violence among his listeners.

Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner, was included on a list of undesirables banned by the government from entering the UK last month due to "stirring up hatred and promoting their extreme views".

Savage said his "honour" was at stake over the "crazy" Home Office decision. "None of my words have ever led to violence for the simple reason that I do not call for violence, I do not provoke violence, and moreover, I want to say that provoking violence is illegal in the US as well," he told Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5 Live today.

Here's the full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/02/shock-jock-michael-savage-jacqui-smith

I'm not much of a fan of Savage ... but to group him in with Klansmen and terrorists is a joke. Violent Muslims filling the streets, shouting "death to the queen" over a book, or a comment or a cartoon, that's left unchecked, but if someone voices their opinion in another country, and he's too dangerous to let enter the UK? He's the extremist?