will Bill Clinton bail out Hillary from her campaign deficit?
her campaign in in deep financial woes.
Hillary personally loaned her campaign over $6 million,
or will she concede to Obama if he pays her bills?
Friday, May 09, 2008
Sanctuary Policies Claim Another Promising Youth
Sanctuary Policies Claim Another Promising Youth
Last summer, three Newark, New Jersey students were gunned down in cold blood by a gang member who had been released from police custody, even though he was charged with another serious felony and was in the country illegally. Sanctuary policies in Newark and in Essex County barred authorities from inquiring about the murderer’s immigration status and allowed him to have the opportunity to snuff out three promising young lives.
This outrageous example sadly, has been lost on the political leaders of Los Angeles — a declared sanctuary city with a policy, known as Special Order 40, that prevents police from inquiring about immigration status. On March 2, another teen, 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw Jr., paid for that policy with his life.
Jamiel, a high school football star in Los Angeles, was brutally murdered near his home. The suspect in his killing is Pedro Espinosa, an identified gang member who a day earlier had been released from police custody despite facing charges of assault with a deadly weapon. One other important fact about Espinosa: he is an illegal alien who could have been remanded to federal custody had the Los Angeles Police Department been allowed to inquire about immigration status.
In early April, Jamiel’s family and members of his community came before the Los Angeles City Council, imploring them to protect law-abiding citizens and residents by repealing Special Order 40. Especially poignant was the testimony of Jamiel’s mother, Anita Shaw, an Army sergeant who was serving in Iraq at the time of her son’s murder. “I was sacrificing my life for a better United States, and it’s not safe for my son,” she told the council.
The Council’s response to the Shaw family’s pleas was that this is simply not the time to consider this matter. Councilman Bill Rosendahl rose to opine that what is really needed is a forum to better explain to the public why Special Order 40 was initially implemented 30 years ago. Councilman Richard Alarcon implied that the real outrage about Jamiel’s murder is that it is being used to promote the repeal of Special Order 40.
While the Los Angeles City Council failed to find the murder of an innocent teenager an appropriate reason to reconsider city policies that protect illegal alien criminals, the council and mayor did manage to find time to voice their opposition to federal efforts to deal with illegal immigration. Shortly after Jamiel’s murder, the council held a hearing and approved a resolution by an 11-1 vote opposing the federal SAVE Act, which would step up enforcement against employers who hire illegal aliens.
On March 28, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa penned a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, urging him to end raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency on companies employing illegal aliens in Los Angeles. In his letter, Mayor Villaraigosa expressed deep concern about the inconvenience of these raids to employers in Los Angeles and the uncertainty they have created for illegal aliens and their families.
Mayor Villaraigosa has not yet weighed in on the city’s obligation to help remove illegal alien criminals, like Espinosa, from its streets and as yet there has been no similar letter urging the federal government to do its job to protect the lives of innocent Americans like Jamiel Shaw.
Last summer, three Newark, New Jersey students were gunned down in cold blood by a gang member who had been released from police custody, even though he was charged with another serious felony and was in the country illegally. Sanctuary policies in Newark and in Essex County barred authorities from inquiring about the murderer’s immigration status and allowed him to have the opportunity to snuff out three promising young lives.
This outrageous example sadly, has been lost on the political leaders of Los Angeles — a declared sanctuary city with a policy, known as Special Order 40, that prevents police from inquiring about immigration status. On March 2, another teen, 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw Jr., paid for that policy with his life.
Jamiel, a high school football star in Los Angeles, was brutally murdered near his home. The suspect in his killing is Pedro Espinosa, an identified gang member who a day earlier had been released from police custody despite facing charges of assault with a deadly weapon. One other important fact about Espinosa: he is an illegal alien who could have been remanded to federal custody had the Los Angeles Police Department been allowed to inquire about immigration status.
In early April, Jamiel’s family and members of his community came before the Los Angeles City Council, imploring them to protect law-abiding citizens and residents by repealing Special Order 40. Especially poignant was the testimony of Jamiel’s mother, Anita Shaw, an Army sergeant who was serving in Iraq at the time of her son’s murder. “I was sacrificing my life for a better United States, and it’s not safe for my son,” she told the council.
The Council’s response to the Shaw family’s pleas was that this is simply not the time to consider this matter. Councilman Bill Rosendahl rose to opine that what is really needed is a forum to better explain to the public why Special Order 40 was initially implemented 30 years ago. Councilman Richard Alarcon implied that the real outrage about Jamiel’s murder is that it is being used to promote the repeal of Special Order 40.
While the Los Angeles City Council failed to find the murder of an innocent teenager an appropriate reason to reconsider city policies that protect illegal alien criminals, the council and mayor did manage to find time to voice their opposition to federal efforts to deal with illegal immigration. Shortly after Jamiel’s murder, the council held a hearing and approved a resolution by an 11-1 vote opposing the federal SAVE Act, which would step up enforcement against employers who hire illegal aliens.
On March 28, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa penned a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, urging him to end raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency on companies employing illegal aliens in Los Angeles. In his letter, Mayor Villaraigosa expressed deep concern about the inconvenience of these raids to employers in Los Angeles and the uncertainty they have created for illegal aliens and their families.
Mayor Villaraigosa has not yet weighed in on the city’s obligation to help remove illegal alien criminals, like Espinosa, from its streets and as yet there has been no similar letter urging the federal government to do its job to protect the lives of innocent Americans like Jamiel Shaw.
Al Sharpton as tax state and Federal deadbeat ?
Al Sharpton as tax state and Federal deadbeat ?
why do we let him near the federal budget/spending, if he cant control his own personal finaces?
Sharpton's own debts include $365,558 owed in New York City income tax and $931,397 in unpaid federal income tax, according to a lien filed by the Internal Revenue Service last spring. His for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owes the state another $175,962 in delinquent taxes.
As for Sharpton's personal tax debt, King said Sharpton has started paying it off but contends that faulty record-keeping by the National Action Network led the government to overestimate his tax liability.
Tax headaches are nothing new for Sharpton. The 53-year-old minister has been assailed over his career for running up big tax debts and failing to abide by rules governing his charities and election committees. He is perpetually being sued for failing to pay his bills.
In December, Sharpton revealed that as many as 10 of his associates had received grand jury subpoenas. A person familiar with the investigation told the AP that the FBI and IRS are probing whether Sharpton or his organization committed tax crimes or violations related to his 2004 presidential campaign, during which he was forced to return public matching funds for breaking fundraising rules.
why do we let him near the federal budget/spending, if he cant control his own personal finaces?
Sharpton's own debts include $365,558 owed in New York City income tax and $931,397 in unpaid federal income tax, according to a lien filed by the Internal Revenue Service last spring. His for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owes the state another $175,962 in delinquent taxes.
As for Sharpton's personal tax debt, King said Sharpton has started paying it off but contends that faulty record-keeping by the National Action Network led the government to overestimate his tax liability.
Tax headaches are nothing new for Sharpton. The 53-year-old minister has been assailed over his career for running up big tax debts and failing to abide by rules governing his charities and election committees. He is perpetually being sued for failing to pay his bills.
In December, Sharpton revealed that as many as 10 of his associates had received grand jury subpoenas. A person familiar with the investigation told the AP that the FBI and IRS are probing whether Sharpton or his organization committed tax crimes or violations related to his 2004 presidential campaign, during which he was forced to return public matching funds for breaking fundraising rules.
Senator Mccain losing his bearings? says Obama
Senator Mccain losing his bearings? says Obama
well if the 72 year plus shoe 72 year plus fits...............
well if the 72 year plus shoe 72 year plus fits...............
IT'S ALL OVER, SEN. CLINTON
IT'S ALL OVER, SEN. CLINTON
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on May 7, 2008.
She lost hard in North Carolina, and barely held on to win Indiana. Hillary Clinton just doesn't have enough straws left to clutch. The best (or worst) she can hope to do the rest of the way is bloody Barack Obama enough to make him lose in the fall, allowing her to come back in 2012.
In fact, Obama basically clinched the nomination with his string of 11 straight primary and caucus wins in February, many by wipe-out margins - giving him a lead in elected delegates that Clinton couldn't hope to close, especially given the nutty proportional-representation rules that govern the Democratic Party.
Do the math. Last night's results leave him with a lead among elected delegates of 150 or so, and among all delegates of around 130.
Only a handful of states are left to vote, with a combined total of about 230 delegates. She'll probably win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico - and lose Oregon, North Dakota, and Montana. She most likely could pick up a net 10 delegates, leaving him with a lead of at least 130 (110, counting in superdelegates).
If Hillary manages to get Florida and Michigan seated (which she won't), she'll net another 47 delegates. So Obama, worst case, will have a lead of at least 60 delegates. Most likely, it'll be more than 100.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean have all made it clear that they expect superdelegates to decide who to support within (in Reid's words) "days, not weeks" after the last ballots are cast on June 3.
In that environment, Obama - who'll be only about 100 delegates short of a majority - will be an irresistible choice. Few superdelegates will want to risk civil war by overruling the verdict of the voters - and almost all will want to climb aboard the victory bandwagon so as not to get shut out of the White House for four (or eight) years.
In the past few months, Obama has closed Clinton's lead among superdelegates from 60 to 20. The trend will accelerate after popular voting ends; he'll probably pass the 2,025 threshold in the first two weeks of June.
Clinton may stay in, hoping to can seat Florida and Michigan. But she won't win there, either.
The Credentials Committee, which will make the key report, consists of three votes for each state or territory. The remaining contests will leave him with, at worst, a 10-state lead. Howard Dean names 25 committee members, but she can't prosper unless he stacks them all for her - and, if anything, he'll go the other way.
Having lost there, her only option would be to appeal to the convention floor - where neither of the contested delegations can vote on their own credentials, virtually assuring an Obama victory on the credentials fight and the nomination.
Clinton may well fight all the way - she's stubborn and dedicated. More, she's also farsighted and devious: She could hope to so bloody Obama that he can't beat John McCain. If McCain wins, she could get the Democratic nomination in 2012 - and, with McCain closing in on 76 and after 12 years of GOP rule, win.
But one thing is clear: Obama has this nomination sewed up.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on May 7, 2008.
She lost hard in North Carolina, and barely held on to win Indiana. Hillary Clinton just doesn't have enough straws left to clutch. The best (or worst) she can hope to do the rest of the way is bloody Barack Obama enough to make him lose in the fall, allowing her to come back in 2012.
In fact, Obama basically clinched the nomination with his string of 11 straight primary and caucus wins in February, many by wipe-out margins - giving him a lead in elected delegates that Clinton couldn't hope to close, especially given the nutty proportional-representation rules that govern the Democratic Party.
Do the math. Last night's results leave him with a lead among elected delegates of 150 or so, and among all delegates of around 130.
Only a handful of states are left to vote, with a combined total of about 230 delegates. She'll probably win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico - and lose Oregon, North Dakota, and Montana. She most likely could pick up a net 10 delegates, leaving him with a lead of at least 130 (110, counting in superdelegates).
If Hillary manages to get Florida and Michigan seated (which she won't), she'll net another 47 delegates. So Obama, worst case, will have a lead of at least 60 delegates. Most likely, it'll be more than 100.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean have all made it clear that they expect superdelegates to decide who to support within (in Reid's words) "days, not weeks" after the last ballots are cast on June 3.
In that environment, Obama - who'll be only about 100 delegates short of a majority - will be an irresistible choice. Few superdelegates will want to risk civil war by overruling the verdict of the voters - and almost all will want to climb aboard the victory bandwagon so as not to get shut out of the White House for four (or eight) years.
In the past few months, Obama has closed Clinton's lead among superdelegates from 60 to 20. The trend will accelerate after popular voting ends; he'll probably pass the 2,025 threshold in the first two weeks of June.
Clinton may stay in, hoping to can seat Florida and Michigan. But she won't win there, either.
The Credentials Committee, which will make the key report, consists of three votes for each state or territory. The remaining contests will leave him with, at worst, a 10-state lead. Howard Dean names 25 committee members, but she can't prosper unless he stacks them all for her - and, if anything, he'll go the other way.
Having lost there, her only option would be to appeal to the convention floor - where neither of the contested delegations can vote on their own credentials, virtually assuring an Obama victory on the credentials fight and the nomination.
Clinton may well fight all the way - she's stubborn and dedicated. More, she's also farsighted and devious: She could hope to so bloody Obama that he can't beat John McCain. If McCain wins, she could get the Democratic nomination in 2012 - and, with McCain closing in on 76 and after 12 years of GOP rule, win.
But one thing is clear: Obama has this nomination sewed up.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
HILLARY WON'T ADOPT THE HUCKABEE OPTION
HILLARY WON'T ADOPT THE HUCKABEE OPTION
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 7, 2008.
OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 7, 2008.
OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)