see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?'
- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA?
Dear Friends,
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
something for nothing from Obama?
something for nothing from Obama?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Young Con rap song
Young Con rap song
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Obama puts a 31-year-old in charge Charge of Dismantling G.M.
Obama puts a 31-year-old college dropout in charge of dismantling G.M.
The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M.
WASHINGTON — It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.
But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.
By DAVID E. SANGER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)