April 27, 2008
First, let’s review:
• Barack Obama says that in 2000, he was so broke, his credit card was declined when he tried to rent a car at LAX;
• Michelle Obama (who pisses and moans constantly about how rough she had it, skipping through life from private charter school to Harvard) says she and Barry were still heavily burdened by debt (specifically, by student loans from 1988 and 1991) until Barack’s book sales took off in 2005.
Despite these facts:
• In 1993, the Obamas put a $111,000 down payment on a $277,500 condiminum;
• In 2000, the Obamas earned a combined household total of $240,000.
With that in mind, get a load of what’s come out in this morning’s L.A. Times — “Obama donor received a state grant“:
After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter.
Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000.
A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.
Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.
Obama’s staff said the senator advocated only for the first year’s grant — which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.
Uh, isn’t this sort of thing illegal?
Oopsy-daisy! My mistake! Apparently, this is just Chicago-style — or at least Illinois-style — politics as usual:
Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector.
So, it’s not illegal. But you know what? It should be.
Now, you take this Blackwell wheeling-and-dealing (and there’s plenty more about it at the LAT link) along with Obama’s questionable dealings with Tony Rezko, and the way Obama got where he is today — plainly put, he was kicked upstairs by another close ally, the powerful Emil Jones, Jr., whom Obama rewarded with pork-barrel earmarks of “more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’ Senate district” — and you’ve got to start asking just how “transparent” Barack Obama really is.
It shouldn’t matter a whit if Barry’s Peter-Pays-Paul dealing is legal; the question is: Is it ethical?
I say it isn’t.
I say it all just plain stinks.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Corruption,
Illinois,
Michelle Obama
April 21, 2008
Regarding Scott E. Graham, who was found murdered in his West Palm Beach, Florida, home last week, and my denunciation of the Palm Beach Post for referring to him as a “homosexual activist,” David M—- writes:
I don’t know who you are but I was a personal friend of Scott’s. While “gay rights activist” seems more conventional and appropriate than “homosexual activist,” I mark up the Post’s gaff as having originated from the same ineptitude that lead to “investigator’s” rather than any kind of bias.
I personally am more concerned with the authorities bringing Scott’s murderer to justice than typos and semantics in the Palm Beach Post.
Dear David,
First, I’m so sorry for your loss. I know how empty that sounds, but it’s sincere.
Second: Absolutely, bringing Scott’s murderer to justice is issue number one. My take on the PBP’s reporting is that it heaps insult upon injury. We’re so demonized in life, it outrages me that we get even less respect in death.
Watch my “Life, Interrupted” video sometime; the violent death of any of us, no matter the reason, is an issue that affects me very deeply. That the dead among us have no voice provokes me to defend them more quickly, and more strongly. There’s not much I personally can do, but if coming down on a newspaper for treating a murder victim as an object instead of a human being makes even one person stop and think about the power of words, then that’s something.
I hope that makes more sense — that it’s not merely a matter of semantics, but a recognition of human dignity, and taking to task those who don’t (or refuse to).
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Crime,
Florida
April 18, 2008
We’ve lost another one of our own to violence. Whether this was a hate crime, or something else, we’ll have to wait and see.
In any case, it’s our loss.
But first, a big thumbs down 
to the Palm Beach Post — not for its ignorance of plural versus possessive (”investigator’s”), but for using the highly offensive, Bush-era, right-wing slur, “homosexual activist.”
WEST PALM BEACH — Police identified a body found Wednesday morning at 113 Ellamar Road as that of high-end interior designer Scott E. Graham.
Graham’s family identified him through photos taken at the medical examiner’s office.
Investigator’s [sic] wouldn’t say what killed Graham, a successful businessman and homosexual activist. But they were treating his death as a homicide.
Lt. Chuck Reed said the body had “obvious signs of foul play.” …
Reed also said police found Graham’s garage door half-open and front door unlocked when they arrived at about 11 a.m. Wednesday. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Crime,
Florida,
R.I.P.
April 11, 2008
The short version: A 22-year-old Tennessean named Steven Scarborough beat 62-year-old Victor Manious to death with a baseball bat, then, with his friend Justin Robinson, stuffed Manious — still alive — in the trunk of Manious’ car, and left Manious to die while parked on a city street.
Scarborough’s defense: Perp and victim scuffled, Manious knocked out Scarborough, and when Scarborough came to, he discovered Manious “sexually assaulting” him. So he killed him.
Like we haven’t heard that one before.
And then, of course, because he was ever-so-remorseful (do we need to use a “sarcasm” emoticon here?), Scarborough used his victim’s credit cards and took a flight to Texas.
Scarborough was charged with felony murder and faced mandatory life in prison without parole. The verdict — from a jury whose brains must be lodged permanently up their asses — was voluntary manslaughter.
The maximum prison sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years.
As if it couldn’t get any worse, the jury actually considered acquitting Scarborough.
Are there not twelve sane people in Grand Rapids? If so, not a one was on that jury.
More details — read ‘em and weep:
Upon hearing the verdict, Scarborough hugged his lawyer, Paul Denenfeld, and smiled. His mother, Veronica Hand, in court with her husband, Michael, wept.
Grand Rapids Police Detective Kristen Rogers, who interviewed Scarborough once he was apprehended, put her head in her hands.
Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Helen Brinkman said she would tell the Manious family she did her best. …
About two hours earlier before the verdict was reached, jurors had asked for information regarding acquittal. …
After the verdict Scarborough’s stepfather, Michael Hand, said, “I’m just sorry any of this happened.”
Though Manious was still alive, Scarborough and Robinson then dumped him into the trunk of his own car, after which Scarborough drove Manious’ car to an isolated spot with Robinson accompanying him in another vehicle. Scarborough then joined Robnson, and the two drove away, leaving Manious trapped in the trunk, where he died. …
It is the defense’s contention that throwing Manious into the car trunk and then abandoning him, plus Scarborough’s fleeing to a Texas town, were at the suggestion of Robinson, whom the defense have characterized as more a “mastermind” in the events than Scarborough.
It was Robinson who then tipped off police, saying that he had noticed a man’s name on a credit card that Scarborough subsequently used for a shopping spree. Robinson reportedly claimed that he became suspicious because Scarborough had told him that the card belonged to a girlfriend. …
The incident took place last July; the trial commenced two weeks ago, and in that time, the family of the slain businessman and church leader, who was 62, have heard what they consider to be incredible stories of Manious’ so-called gay double life. …
Soheir Manious’ brother, John Fahd, also shook off allegations that Manious, an immigrant from Egypt who arrived in the U.S. thirty years ago, was leading a double life, noting that the slain man was a church leader for local Coptic Christians. …
Helen Brinkman, the assistant prosecutor for Kent County, told the jury that luring gay men to their apartment and then robbing them was a modus operandi for Scarborough and Robinson. Brinkman’s sequence of events portrayed the two as selecting Manious as their next victim based on their perception that he was foreign and wealthy. …
“A really arduous process. It was tough,” [one of the jurors] said of the deliberations. “The major focus was on the possibility of a sexual assault” of Scarborough on Manious.
He added such an assault was never proved or disproved.
“…if he (Scarborough) felt he was being violated, he was someone in an emotional state. He just lost it, overreached in the amount of force he used in reacting to sexual abuse. A lot of us said, ‘If it were us, what would we have done?’ I feel relief we reached a decision even though in the beginning I thought there could have been a more severe verdict. In the end, we came up with the best we could. I feel just awful for Victor’s family.” …
So you take the word of a confessed murderer, and decide that maybe, just maybe, if it happened the way this scumbag says it did, that makes it OK to bludgeon another human being to death?
The jury is as sick as the killer. May the lot of them lose sleep every night for the rest of their lives over their unforgivable decision.
The only thing that got raped in this case was justice.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Crime,
Down-Low/MSM,
Hate Crimes,
Homophobia,
Michigan
April 9, 2008
No, no, not a “poll tax,” but a “pole tax.”
At first, we thought the Great State of Texas was intending to levy a fee on Polish people, and that would indeed be unconstitutional. And then we thought, well, maybe this is an animal story, and it had something to do with polecats.
But, no: The fee in question was a proposed pole tax — essentially an extra five-dollar cover charge for strip-club patrons to be handed over to the state to fund healthcare and sexual-assault prevention programs.
Which all makes for noble intentions, but doesn’t make a whole lot of sense: When men go to strip clubs (face it, folks, there just aren’t a lot of strip clubs catering to female customers), they’re sating some arcane compulsion to buy overpriced, watered-down liquor while throwing even more money at naked women in a relatively safe, secure environment. In other words, strip clubs keep drunken horny guys off the streets.
Judging by my one experience with a straight strip club (on a lark at age 18, I decided I wanted to see Carol Doda, before she was too old and too disabled by those gigantic, silicone-filled gazongas to descend into the Condor Club on her famous flying piano), guys who patronize strip clubs are too drunk (read: impotent) and too broke (there was a two-drink minimum, at $13.50 a pop, back in 1980) to be able to assault, sexually or otherwise, anybody.
Don’t laugh: There are brazillions of studies showing that porn consumption cuts down on sex crimes (you can read about some of them here, and here), so it would make sense that strip clubs serve the same function.
(Granted, there’s always the danger that these drunken horndogs will then get behind the wheel of a car and kill somebody on the way home, but drunk driving is a whole ‘nother issue; if somebody’s going to drive drunk, they’re going to drive drunk at some point, regardless of the circumstances.)
I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to worry about whether strip clubs (or porn) contribute to the dehumanization of women as sex objects.
Anyway, the “pole tax,” which the state started collecting this past January, is kaput for now. Sez MSNBC:
A state district judge ruled Friday that clubs can’t collect the fee. …
Judge Scott Jenkins wrote that the fee, “while furthering laudable goals, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.”
The Texas Entertainment Association Inc., which is a group of topless clubs, and Karpod Inc., the owner of an Amarillo club, sued Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Comptroller Susan Combs over the fee.
Witnesses for the strip clubs testified at a hearing last year that the clubs would go out of business if they had to collect an additional $5-per-patron fee. …
Attorneys for the state have argued that the fee does not prohibit nude dancing, does not regulate what entertainers wear and does not regulate the businesses in other ways. The state can appeal the decision.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Crime,
Heterosexuality,
Texas
March 31, 2008
A funny thing happened recently: Ever since Mike Gravel jumped back into the race, I’m not paying a lot of attention to Barack Obama — other than to shake my head and cluck my tongue every time he says something stupid. (Did you hear what he said about a woman’s right to choose? I agree with the guy, on every word, but that “punished with a baby” line is red meat for the Right. Dumb, Barry, really dumb.)
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I’m not glad to see Obama’s very real liabilities brought up in the MSM, as often as possible. I don’t hate Barack — I just don’t want him to be president, and to that end, I want all Americans who have yet to vote in a primary to understand that Barack Obama is not the Messiah he and his blindly adoring supporters want you to think he is.
To that end, I direct your attention to a long, detailed piece that gets into the specifics of Obama’s ties to some very unsavory characters (and Jeremiah Wright isn’t even one of “the four stumps”!) worth bookmarking:
Four Stumps in the Water for Obama
As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface. The problems began with Obama’s long attachment to Rev. Wright, Trinity United Church, and Black Liberation Theology, but they won’t end there.
So, what issues are now lurking for Obama?
The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks’s church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That’s the question: how close are those ties?
Meeks is no ordinary pastor. He is an important political and religious figure in African-American Chicago. He not only leads a mammoth congregation, he is an Illinois state senator and a key player in Jesse Jackson’s powerful local political organization, which is squarely behind Obama’s run for the Presidency. …
Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama’s rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama’s underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. …
The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin “Tony” Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors. …
…Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him. When local reporters raised pointed questions, Obama declined to answer. He broke that silence at a strategic moment, just as the Rev. Wright story hit and the national media was focused on nothing else. That’s when Obama found time to give extensive interviews about Rezko to the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Predictably, the story got some play locally but was drowned out nationally. …
Where does Obama figure in all this, aside from being a recipient of Rezko’s campaign cash? No one knows for sure, but suspicion centers on one particular real estate deal. …
Obama’s final stump also lies in Kenwood, where he was friendly with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol. …
Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund. Ayers later chaired the board and is still a member. Obama served from 1999 until 2002 and received several thousand dollars annually as compensation. According to the 2001 annual report, the fund made a $6000 discretionary grant to Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church “in recognition of Barack Obama’s contribution of services to the Woods Fund as a director.” Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. (While they were all on the board, the Woods Fund gave a generous grant to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona.)…
Much, much more at the link, and all well worth reading.
See also:
Pork-Barrel Spending, Billjacking, and Strong-Arm Tactics: How Barack Obama Got Where He Is Today
And the Meeks Shall Inherit the Obamanation
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Corruption,
Election 2008,
Homeland Insecurity,
Illinois,
Mike Gravel,
Race/Ethnic Issues
March 17, 2008
Back in February, we tried to make sense of Barack Obama’s ever-changing position on decriminalizing marijuana:
In 2004, Barack was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
In 2007, Barack was not in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
In 2008 — just this past Thursday, in fact — Barack was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
His campaign, forgetting all about the debate last fall, said Barack was always in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
But then, “before the day was over,” Barack was not in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. Again.
If you don’t feel totally baked after trying to figure that out, Jeralyn at TalkLeft discovers the supposed truth (this time around, anyway):
Now he’s clear: he opposes decriminalization of marijuana.
What accounts for this latest switch? His campaign says he didn’t understand what decriminalization meant.
And Obama was a lawyer?
And the editor of the Harvard Law Review?
And a former pot smoker whose freedom rested on knowing whether or not weed had been “decriminalized”?
Gee, maybe he can use that as an excuse for his pot-smoking — he didn’t know it was illegal!
Jeralyn adds:
I think it’s a fair question to ask if he’s being disingenous now, first about raising his hand by mistake and now saying he was confused about what decriminalization means, or whether in 2004 he was engaging in a campaign ploy to attract the youth vote.
Hit the TalkLeft link for more, with some spirited (and often amusing) reader comments!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Crime,
Marijuana,
Random Stupidity
