Thursday, October 26, 2006

ACLU: The Anti Christian Liberals Union

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually is actually America's number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU's history can easily be looked at and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn't religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.

When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. And of course we are all familiar with the ACLU's crusade to eliminate the Mt. Soledad war memorial because it is a cross that might offend some atheist.

It has become a tradition for the ACLU to attack Christian nativity scenes every Christmas. They has already Ten Commandment displays across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsil after city counsil over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsil meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick.

If the ACLU were consistent to oppose all religions in its seperation of church and state quest it would be one thing, but in all too many cases it is Christianity that is targeted while other religions get a pass. The cases of double standards are numerous. A few blatant examples are how the ACLU fought to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church while fighting for a tax exemption for Wiccans and how they fight against any Christianity being exposed to school children yet are found absent when Islamic indoctrination is going on. In fact they were involved in creating the rules to allow such indoctrination to take place.

There is no doubt that the ACLU are overzealous in their quest to secularize America and erase its Christian heritage. The good news is that there are organizations out there fighting them, and people standing up to protest against them. Currently they are attacking Lakeview Elementary School for promotion of a Prayer at the Flagpole event, a National Day of Prayer event, the activities of a "Praying Parents" group, teacher-led voluntary classroom prayers, and a Christian theme and overtly religious songs at a Christmas program. The school is not denying these charges but asserting that Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students have "a constitutional right to pray or to read their scriptures at school as well. They did not cave in to the ACLU's threats but gathered a group of over 600 people to protest the ACLU in a prayer vigil.

The prayer rally, organized by two Mt. Juliet commissioners, drew hundreds, with about 200 stuck in a 1.5-mile traffic jam. The event, which also attracted some local politicians and pastors, took place outside the school recently named in a lawsuit for alleged constitutional violations.


It is encouraging to see people standing up to the ACLU in defense of their rights that they feel are being threatened. However, this will not stop the ACLU from proceeding with its attacks. On the other hand it will ultimately be the power of the people and their desire for freedom that will have to put a stop to the ACLU's attempts to criminalize Christian free speech through the courts. One effective way to assert this power is to get out and vote for people that oppose the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda.

Everytime the ACLU wins a case against these small schools and local governments they are awarded massive money in attorney's fees through your tax dollars. Often this is used to threaten these cash strapped schools and local governments to surrender before the case even goes before a court. There is current legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, that seeks to put a stop to this extortion. It has already passed the House and will be up for vote soon in the Senate. It is very unlikely it will pass if liberals take control. Put an end to this abuse. Get out and vote for people you know will support this much needed legislation. Cut the ACLU off from the government teat.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.


PS: Congrats to Jay, Gribbit, and all of the fine folks at STOP THE ACLU.COM, for getting mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh show this week! Way to go!

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

THOMAS SOWELL, THE ANTIDOTE TO REPUBLICAN VOTER APATHY!

Thomas Sowell's latest column, A blank check from America?, is a compelling argument to vote Republican in 2006. Following in the steps of his great 4 part series, Frivolous Politics, he rips into the red meat of what is at stake in this election. The whole column is linked above, and the 4 Frivolous Politics columns are linked below. Here are some excerpts from his latest:


Media pundits have just about given this year's election to the
Democrats — at least in the House of Representatives and perhaps in the Senate
as well. They might even be right, for a change.

Some are saying that this could be like the 1994 midterm election
shocker when the Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives for
the first time in 40 years. If so, the Democrats will win by following the exact
opposite strategy from that which brought the Congressional Republicans to power
in 1994.

The Republican strategy, crafted by Newt Gingrich, was to spell out
their stands on key issues and to promise to bring those issues to a vote in
Congress. They called their agenda "The Contract with America."

It is now clear to all that this year's Democrats are deliberately
avoiding spelling out any coherent policy program of their own.

Their strategy is to second-guess, denigrate and undermine
Republicans instead of offering an agenda of their own. Rather than having a
contract with America, they are seeking a blank check from America. Moreover,
they may get it.


...But elections are not about which politicians get to keep their
jobs, though the media cover the news as if the political horse race is the
issue. Elections are about the fate of 300 million Americans and the future of
this nation.

That fate hangs grimly in the balance as two irresponsible regimes
in North Korea and Iran seek to gain nuclear weapons. Neither leader of these
regimes can be deterred by threats of nuclear retaliation, as the Soviet Union
was deterred.

...Even today, Democrats are arguing for more talks with North
Korea and Iran, as if talk is going to stop such regimes from going nuclear, any
more than talks with Hitler in the 1930s deterred him.

This is no longer about hawks and doves. It is about ostriches who
bury their heads in the sand — and about those voters who are prepared to give a
blank check to ostriches.



Not if we get out the vote. Please read his excellent series about "Frivolous Politics." Here are the links:

10/10/06: Frivolous politics
10/11/06: Frivolous politics, Part II
10/12/06: Frivolous politics, Part III
10/13/06: Frivolous politics, Part IV

Thursday, October 19, 2006

ACLU's Support For Voter Fraud

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

This week the ACLU held its 2006 membership conference. Over 1,500 moonbats from across
the U.S. gathered to listen to the ACLU alarmist exaggerations and lies. The
event was televised on CSPAN and there were some interesting moments such as
when Justice Scalia slam dunked Nadine Strossen
in a debate about the bill of rights.

One of the more humorous highlights of the ACLU's conference this week was when
Bush signed the Military Tribunal Bill into law. The ACLU came up with one of
its most clever and cute full page ads to date in which they claimed to be “the most conservative organization in America.


To highlight concerns with the act, the ACLU took out a full page
advertisement in today’s Washington Post, calling itself “the most conservative
organization in America.” Since its founding, the ACLU has fought to conserve
the system of checks and balances and defend the Bill of Rights.


I guess this claim is technically true. They do more work to "conserve"
political correctness, protections for terrorists and traitors, and judicial
activism than any other organization out there. I guess it all just depends on
what one is trying to conserve.

One thing the ACLU is not trying conserve is a Conservative majority in
Congress. As a matter of fact they are actively working against this. One of
the most honest moments of the ACLU conference was when Caroline Fredrickson
came out in reference to a pending NSA surveillance bill and rooted for the
Democrats.



The eavesdropping bills’ fate in the short, post-election session
that is set to begin next month hinges on whether Republicans lose their
leadership in either chamber, ACLU Washington Office Director Caroline
Fredrickson said in an interview. “If Democrats take control, they won’t let a
bad spying bill get jammed through,” she said.


As if putting out over a dozen political ads opposing
particular candidates wasn't enough to show their partisanship, Caroline just
comes out and says it. What happened to the ACLU's proud claim that they are
wholly non-partisan, neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat?”
Nevermind that old cliche slogan, the ACLU now claim they are the most
Conservative organization. So lets look at some of the things they are trying
to conserve this election season.

One thing the ACLU is working to conserve is voter fraud. Conserving the right
to vote for illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and dead people goes right
along with the ACLU's agenda to get dhimmicrats elected this election cycle. The
ACLU expressed its disappointment when the House passed the
Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,” requiring voters to present a
government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. In Missouri
at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats were found guilty of election crimes in the
last year and a half and now there is even more fraud going on. When Republican
Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the law. It was successful in striking down a similar law in Georgia and with the help of the 9th Circuit Arizona as well. They also fought voter ID laws in New
Mexico
, Michigan, and Indiana. Unfortunately for the ACLU they may not be able to pull things off in time over in Indiana.


A federal appeals court judge says the panel is unlikely to rule on
an Indiana law requiring people to show government-issued photo ID at the polls
before the November seventh election.

The Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago heard arguments in the case
Wednesday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is asking a three-judge panel to
overturn the state law.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk says there's no evidence of the vote fraud that the law
is aimed at eliminating. He says Indiana's requirements to obtain identification
are too cumbersome.

But Thomas Fisher of the Indiana Attorney General's office argued that the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party
failed to find a single person who would not be eligible to vote under the
law.


Yes, I guess it is difficult to get dead people to show up at court.

What the ACLU is really seeking to conserve is a 9/10 mindset for America. They
hope to conserve privacy rights for terrorists. They want a Democrat controlled
Congress and they are not ashamed to admit it. They know this is the only way
they can be successful striking down the NSA legislation and other important
terror bills and tools that come may come along. They fear legislation
currently pending in the Senate to strip them of their taxpayer funded
attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases, and they know a Democrat
controlled Senate is the sure fire way to kill it.

Concerned with illegal immigration? If you think we are not making any progress
now, just imagine the slow down with the Democrats in control. The ACLU will be
right their lobbying against every effort to secure the border. The ACLU's agenda is pushed by more
than just the courts. Want more conservative judges put on the bench? Let the
loony liberals gain power and you can kiss that goodbye as well.

One sure fire way to help the ACLU progress its agenda against America is to
stay at home during election time. Discouraged by the polls? Dan Riehl can help you put things back in perspective. Don't get discouraged and allow the liberals to gain power.

Get out and vote.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to
our mailing list and blogroll. Over
200 blogs already on-board
.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt. 4: FASO'S FUTILE FIGHT AGAINST SPITZER'S CORONATION

"Presumptive" Governor Elliot Spitzer. That's the most polite way to say it. Not to presume this much is sheer fantasy, but John Faso puts on a good gameface. I couldn't pay attention to their recent debate, but it didn't matter, anyway. Faso's best shot was citing Spitzer calling Alan Hevesi an "honest . . . public official," which Spitzer stood behind(more on Hevesi in future posts; Pirro as well). It will take more than that to stop the Spitzer juggernaut.

Doing my best Don Quixote imitation, I am going to cite the NY POST op-ed page, which shows several instances that Att'y Gen. Spitzer has gone easy when prosecuting political allies. Remember, he has a national reputation as a "tough" prosecutor, even known for stepping on the toes of the SEC in Wall Street prosecutions. I wonder what kind of Governor he'll be?


Consider:

New York State United Teachers: After it was discovered that investment
firm ING was paying $3 million a year in kickbacks to NYSUT to hawk its
investment products, Spitzer brokered a deal wherein ING agreed to pay $30
million in fines.

NYSUT, the recipient of the bribes and one of the state's strongest special
interests, got off with a minuscule $100,000 fine.

Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club: City gumshoes implicated six of the
politically powerful club's execs for misappropriating funds, lavishing more
than a million taxpayer-dollars on themselves and on the now-bankrupt radio
network Air America.

Nonetheless, Spitzer let four of these Democratic operatives walk; the
remaining two got wrist-slap $5,000 fines.

(Ponder for a moment that the fines imposed on NYSUT and Wise were
fractions of the embezzled booties. Perhaps the lesson Spitzer meant to impart
was "crime sometimes does pay.")

Carl McCall: In the run-up to New York Stock Exchange CEO Dick Grasso's
much-maligned $187 million deferred-compensation payout, McCall - a former New
York comptroller and failed Democratic candidate for governor - served as
chairman of the compensation committee. At the critical meeting where the
payment was approved, McCall was the guy selling the arrangement to the other
Big Board directors.

When Spitzer announced his lawsuits, McCall escaped untargeted. Yet his
predecessor as comp-committee chair, Ken Langone (an outspoken Republican), was sued.

Ruben Diaz: Employees at the Soundview Community in Action organization
(which provides social services to poor people in The Bronx) grew frustrated
that their boss, Sen. Ruben Diaz, was using them for his political work, so they
called in Spitzer.

In eight sworn affidavits, they detailed how the center - funded with state
and federal tax dollars - was serving as a personal cash cow for Diaz
politicking.

Diaz had put both his wife and ex-wife into no-show jobs that together paid
$81,000 a year. He used Soundville staffers to distribute campaign literature,
to work in his district office - and even to set up his own birthday
party.

Spitzer let Diaz, an influential Latino Democrat and Pentecostal minister,
off with a $5,000 fine and no admission of wrongdoing.


Let's just say I don't have "high hopes" for the Spitzer administration.

Spitzer continues to paint Faso as "extreme," and cites Republicans who opposed him in the primary. Faso is a conservative, which is easily characterized as extreme in NYS. Conservatives are often relegated to opposing liberal legislation. This is because most of their bills get squashed by the liberal politics of Albany (With some notable exceptions: Keandra's Law, Vasean's Law, and others that Shelly Silver's Assembly was shamed into acting on).

This means Faso doesn't have alot of sponsored legislation to promote himself with; he opposed much liberal legislation that is now law. These seem like easy openings for Spitzer, but Faso must defend his principles, as well as attack Spitzer's. I don't see him as aggressive enough, or he just doesn't have the money to get his name and message (in that order) out there. If he rallies, he may only lose by 20 points, but he's somewhere around 50 points down right now.


That's this conservative's two cents on the NYS Governor's "coronation."

Saturday, October 14, 2006

"HANG UP" HARRY REID, IT'S TIME TO GO! (-or Yes, Talk About Harry Reid)

Democrat Senate Minority leader Harry Reid is in Trouble. "Trouble with a capital "T", And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for Payoff!" (-hat tip to The Music Man.)

I've heard the recording three times already, but I'm sure many others haven't. Sen. Reid, in the middle of an interview, abruptly hangs up the phone, when asked about his shady land deals. The AP has put the scent on him, and many news outlets have perfunctorily covered it, and several liberal papers have editorialized critically about him. It looks like the MSM is in CYA mode (minimal coverage), in case this story has legs.

Rush opened his Friday show by mentioning The Strata-Sphere blog , where he found 18 printed pages of Harry Reid's real-estate transactions, straight from NV. state records. That only scratches the surface, however. Strata rounds up all of the reporting from all news sources, and gives the most in-depth account of this scandal that you will read anywhere, at it's breaking point.

I also saw a video clip of Reid, with weak audio, where he talks about possibly "paying a fine." He's going to be paying more than a fine, if he also willfully violated US laws regarding tax-evasion. His admission of guilt is out there, for anyone to see. He admitted to deserving some sanction. Of course, he's going to "lowball" whatever kind of sanction he will receive. TRANSLATION: "A fine would be nice," said "hang up" (dirty) Harry.

Then there Sen. Reid's son, who helped push through the zoning changes, specifically overriding environmental review, to increase the value of the land. Check out the multiple details of this scandal at this page on The Strata-Sphere blog. It's incredible that this story is not "bursting" into the MSM. Truly incredible. Time will tell.

Also, see John Elder's Gather post on Harry Reid. He lives in NV, and has the privelege of being represented by the Democrat Minority leader. The comments are really funny. John's a man of few words, but he chooses them well.

Crossposted at GRAFFITI POLITTI on Gather.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Aleutian Patriots tell Chavez Where to Go!

Memo to Jose Serrano (D - Bronx), better known as Chavez' favorite boot-licker:

This is what PATRIOTIC AMERICANS do. From the NY POST :

October 10, 2006 -- ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Desperately poor native villages are refusing an offer of free heating oil from Venezuela, despite the punishing winter cold looming.

The patriotic Alaskans are rejecting the offer on the principle that no foreigner has the right to call their president "the devil."...

"Even though we're in economically dire straits, it was the right choice to make," said Justine Gunderson, administrator for the tribal council in the Aleut village of Nelson Lagoon.

Linked at STOP THE ACLU Friday The 13th Free For All!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

ACLU Should Lose It's Tax Exempt Status!

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards
political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a
Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates
that did not adhere to certain "American values" as interpreted by that Church?
What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to
oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

We don't have to imagine, the ACLU's history shows us. They would challenge that Church's tax exempt status.

"In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy
opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church
and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus
brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit
challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church
was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against
abortion
."Source


However the ACLU's official policy goes even further. In the ACLU's eyes a
Church doesn't even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax
exempt status stripped.

During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the
spotlight. Michael Dukakis,
the democrat nominee, proudly stated, "I'm a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union."
These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this
campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU's position on the tax
exemption of churches. However, Dukakis's association with this group proved to
be a major factor in his defeat.

During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he
continued to make an issue out of Dukakis's membership in the ACLU. Bush replied
that he didn't like most of the ACLU's positions and offered four of them. We
will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, "I don't
think they're right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic
Church."


The ACLU doesn't deny their position! Norman
Dorsen
, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991,
refuted Bush's statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

"ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU's desire
to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was "very foolish." But in
1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the
Union adopted its first policy opposing "tax exemption for church property which
is used exclusively for religious purposes.' In the latest policy on this
subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used
exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: "The ACLU opposes tax
benefits for religious bodies", seven examples are listed for clarification,
including the benefit of tax exemption
."Source


The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.” It portrays itself as an objective
organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor
Democrat.” They say instead that they are “a public interest organization
devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.”
However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt
status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans.
They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were
entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.

Does this sound like the position of a "nonpartisan" group? Does it sound like
the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing
tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for
all, or fight to expand it to all. You can't claim non-partisanship while
opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.

Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its
tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization
used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere
to certain "American values" as interpreted by that organization?

We don't have to imagine, the ACLU's hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again
brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the
line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O'Reilly.

Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the
national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The
advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an
independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.

“Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It
features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with
warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping.
“Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help
determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and
several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay
out of electoral politics.

“It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not
being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained
and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been
seen as partisan.” NY Sun


The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be
non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU's record shows many
examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the
free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.

William Donohue accurately argues:

"Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of
the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality,
is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of
liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized
organization
."Source


Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam
War
. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment
in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of
William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan
Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much
as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the
confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It
frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to
Congress
. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU
and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand
while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with
the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the
ACLU's own ideological measuring stick. Source

The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and
Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit,
tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed
to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an
organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that
concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU's double
standard practices.

As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has
forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political
organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do
away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of
being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians
willing to push for it.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. O
ver 200 blogs already on-board
.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt. 3 Teflon Hevesi Vs. Callahan

As NY State, and formerly NYC Comptroller, Alan Hevesi has investigated waste and fiscal corruption for over a decade. My fondest thoughts for him come from seeing his name on the forty dollar state tax refund check one year (I had paid seventy dollars a few months before). He also was a target of one of my posts when he said that Chuck Schumer would put a bullet between Pres. Bush's eyes.

Mr. Hevesi is running against Chris Callahan , who called Mr. Hevesi's "public hotline" (really, the State Comptroller has one of these) to report a theft of public funds. The funny thing is, he reported Alan Hevesi for using a state-funded driver for his disabled wife. The story became a huge scandal, and Hevesi had to drop out of the race.

NOT.

Hevesi paid the state the cost of the driver, ducked the press for a few weeks, and guess what? He still has a bigger lead over Callahan than Cuomo does over Pirro (see Pt. 2 )! His numbers haven't budged a bit, for some reason. The most amazing part is that Callahan, after starting this whole thing, didn't even seem to try to capitalize on the fallout. There were local headlines for several days, but not a commercial from Callahan's camp. It could be his lack of money, but I can't remember any memorable quote from him in the news stories, either.

Worse still, Hevesi got caught doing the same thing when he was NYC Comptroller, with a similar non-reaction. Mr. Hevesi is a Democrat's democrat, in a Democratic city and state. Few people even care who the Comptroller is, but people remember the names on unexpected tax refund checks. This is one race where I may vote Democrat, just to protest Callahan's weak effort. However, if he at least exposes the things mentioned here, he may yet get my vote.

That's this conservative's view of the 2006 NYS Comptroller's race.

Crossposted at Gather to the following groups:

to groups: Elections 2006, Plant Your Rant Here, thought provoking, Nonconformists, Things that make you go hmmm..., IMMATURE AND SILLY STUFF TO MAKE GROWN PEOPLE CHUCKLE CLUB, The American Conservative Union, Republicans, Troublemakers, free thinking and free writing, You're going to post whatever the hell you want anyway so I'm not even going to name this group group, Democratic Vision, The About Absolutely Anything You Want to Publish/Post Group, Global News & Views, California Yankee at Gather, The Conservative Club, politics and international news, GRAFFITI POLITTI on Gather, Social Justice

Thursday, October 05, 2006

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt.2: PIRRO VS. CUOMO

Memo to Jeanine Pirro: All Publicity is Not Good Publicity

I mentioned in an earler post how weak the slate of Republican candidates in New York is this year. HOW WEAK, you ask? Well, our highest-profile candidate is Jeanine Pirro, who already dropped out of the Senate race to run for Attorney General. I liked her as a prosecutor, and she is more qualified than her opponent, Mr. Cuomo (son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo). However, she is "high profile" for all of the wrong reasons.

Mrs. Pirro's spouse makes "slick Willie" look like an angel, being a convicted criminal. Still, if all of those NY "Clinton" voters really believe that a spouse's (or spousal) problems shouldn't be campaign fodder, she might have a chance. She is running closer to Cuomo than any other statewide Republican, which says volumes about his popularity in NYS.

I wish she had stayed in the Senate race, to be honest. All of the stuff they could throw at her about her hubby Al would be deflected by comparisons to Bill's philandering and impeachment, as well as Hillary's own scandals (Rose law firm billing records, cattlegate, etc...). It might not be as big an issue.

She is a fighter, and has come out swinging over the latest developments. This is complicated, so try to follow: While the FBI was "bugging" disgraced former NYPD head Bernie Kerik, who was then a private investigator working at Giuliani Partners, Mrs. Pirro was overheard asking Kerik to install a "bug" on her husband's boat, to find out if he was cheating. It was never done, and she claims that it wouldn't be a crime had it been done, under a "spousal property" rule. I don't know the NYS law on that, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

The leak of the tape, however, is of deep concern to me, as a voter. Smear tactics are all too common in today's politics. At least she is fighting back against them, but bringing more scrutiny on herself, as the NY Times points out :

Federal prosecutors have issued a subpoena for copies of financial
disclosure statements filed by Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican candidate for
state attorney general, from 1998 to 2005, when she was the Westchester County
district attorney, a person familiar with the subpoena said yesterday.

Paul Shechtman, Ms. Pirro's lawyer, said, "In my conversations with the
government, they have given no indication that the investigation involves
anything else than Jeanine's talking about eavesdropping."

He added, "The only thing that I can guess is that the financial disclosure
statements are being sought to ascertain whether Jeanine claimed an ownership
interest in the boat."


Let's hope the feds can find where the leak of the tape came from as fast as they're trying to find out if Mrs. Pirro solicited a criminal act. For the record, I'm going to hold my nose as I vote for her, and hope there's nothing more there.

That's this conservative's view of the NYS Attorney General's race, at this point.

The New York Rebublican Massacre 2006, Pt. 1: HILLARY VS. WHO?

GABE PRESSMAN EXPOSES SPENCER'S WEAKNESS VS. HILLARY

In an interview with Gabe Pressman on Sunday (9/24), John Spencer showed why he is unqualified to be elected to the Senate by the voters of NY State. As a nominal Republican, I am ashamed of his performance. Read the interview HERE , but realize that so much more was obvious when watching it. I had never seen Spencer before, though I supported him over the nightmare of K.T. McFarland. Now, I'm not sure which was the lesser of the two.

The Republican Party in NY is a joke, thanks to Gov. Pataki and Joe Bruno. They might as well call themselves "right wing" liberals, with all the worst traits of both. It is no wonder that Hillary found a natural home in this state. It is full of corruption, and constant "liberal reform."

I will still vote for Spencer, unless I can find a Conservative who is not afraid to criticize liberals and liberalism directly. The NY State Conservative Party's Executive Committee has endorsed Spencer , but I've not seen the whole Party endorsement on his website yet. After seeing him interviewed, I share their concerns.

Hillary Clinton is many things, among them an adequate Senator. John Spencer may be a worthy candidate, but he comes off as even more lackluster and pre-programmed than Hillary, if that's possible.

That's this conservative's view of the NY Senate race, at this point.