Archive for the ‘Government Corruption’ Category
Tom Foley said he will not concede the election until there is an official certified count. Already in Torrington a recount found 2,000 voted for him that were not counted earlier. He said in his news conference this morning, that Secretary of State Bysiewicz and other elected officials are doing a grave disservice to Connecticut voters.
And Bridgeport voter fraud is highly suspected. People outside the polls were handing out replica ballots and it was found that some of them were cast along with the real vote. Some honest voters in Bridgeport reported that they received more than one ballot 'stuck together' and complained to the poll workers. Plastic bags of ballots were left unattended and unsecured in the poll area instead of be deposited in the locked cage. Those bags were known to contain both the real ballots and the replica ballots.
Vernon Major Jason McCoy was asked by the State Republican committee to go to Bridgeport to watch the polls there after they got word of a few hundred ballots have been ordered with a return address of a vacant lot. He witnessed these irregularities along with Jim House of WFSB News who videoed them and ran a breaking news story on last night's newscast.
A Hartford voter reported that when his wife went to the polls, she was denied her right to vote because her name was already crossed of as if she voted! She eventually was able to vote, but not after putting up a fight. That same voter also stated he attended an AFL-CIO convention earlier this year and he reported that they were promoting the need to work Bridgeport this election to get the Democratic votes anyway they can. I wonder how many dead, out of people or illegals voted there?
And of course one will ask if they have yet counted the absentee votes?
Secretary of State Bysiewicz may have prematurely called Malloy winner of CT Governor race. AP just rescinded their call of the race winner as Malloy because they show Foley ahead by over 8,000 votes. and the absentee votes have not been counted!
The Fox News report quoting AP sources:
Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Wednesday that unofficial election results showed Malloy, the former mayor of Stamford, defeating Foley by 3,103 votes out of more than 1.1 million cast, above the threshold of 2,000 or fewer that would trigger an automatic recount. The total didn't include absentee ballots, which Bysiewicz believed wouldn't change the outcome. . .
. . . The Associated Press on Wednesday afternoon called the race for Malloy based on Bysiewicz's statements. However, the AP withdrew its call later Wednesday after its vote count showed Foley with a lead of 8,424 votes over Malloy, with all but 1.5 percent of the precincts counted. Bysiewicz had not released any vote results to support her statements earlier today.
The federal government is spending $62 million on a tunnel to nowhere in Pittsburgh, Pa., $89,000 on a sidewalk that leads to a ditch in Boynton, Okla., and almost $200,000 to study voter perception of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) from which these other projects are funded.
By Thomas E. Brewton
New Orleanians born and bred in the welfare-state seem honestly believe that they are not required to do anything to help themselves.
A large number of people, most of whom apparently are residents of New Orleans, have favored me with four-letter-word denunciations of The god That Failed New Orleans.
A common allegation was that I had written that New Orleans deserved its fate. No one, however, cited specifics, for good reason: I wrote nothing to that effect.
And do they want the levees to break? I guess it depends if you are (as a New Orleans blogger commented to a brain-dead Repug at the link) "a f_ckmook" who believes New Orleans deserved it (and there are, sadly, many more like this)…My thought is that they … don't care. We're the last major city port at the mouth of the largest river system in the United States, and they don't give a rat's ass. We have some of the best food, culture, history and characters to be found, and are unique unto ourselves in this world, but they pretty much summed it up with Dennis Hastert's comment: "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."
In other words, New Orleanians don't need to exert themselves rebuilding the city. They're entitled to have the taxpayers of the nation do it for them, because New Orleans has all sorts of things that cater to sensual appetites.
No emailer advanced a single argument to counter the specific points I made, which were that New Orleans, a once great commercial city, had become after 1927 mired in hedonism and dependence upon the welfare state.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Why does much of New Orleans still look as if the 2005 devastation of Hurricane Katrina had occurred just a few weeks ago?
Huge areas of New Orleans still are wastelands. New Orleans's liberal-progressive-socialist Senator Mary Landrieu has grabbed far more than her share of Congressional pork. Hundreds of millions of Federal dollars spent for rehabilitation have produced far too little beneficial result. People were without electric power for months; the police department contained more thieves than honest law enforcers; drug-dealing and prostitution remain major enterprises; and the city still retains its crown as the nation's murder capital.
One of the city's few "legitimate" businesses is casino gambling.
City and state administrations have yet to coordinate rebuilding plans, as politicians fight over who gets what share of the spoils.
The best that the city's Mayor Nagin can do is to demand that the Democratic-socialist Party presidential candidates pledge to send even more pork to New Orleans.
What accounts for this dismal record?
The answer is simple. New Orleans abandoned God and personal moral responsibility, turning instead to worshipping the atheistic, secular political state. That secular god has failed miserably, notoriously so in the aftermath of Katrina.
By Alan Caruba
There was a Washington Post news report in late March that the United Nations had “presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years—boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget, according to internal U.N. memos.”
Since I am no fan of the United Nations, my first thought was to ask why the U.S. and other “top donors” would toss more money at this bloated and morally corrupt international bureaucracy when it is manifestly unable to prevent wars—its primary mission—and remains a platform for belligerence, bigotry, and intolerance?
According to the report, the request for more money is blamed on the Bush administration’s “demands for a more ambitious U.N. role around the world.” That seems a rather convenient explanation given the poor performance of most of the U.N.’s so-called peace-keeping missions, some of which degraded into the rape of the women it was supposed to be protecting; its 60-year support of the Palestinians, making them the oldest refugee group in history; and its deplorable environmental program, a platform for the most appalling lies about the climate.
We have the final years of the Roosevelt administration for the creation of the United Nations as World War Two wound down. The failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war should have been sufficient reason not to go down that path again, but perhaps it was seen as the very reason to create a new, international organization to prevent wars?
By Jim Kouri
(Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines on Monday with a display of being close to tears while she campaigned in New Hampshire. Her friends in the media especially those on CNN attempted to put a positive spin on her demeanor. Perhaps Americans should refresh their memories of Bill and Hillary Clinton as more state primaries and caucuses occur.)
Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton once again displayed how she can talk out of both sides of her mouth depending on whom she’s addressing. For example, in New York City, Senator Clinton in a blatant her attempt to re-invent herself, told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration.
But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
According to NewsMax, the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted on her official Senate Web site. NewMax quoted Madam Hillary as saying, "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has repeatedly claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Yet Senator Clinton and her liberal-left comrades voted against border security enhancements, once again displaying her propensity for double-speak. Meanwhile, Senator Schumer’s explanation — once you cut through all the bull — is that there’s just not enough pork in such a bill for New York, since states such as California, Texas and Arizona stand to gain increased funding to control the borders.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does what she does best: refuses to comment on her actions. She’s probably once again studying the situation to see how she feels about it, a familiar Democrat Party trick to avoid telling the American people what she really believes.
Clinton, like so many in her party, attempts to appear as if she’s a national-security hawk. The reality is these Democrats are trying once again to pull the wool over American’s eyes. It’s a strategy the Democrats tried when they ran John Kerry for president. They spent a lot of capital to build up Kerry as a war hero who would fight a better terrorism war, when in fact Kerry was nothing more than a recycled war protester and propaganda master.
The mainstream news media tried as best they could to explain the Massachusetts Senator’s inconsistancies by saying his replies were "nuanced." If so, then Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton is the Queen of Nuance.
By Jim Kouri
Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs, are a great asset to the Democrat Party and the news media. The liberals know they have little if any credibility, therefore when they wish to make a point they mention that Republicans also want what they want.
But by Republicans they mean RINOs. Democrats believe Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, so does Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Democrats are fearful that a Justice Alito may overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, so does Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee. The Democrats fear we might be "abusing" terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain
Another example of RINOism is the breaking news by Matt Drudge and the New York Sun that after 10 years and over $23 million dollars the Independent Counsel investigation into Clinton Administration officials who may have used the IRS to intimidate or investigate threats to the Bill Clinton.
According to the Drudge Report, in Monday’s edition of the New York Sun, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., gave readers a first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett.
The Sun outlines the reports details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involved former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun revealed that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration initiated investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington. Also, there were investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel’s evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am. However, what’s in those 100 pages that we won’t see?
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day. That’s understandable since they are hypocrites of the first order. However, where are the Republican outcries over this continued cover-up?
Senate Slaps American People in the Face—Again by Sher Zieve
The Democrat-run Senate has provided We-the-People with yet another example of its aversion to the will of US citizens. Despite the fact that the American people, in overwhelming numbers, told both Houses of Congress that they did not and do not want any Amnesty Bill for any illegal aliens—the Senate is determined to pass one. Now Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and his pro-illegal-invasion bunch are working diligently to push through the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. This is the same bill that provides the receipt of benefits for illegal aliens’ "children" that are either not provided or are far greater than the benefits provided for US citizens’ children.
Note: It now seems almost impossible to count on our elected officials to actually uphold any laws with which they disagree or those that will not promote their political and personal agenda and ambitions. It is also becoming seemingly hopeless to even remotely believe that either Democrats or RINOs are listening any longer to the majority of the US electorate. This is the same US Congress that still patently refuses to build any fence to protect our US southern borders.