Apparently there is no "Know Your Donor" rule at Team Obama:
Obama to Return Major Donations Tied to Fugitive
Two American brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who fled drug and fraud charges in the United States and has been seeking a pardon enabling him to return have emerged as major fund-raisers and donors for President Obama’s re-election campaign.
The casino owner, Juan Jose Rojas Cardona, known as Pepe, jumped bail in Iowa in 1994 and disappeared, and has since been linked to violence and corruption in Mexico. A State Department cable in 2009 said he was suspected of orchestrating the assassination of a business rival and making illegal campaign donations to Mexican officials.
When The New York Times asked the Obama campaign early Monday about the Cardonas, officials said they were unaware of the brother in Mexico. Later in the day, the campaign said it was refunding the money raised by the family, which totaled more than $200,000.
...“On the basis of the questions that have been raised, we will return the contributions from these individuals and from any other donors they brought to the campaign,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign.
Uhh, why weren't these questions raised by the campaign?
On Monday, Democratic fund-raisers who have had encounters with Alberto and Carlos Cardona expressed surprise upon learning about their family history. Manuel Sanchez, a Chicago lawyer who is deeply involved in Latino outreach for the Obama administration, said he first met them in December at a finance committee meeting for the president’s campaign in Washington.
He said he had been told that they were involved in “marketing and advertising.” They impressed him as “very smart young guys who wanted to support the president,” he said.
“I did get the distinct impression that both of them are very well-to-do and successful in their businesses,” Mr. Sanchez said, adding that he “had no idea” they had a brother in Mexico or what his background was.
Surprised by their family history? I am not paid to vet unknown donors, but a simple Google search (taking out the current stories about donors and Obama) kicked back the result below; results two and three might have prompted the suspicions even of non-Spanish speakers:
My reaction is that "siniestra" sounds sinister and "corrupcion" doesn't look good. One wonders why no one took a closer look. Oh, not really. And does the timing work? I am trusting the Times on this:
The first campaign donations by Alberto and Carlos Cardona came shortly after news articles revealing Pepe Cardona’s criminal past appeared in the United States and Mexico last fall.
Apparently Team Obama will take money from anyone and then apologize if the media or diligent Republican sleuths catch them at it. As to the media, well, the Times is getting their balance in early - there is no way they run this story after June, unless the "Gotcha" applies to a Republican.
You don't suppose this explains F & F do you? Have the Obama campaign workers fiddled with the website donor info again yet?
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 07:41 AM
In that continuing 'Duke and Duke' investment scheme, known as Newsweek they rate DEA informants against the Sinaloa cartel's rivals, as t he reason for their rise to prominence, as much as the Bulger formula applies, I don't think that is.
So a fugitive, like Al Samarrai, a middleman
like Auchi, nothing to see here.
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 07:48 AM
I think it's shameful that someone with known ties to drugs, illegal campaign contributions, and political violence in Mexico would have money donated to him by these Cardonas characters.
Posted by: bgates | February 07, 2012 at 07:51 AM
You know if you think about those Super Bowl commercials through the template that Big Business has been told we have shifted to a Corporatist economic system and BO is the leader. And if he's not reelected their Five Year Plans, I mean Business Plans, are in jeopardy. And thus the bonuses they are counting on.
It sure does fit.
Posted by: rse | February 07, 2012 at 08:23 AM
None better, I tell you.
None better.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 07, 2012 at 08:23 AM
July 2008:
Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis tells us that the Afghan War has evolved into a failure of epic proportions.
Posted by: Neo | February 07, 2012 at 08:35 AM
Since we're going off topic, the Times has created a kerfuffle with a silly article by Adam Liptak about how the U.S. Constitution (being more than 100 years old and all) is no longer in vogue as a model for other countries' constitutions. In describing how relatively few rights it guarantees (no right to affirmative action!), he seems blissfully unaware that its point was to enumerate (and thereby limit) the powers of the government. Which is why, of course, we are still relatively free compared to lots of other countries that have more "rights."
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 08:48 AM
Speaking of our military in Afghanistan...If anyone is in the DC area this weekend -
WIA (wounded in action ministry) is having a "Come and Go" Baby Shower for the young widow of a service member who recently died after being shot in Afghanistan -
Sunday - FEB 12th
2 PM to 4 PM
McLean Bible Church Tysons Campus
8925 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, VA
in The Rock Lounge
Thank you for the wonderful offers of support for this military widow who is due to give birth to a baby daughter on March 2nd. Many of you wrote in and asked how you could help this young woman left behind with a 2-yr. old daughter and a baby on the way. Please come and join us this Sunday in "The Rock Lounge" at MBC Tysons to shower this family with Christ's love and baby items.
Posted by: Janet | February 07, 2012 at 08:50 AM
A new bookmark for everyone - The Washington Free Beacon - Combat Journalism (man, do I love the sound of that!). Editor, Matthew Continetti explains:
Janet, I think you will like this news site.
Posted by: centralcal | February 07, 2012 at 08:53 AM
I like Matthew Continetti. Good luck to him.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 07, 2012 at 09:05 AM
For me, the less attention the country pays to the NYT, the better for the country.
I would like to see conservatives take over more media outlets, like NBC, but for all the supposed money in the hands of conservatives, it doesn't happen. Why?
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 09:16 AM
Please! we wonder about 'Bam taking $200K from nephews of a Mexican crook and drug dealer? "Bam/Holder walked 2000 weapons to Mexican gangsters so people would be killed in Mexico and mexican enclaves in the USA, to justify more gun laws restricting law abiding US gun dealers. And we expect 'Bam to vette money bundlers? Please. 'Bam and his crew are lawless: they justify anything and everything as being for "the cause". Anyways, 'Bam needs the money. He's falling way short of donors to his campaign because the presidency brings scrutiny. so he's pushing the more lax superPAC money now. That will be a huge slush fund come August.
Posted by: NK | February 07, 2012 at 09:17 AM
Well, another "community organizer" president just went down:
Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed resigns amid unrest
Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed has resigned after weeks of demonstrations and a mutiny by some police officers.
Why do I call him a "community organizer" you ask?
Mr Nasheed was elected on a wave of optimism in 2008, in the islands' first multi-party election.
Mr Nasheed, a former human rights campaigner...
But apparently, he turned a lot of the population off pretty quickly...
Since then, correspondents say, the country has been gripped by constitutional gridlock - parties opposed to the president have dominated parliament since general elections the following year.
And the Beeb is obviously sorry to see him go...
A one-time political prisoner, Mr Nasheed became a vocal figure in office on issues relating to the environment and climate change.
But he has faced constant opposition - from those loyal to former President Gayoom and from religious conservatives who accuse him of being anti-Islamic, says the BBC's South Asia analyst Jill McGivering.
See, he was one of the "good guys," and those reactionaries took him out.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 09:25 AM
Quien es mas macho?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Observation 1 -- There is no evidence that the brothers giving money to Obama's campaign are tied up with the drug lord. If the brothers simply went out and bought ads with their own cash, the New York Times (or Fox news) would not ask the brothers where the money came from. As long as the brothers are citizens, I do not see the issue with the donation of cash. Of course, should the Obama administration fail to persue the drug lord, or should the President pardon the guy, there is a story.
Observation 2 -- Like the Combat Journalism site. Frankly, most stories are broken because somebody has an axe to grind. Hope they do well and the Koch Brothers are generous.
Observation 3 -- Most other democracies do not emulate our system, and it's fair to point that ours in an NYT article. But then, our system works better in a lot of ways and, while not immune from insane anti-democratic bureaucracises, is at least no worse than most modern democracies in that respect. Plus, the rights enshrined in the constitution tend to be more for the individual, than for than the group, which is a better protection against tyranny.
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 09:29 AM
I'm sure the Obama campaign officials saw nothing wrong with taking money from "Pepe" (wasn't that the name of the pickup truck owned by the druglord in "Romancing the Stone" ?).
Posted by: Neo | February 07, 2012 at 09:30 AM
Pepe-Oh that French skunk! Sure we'll cash that check.
Posted by: Sheriff Joe Biden | February 07, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Well, it looks like the Greeks are about to get the old "Don't let the door hit you in the assets" treatment:
Greece exit would not end euro, says EU commissioner
"What's a man overboard?" Mrs Kroes told the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant. "It's always said that if you let one country get out, or ask it to get out, then the whole structure collapses. But that's simply not true.
"The Greeks have to realise that we Dutch and we Germans can only sell emergency Greek aid to our taxpayers if there's evidence of good will."
And there is always the eternal optomist to quote:
A similar message was delivered with a more optimistic spin by Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the "eurogroup" of eurozone finance ministers, who said he had no doubt that Greece would remain within the eurozone, provided that it met its obligations to other members.
"The euro will outlive us all," he said.
I think that final statement goes under the heading of "famous last words."
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 09:34 AM
Ugh-- the point of the story is that the evidence indicates is that Pepe is laundering money through his nephews to buy a pardon of Federal and Iowa crimes. I'd say 'Bam giving back the $200K in order to make this story go away substantiates the evidence. Does anyone on the Left even care about facts?
Posted by: NK | February 07, 2012 at 09:38 AM
I do not see the issue with the donation of cash
Someone besides us saw the issue because they returned the money.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Ever since I studied constitutional law I have been convinced that it is necessarily unique to this country, for reasons having to do with our pre-revolutionary history. I think it would be nearly impossible even to attempt it, for example, in any place with no history of English common law.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 09:41 AM
I think so, too, but I think Greece's leaving it will not sink the Euro.
If Greece leaves, the drachma will be pegged by the market--much lower than it now is--and that may attract tourists and eventually buyers and investors/
If Greece leaves, it may encourage other debtor nations to follow suit. And I don't think that's a bad thing.
Italian commerce is just about completely under the radar anyway. Spain can sing and dance on its own pesos, not German labor, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 09:42 AM
we're in the best of hands!
If you recall, there was a huge stink about Obama's campaign funding in the last election. $750 million, all of it privately raised with no FEC oversight.
In fact, the FEC said it had no authority to investigate contributions form among others, M Mouse (many), E Fudd, J Stalin, etc....
They may or may not have declined donations from A. Hilter.
Posted by: matt | February 07, 2012 at 09:42 AM
Minus 10 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 09:43 AM
The GAB has ratcheted "non-partisan" up to eleven- GAB will not accept challenges to petition signatures from Tea Party efforts. The head of the GAB avoids accountability, "There is no recognized process for intervention by non-parties," director Kevin Kennedy wrote. "Given the unprecedented nature of these recall efforts, it would be improper to change procedures in the midst of our review." Dueling courts to follow, with Waukesha backing the Tea Party and Dane appeals continuing its own hackery.
Posted by: henry | February 07, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Two American brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who fled drug and fraud charges in the United States and has been seeking a pardon enabling him to return...
Yep, they wouldn't know a thing. And man that Pepe is something with the ladies.
Posted by: Sheriff Joe Biden | February 07, 2012 at 09:43 AM
i·ro·ny
1 /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
I'm sure that Un-FairCampaign.org missed the irony of their racist sign.
Posted by: Neo | February 07, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Yo soy mas macho. Y tu?
Minus 10? He can't win, then, can he?
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 09:45 AM
A friend told me the Italians recently raided hotels and restaurants in fancy resort areas, had forensic accountants examine the receipts and books and compared them with receipts reported to the govt on the same days one year earlier--they found out (surprise) that the receipts reported were 25% of what current tallies showed these outfits took in a year later.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Ranger-- you are correct -- Hello Complete Greek default (they can't even carry government 'services' on their revenue, much less the debt service) Hello Drachma, good bye Euro, and we are down to the PIIS. Greece will devalue the Drachma to about 100/1 Euro/Drachma, there will be turmoil, but it will also lead to a tourism and agriculture boom that will lead to real economic growth which is at the root of all of the PIIGS problems. Point is, when Spain, Portugal, Ireland and even Italy see what Greece is doing why do they stay in the EuroZone? Why do they stay in? Well German and French bankers love the interest they make off of the PIIGS sovereign bonds. Greek socialist politician stay in because selling these bonds keeps them and their government worker supporters employed. The people will figure this out soon enough. There will be a EuroZone for Germany, Holland, France, Austria-- that's about it.
Posted by: NK | February 07, 2012 at 09:51 AM
Rick is our resident expert on the cash economy of Italy...
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 07, 2012 at 09:52 AM
Sue:
Someone besides us saw the issue because they returned the money.
It's politically embarassing, and it makes the Prez look bad, if he can't catch the drug lord. I understand the appearences part of things. These guys would have been smarter to give the money to a SuperPac.
My own, quirky I'm sure, opinion is that money is free speech, and everyone has a right to engage in it in this country. Persuading the 1%, after all, is part of governing.
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 09:52 AM
I would also say that it is important to remember that a large number of the people who designed the American Constitutional system were decendants of people who were trying to escape a democratic system that was in many ways a tyranny of the masses (at least the voting masses). They were just as affraid of the power of Parliament as they were the power of the King.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Minus 10 at Raz today.
I think I'm going to go over to Ace's and join the "Doom" gang. ::sigh::
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Malor has started a nice food fight @ AoS by linking LI and pre-emptively blaming the Tea Party for not getting in line behind Willard.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 07, 2012 at 10:01 AM
It's politically embarassing,
I'm sure they were embarrassed. That they got caught.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 10:01 AM
These guys would have been smarter to give the money to a SuperPac.
Ah, but then they wouldn't have gotten access when it came time to ask for the pardon again.
Do we really need to go over the Clinton/Holder pardons again to refresh your memory of how this works when there is a Dem in the White House?
Putting Holder in as AG was like putting an "open for business" sign in the Pardon for Pay shop window.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 10:03 AM
LOL. Ann Compton, ABC News Radio, just reported that although Obama "loathes" (you had to hear how she said the word loathes, emphasizing just how much Obama loathes)super pacs, he is now being forced to use them because he realizes that rivals super pacs will be coming after him.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Ranger:
The best way to handle this crap is publicize the link of donations to favors, not pass laws attempting to ban things, which has the perverse effect of making such arrangements far harder to see, and a giant legal game.
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 10:06 AM
A vote for Romney in a primary will be a vote for Obama's reelection and socialism.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 10:11 AM
If Il Douche gets run in November and Stedman is still in place, the pardons next January will make Slick's seem to have possessed the wisdom of Solomon.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 07, 2012 at 10:12 AM
I think perhaps the most effective campaign would be "This is what he said. This is what he did."
The Drudge headline is about Obama's reversal of his decision on PAC money.
Posted by: matt | February 07, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Appalled,
I don't recall asking for any new laws. Just pointing out why they gave to the campaign, not a super PAC.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 10:17 AM
For the primary in California, Newt should petition the court for a change of venue.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 10:21 AM
For the primary in California, Newt should petition the court for a change of venue.
Hey, if Newt wants to go run for President of Chile, I'll support that effort.
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Well of course, really Markinson have you learned nothing in four years;
https://twitter.com/#!/jmartpolitico/status/166885314277810178
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 10:28 AM
" he is now being forced to use them because he realizes that rivals super pacs will be coming after him"
Shows you the wi and Wisdom of McCain who stuck with public campaign financing after Obama went back on his word and canned that stupid idea..
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Regarding our constitution and whether it fits all sizes:
I recently read online a wonderful essay (which I'll try to find) on how Simon Bolivar tried to use our Constitution as a basis of installing democratic institutions in Venezuela and across Latin America. He tried in vain and couldn't make it work. Why?
The people. They were not the same with the same motivation, the same culture, political philosophy as that of our colonies. After all, our's was a War of Independence not revolution.
Probably in a way Ginsburg is right but for the wrong reason. The Egyptian people are not the same as the colonial American's in their motivations and outlooks.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 07, 2012 at 10:30 AM
**Wit and wisdom**
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 10:31 AM
No, Ginsburg is a fool, regardless, haven't the last 60 years since the '52 coup, tough
that 'positive rights' are a mug's game.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/02/07/huffpo-catholics-need-to-just-forget-2000-years-of-church-doctrine-because-people-have-sex/
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 10:36 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/google-removes-search-youtube-content-from-india-domains-on-court-order.html
“The order follows a civil complaint filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Quasmi, an Indian activist who seeks the removal of videos and images that could be seen as offensive to Muslims, his lawyer Santosh Pandey said today.”
Only beheadings and beatings will be seen on YouTube.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 07, 2012 at 10:37 AM
When viewing Romney's popularity, one has to ask at what point did there become as many Democrats in the Republican Party as there are in the Democrat Party?
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Another take on Clint Eastwood's "Halftime in America" TV Ad at LUN.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | February 07, 2012 at 10:44 AM
A vote for Romney in a primary will be a vote for Obama's reelection and socialism
I'd welcome a suggestion for an alternative to Romney.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Other than those details, they told the truth;
http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/02/06/count-the-lies/
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 10:46 AM
No, you wouldn't.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Between him, and Milbank, and Wiesberg, the skepticism of Elis are merited, also McCarry's
Shelley's Heart was disturbingly prophetic on that score, more than 15 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Liptak
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Yes, I know they are exceptions,
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 10:55 AM
When viewing Romney's popularity, one has to ask at what point did there become as many Democrats in the Republican Party as there are in the Democrat Party?
Gee, there, Casual. When everyone is a RINO, I mean is there really a Republican Party? Quite the existential conundrum, isn't it?
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Well Drudge is really hammering 'Bam's hypocrisy on SuperPacs, Feingold's pissed as well. Feingold is a rare honest liberal, a fool of course, but rare honest liberal.In other news, turns out Holder is smarter and sneakier than I believed -- andthat's not a god thing. Holder clearly set up plausible deniability in walking guns to Mexican gangs. So says the former Tuscon DEA boss. Even I have a hard time believing that the Obamaniacs put their political goals above the slaughter of innocents -- but that's exactly what they did. Here's the link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/former-tucson-dea-head-holder-either-knew-of-gun-walking-or-was-willfully-unaware/
Posted by: NK | February 07, 2012 at 11:05 AM
No, you wouldn't
Of course I would. I want to see how dumb you are.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Appalled, I'm trying, I'm really trying to be dazzled by your rationale.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Via Drudge, the delightful Gore-Olbermann saga.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Whatever else one might consider, the contrast between any GOP president and Obama is stark.
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Normally I would wait to see mustang hanging out here before I posted something like this, but it would not be fair to Ig, DoT, Soylent, PD, Mel and anyone else who shares one of my passions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAvYQSsGdMw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 07, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Most other democracies do not emulate our system, and it's fair to point that ours in an NYT article.
I wasn't objecting to that, just to the "analysis" that misses the elephant in the room. Ranking constitutions by how many rights they enumerate is idiotic when, for example, our 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
MarkO, I always hesitate to bring up the NYT, but sometimes it's a good window into how the elites think about things.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Hmmmm... The BBC is flashing that all of the Gulf States, including SA are closing thier embasies and recalling their entire diplomatic staffs. No details or confirmation, but that would seem a rather significant development. It seems that the Russians may have overplayed their hand here:
Syria crisis: Russia 'wants Arab League role'
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called for a solution to the crisis in Syria based on initiatives put forward by the Arab League.
The military tide is clearly with Assad at the moment, but the diplomatic tide has decidedly turned against him.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Are you suggesting, MarkO, that there would be a stark contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt "Obama-lite" Romney?
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Also, it seems not to occur to these geniuses when they refer to the "idiosyncratic" right to bear arms, that that right may be one of the reasons that, in Scalia's words, our rights are not just "words on paper," but actually have resulted in a good measure of freedom.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Appalled, I'm trying, I'm really trying to be dazzled by your rationale.
Don't try so hard. If you want to be a parody of a GOP partisan commentator, you should make it seem effortless.
Posted by: Appalled | February 07, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Ok, here is the updated story:
Syria crisis: Gulf Arab states expel Syrian ambassadors
Gulf Arab states say they are expelling Syrian ambassadors in their countries and recalling their envoys from Syria.
The Gulf Cooperation Council said Syria had rejected Arab attempts to solve the crisis and end 11 months of bloodshed.
Pretty stiff stuff at the diplomatic level. It would be hard for the GCC countries to back down from this as long as Assad is in power.
The GCC is calling for all other Arab countries to do the same. Looks like this is turning into a real proxy fight between the GCC and Iran. Turkey seems to be taking this as an opportunity to build a stronger relationship with the Gulf States as well, backing them against Assad and Iran's interests.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Also, it seems not to occur to these geniuses when they refer to the "idiosyncratic" right to bear arms, that that right may be one of the reasons that, in Scalia's words, our rights are not just "words on paper," but actually have resulted in a good measure of freedom.
Well, the only way the people can truely be soveriegn is if the people are armed, independent of the state's direct control.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 11:30 AM
"...there would be a stark contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt 'Obama-lite' Romney?"
Anyone who actually doubts it should consider, for starters, the federal judiciary.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Dear God, DoT, I don't think Iowahawk can come up with anything funnier than that link:
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 07, 2012 at 11:34 AM
On PJM "Flaming Liberal" uses my post on the Catholic rebellion to attack the Catholics.
Wait till he sees the other religious groups which are joining in the rebellion.http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/07/other-religions-join-catholics-in-beating-back-obamacare-overreach/
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 11:39 AM
More liberal news coming to a cable channel near you (perhaps):
Posted by: centralcal | February 07, 2012 at 11:43 AM
All you need to know DOT is that "A Casual Observer" is an Obama lover.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2012 at 11:44 AM
After a suitable time spent pondering the federal judiciary, focus next on the Justice Department.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:47 AM
"All you need to know DOT is that "A Casual Observer" is an Obama lover."
Right. But, that fish in a barrel thing is so tempting. It's just target practice.
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Gotta get me one a them, TK. Maybe two.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:52 AM
From the letter from Attorney Mark Hatfield to Georgia
Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, February 7, 2012.
“Dear Secretary Kemp:
As you are aware, Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi issued a “Decision” in the above-referenced matters on this past Friday, February 3, 2012, holding Defendant Barack Obama eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election. Because you are now charged, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c), with making a final determination of Defendant Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in Georgia, I am writing to respectfully point out several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and conclusions.
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients’ cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients’ cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single “Decision” applicable to all of the Plaintiffs’ cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs."
http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf
I will not wreck this thread, I promise. I have only one question. Should the judge have issued separate decisions? Is he required to do so after severing the trials?
(Ok, two questions)
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 07, 2012 at 11:54 AM
After a suitable time spent pondering the federal judiciary, focus next on the Justice Department.
Just try to avert your eyes from Treasury and Commerce, where Mr. "let's raise the minimum wage" and "the auto industry is a success story" might be not so different from the current occupant.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Yeah, right, Romney has a history of appointing conservative judges. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Oops, (Ahem), sorry, I lost it there for a minute. he he he
Au contaire, blowhard, the evidence refutes your usual bullshit.
www.wnd.com/2012/01/romney-judicial-record-liberals-running-wild
www.amycontrada.com/Romney_s_Judiciary.html
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2808483/posts
^And that's just for starters.^
Romney [consistently] oversaw the appointments of feminists, gay activists and other liberal activist judges when he was one of Massachusett's most liberal governors.
You don't know squat about issues that you raise here. Squaredance was being kind when he said that you are "obtuse".
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 12:03 PM
A "large" republican pac has been slamming Obama. A "smaller" democratic pac has been trying to hit back. Now Obama has authorized...
That is what ABC News just reported.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Clarice, you've been nothing less than heroic in keeping the Obamacare war on the Catholic Church (and religious freedom) front and center. Many,many thanks!
Posted by: MaryD | February 07, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Jane, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | February 07, 2012 at 12:07 PM
The more information out there about Obama, the better. Last time, that sweet little Senator was just so nice to Obama.
All in. All in.
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 12:14 PM
The counterparts to the fine Mr. Freeman;
http://freebeacon.com/chinese-government-influencing-policy-through-ex-military-officials/
Posted by: narciso | February 07, 2012 at 12:14 PM
If anyone missed Santelli's closing worry on what is going on in Germany, below is the headline:
http://news.yahoo.com/german-industrial-output-down-2-9-pct-december-112932365.html
Posted by: glasater | February 07, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Suffice it to say that Romney would never have appointed Sotomayor or Kagan.
TK, I would have expected separate decisions, but in any event the one he wrote applies directly to Hatfield's case. I have only read the decision once, but as I recall he didn't even address some of Orly's stuff, e.g. the SS number.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 12:15 PM
"...one has to ask at what point did there become as many Democrats in the Republican Party as there are in the Democrat Party?"
"When everyone is a RINO, I mean is there really a Republican Party?"
Ummm, is there anyone here who does NOT know a former Repub who is now registered independent?
Wasn't Clinton given the Presidency and both houses of Congress?
Wasn't W given the same?
And Obama?
When history is written, it may be apparent that the People were casting around for actual, you know, solutions. While the 2 major parties continued with the same-old/same-old.
It would not be a total surprise if one or both of them went onto the scrap heap of history, would it?
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | February 07, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Nothin heroic about it. I nose for news says it's a big deal and the MSM is ignoring it.
ACO,Jane is none of those things so your comment is both rude and inexplicable.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 12:15 PM
"(Ok, two questions)"
There oughta be a pic of TK next to the Websters def for
'persistance'.
Alas. Persistance can be overextended and become a vice, instead of a virtue
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 07, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Now Obama has authorized...
Hmmmm... That would appear to be a violation of campaign finance laws. It was my understanding that candidates are not allowed to co-ordinate, let alone "authorize" any spending by an outside organization, nor co-ordinate any activities.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2012 at 12:24 PM
"Persistance can be overextended and become a vice, instead of a virtue"
Ben-Dana is so self-aware.
Posted by: MarkO | February 07, 2012 at 12:25 PM
You would never find it if you looked for persistance. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Ranger,
I stopped before I finished the sentence. He has authorized people close to him to attend fund raisers, or something like that.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Bob Kerrey is not going to run for the seat Nebraska Senator Nelson is vacating..
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Romney could very well appoint another Souter so we need as many conservatives in the Senate as possible to avert that.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 07, 2012 at 12:29 PM
You guys really don't know what you're dealing with.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 07, 2012 at 12:31 PM