12.31.05

Tom Delay Takes $ One Million $ From Russian Mobsters…

Posted in SSquirrel at 3:39 pm by SSquirrel

R. Jeffrey Smith
WaPo

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money’s origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman’s former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million — a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group — the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff’s long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.

Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group’s avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative “moral fitness” agenda that was the group’s professed aim.

In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners — with Abramoff’s help — solicited and received DeLay’s public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff’s largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay’s activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for “economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States.” DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group “a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control” by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.

But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham’s firm employed DeLay’s wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay’s attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers’ favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

Some of the U.S. Family Network’s revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay’s congressional office. DeLay’s associates at the time called it “the Safe House.”

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse’s second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham’s newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay’s leadership committee.

They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.

WaPo in it’s usual vaguely written style, reveals, in a long frontpage story, buried of course on a Saturday, a holiday weekend yet, that Tom Delay, the second most powerful man in DC, took a cool million dollars from russian mobsters (described as “Russian energy executives” who “traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns”). He laundered the money through a front group which purchased a town house three blocks from his office where he used the master suite, paying a “modest rent” while the front group occupied a closet on the first floor. Of course all this is supposedly “technically legal”. Yeah if you believe that russian criminals just wanted to support family values in the good ole US of A. And a butt-load of other “coincidences”. Otherwise Delay is a flat out criminal who was offered a million dollars in cash and ” “what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning” and found a luxury car in their front driveway”. Of course good ole Tom was in Russia to “to meet with religious leaders there.” Apparently they were outbid in the buy Tom Delay’s Ass contest. Oh, and did I mention Delay’s wife was paid 120,000 dollars for supplying lists of ” lawmakers’ favorite charities”, something you could find out by making a two minute phone call or maybe checking their frigging web sites? Good thing Bush’s new lapdog Alberto is too busy finding the dastardly criminals who leaked to Al Qaeda the important secret that the NSA was monitoring phone calls illegally, rather than legally, which has been public knowledge for decades. I guess this aides the terrorists who are legally in this country, and who are citizen of this country or the holders of a valid green card, that if they get caught, and survive torture in Afghanistan or Morroco or Libya, they can come back to the US and not have the evidence used against them, if they are ever allowed to talk to a lawyer. Do we even have a Consitution anymore?

S(erf)Squirrel

12.30.05

Name The Kitty Contest…

Posted in SSquirrel at 6:14 pm by SSquirrel

It’s a boy Kitty!!!

1229kitty

Simba suggests Al Qaeda…

simbaeye

12.29.05

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone

Posted in SSquirrel at 8:37 pm by SSquirrel

Rolling Stone

“Up until now this president’s solution to everything has been to stare into the cameras, lie and keep on lying until such time as the political problem disappears. And now, unable to comprehend that while political crises may wilt in the face of such tactics, real crises do not, he and his team are responding to this first serious feet-to-the-fire Iraq emergency in the same way they always have — with a fusillade of silly, easily disprovable bullshit. Bush and his mouthpieces continue to try to obfuscate and cloud the issue of why we’re in Iraq, and they do so not only selectively but constantly, compulsively, like mental patients who can’t stop jacking off in public. They don’t know the difference between a real problem and a political problem, because to them, there is no difference. What could possibly be worse than bad poll numbers?”

Beautiful…

12.28.05

Republicans, Cheaper by the Dozen…

Posted in SSquirrel at 1:33 am by SSquirrel

EJ Dionne

With indicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly ready to cooperate with prosecutors and his partner, Michael Scanlon, already singing, 2006 is expected to be the year of congressional scandals.

Lord knows, a housecleaning in the Capitol is definitely in order. But the Abramoff scandal is just part of the corruption of our political system. There is another level of special-interest influence that cannot be handled by prosecutors: Only the voters can render a judgment on a politics of favoritism that has created a new Gilded Age. It’s clear that the national government has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthy, the privileged and the connected.

The House bill proposed substantial cuts for Medicaid beneficiaries, but the Senate bill — partly because of pressure from moderate Republicans — did not include those cuts. Instead, the Senate proposed to save taxpayer money by eliminating a $10 billion fund to encourage regional preferred-provider organizations, known as PPOs, to participate in the Medicare program. It also sought more rebates to the federal government from drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid.

Note the difference: Instead of imposing cuts on the poor, the Senate sought savings from corporate interests. Surprise, surprise: The final bill dropped the $10 billion cut to the PPOs and most of the rebate demands on drug manufacturers. Instead, the agreement hammered Medicaid recipients with $16 billion in gross cuts over the next decade. (The net cuts are lower because of new Medicaid spending, partly to help cover the scattered victims of Hurricane Katrina.)

The Medicaid cuts include increased co-payments and premiums on low-income Americans, and the budget assumes savings because fewer poor people will visit the doctor. As Kevin Freking of the Associated Press reported: “The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such increases would lead many poor people to forgo health care or not to enroll in Medicaid at all — contributing to some of the $4.8 billion in Medicaid savings envisioned over the next five years.”

Ah, say their defenders, but these cuts will be good for poor people. According to the New York Times, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), an architect of the Medicaid proposals, said the higher co-payments were needed to “encourage personal responsibility” among low-income people. Spoken like a congressman who never has to worry about his taxpayer-provided health coverage.

Am I the only one who sees an elegant solution to getting money raising out of politics? For one thing, commercials are not speech. Political ads are always misleading, and deliberately so. Debates in any format are not informative, they are stump speeches, broken up into sound bites. England’s format of one on one two hour questioning of candidates would have left Fearless Leader bloody and crying back in 2000. It would be fun to ban political spending in a state(say Michigan) that wasn’t raised in Michigan. It would also be quite elegant, since the main beneficiary of political ads is TV stations, to fund political campaigns by taxing ad spending. A five percent tax on all commercial advertising (or whatever is needed) split between qualifying candidates for all federal and statewide offices would be hard to oppose. A tax on commercials? Bring it on, right? And requiring no outside donations as a qualifier and double the money for an opponent if they opt out allows you to also dictate an honest forum for real issue debates. Two hours for budget, Two for foreign (national candidates), Two for say, health care. Get the league of women’s voters back or some other non-partisan group in charge. Get some informed, tough interviewers (we may have to go out of country for this) to do them. Encourage citizen involvement, even independant experts. Real time fact checking with Lexis/Nexis and Google et al is now possible too.

First we have a boatload of assholes to put in jail first, just to put the fear of God into them, but with a little bit of fund raising, and state by state ballot initiatives, I think it’s doable. A tax on commercials is like a tax on cigarettes, hard to argue against. And the benefits are really, really lovely.

Just Sayin’

S(artorial)Squirrel

12.27.05

Montana Acorns…

Posted in SSquirrel at 1:58 pm by SSquirrel

The Fix

A new independent poll released on Christmas Day in Montana likely robbed Sen. Conrad Burns (R) of his holiday cheer.

The survey, which was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, showed that the avalanche of stories detailing Burns’ ties to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is having a considerable effect on how he is perceived in voters’ minds.

Fully 58 percent of those tested said they were either very or somewhat concerned with Burns’ relationship with Abramoff. Thirty-three percent said they were not concerned. (Republicans are likely to note that the result is somewhat skewed given that respondents were read a paragraph of information detailing the nature of the dealings between the two men before being asked their level of concern.) National Democrats are sure to be emboldened by these numbers nonetheless, having already run two television ads earlier this year seeking to tie Burns to Abramoff. (Watch the ads on the state party’s website.)

Head to head matchups between Burns and his two main Democratic adversaries have narrowed since Mason-Dixon last polled in the state in May. Burns leads state Auditor John Morrison (D) 46 percent to 40 percent, down considerably from the 49 percent to 35 percent lead the senator held in May. Burns carried a more comfortable 49 percent to 35 percent edge over state Senate president Jon Tester (D), though that margin too has shrunk from the 24-point bulge Burns held in May.

The Mason-Dixon poll was in the field Dec. 13-15, testing 625 registered voters with a 4 percent margin of error.

Burns narrowly escaped defeat in 2000 when then little-known farmer Brian Schweitzer (D) came within four percent of ousting the incumbent. Given Schweitzer’s gubernatorial victory last year and Democrats’ gains in the state legislature, Burns is a major Democratic target in 2006.

Democrats take note, The western strategy is the future, the DLC is the past.

What Did Jesus Say?

Posted in SSquirrel at 1:12 pm by SSquirrel

“Samuel Alito wrote the blueprint 20 years ago on how to dismantle and eventually overturn Roe,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, referring to a memo Alito wrote in 1985 in which he mentioned passing restrictions on abortion as a way to mitigate the effects of Roe v. Wade . “If he is confirmed, Alito could cast the decisive vote that allows additional attacks on women’s reproductive freedom from the states to stand.”

WaPo

The growing intolerance of religous fundamentalists in this country is endangering the very foundations of our freedoms. Anyone who uses political means to impose their religous beliefs, whose every pronouncment is based on deliberate deceptions, undermines the very foundations of the constitution. These religous fundamentalists do more to increase the need for abortions than they ever have to limit them. The only pro-abortion group in this country is the religous right. They denigrate women who give birth out of wedlock. They proclaim it a sin against God to use birth control. They decry it as encouraging sex among teens, who could not possibly be more encouraged than they are naturally. They ban effective sex education from teens and pre-teens making them solely responsible for at least half of all teen pregnancies.

Do they fight for a higher minumum wage so poor women can afford another child? No. Do they support free health care for children? No. Do they work for free or even subsidized daycare for women who must work? No. Most, like Rick “Doggy Style” Santorum refuse to acknowledge that women even belong in the workforce. Do they demand Repugnicans increase child support payments? Not hardly. They claim they are protecting innocent life, but their bible teaches that they have no souls until they are born. That unbaptized children do not go to heaven. They have no funerals when a women has a miscarriage.

Abortion is a fund raising tool for the Republican party. A get out the vote issue. A way of encouraging the ignorant to feel oppressed while they sell our laws to the highest bidder. Jesus spent his time preaching tolerance and charity. Feed the poor, treat the sick, provide for those who are and have the least among us. It is time to call these religous fundamentalists to account for the hatred and intolerance they are spreading in this country in the name of a God who renounces almost everything they applaud. War is not a family value, it is, by it’s very nature the slaughter of innocent women and children. State sponsored executions are not Christian, Christ was executed on a cross, by the state for God’s sake. Gay people are not attacking the institution of marriage, they are embracing it. And instead of welcoming them into the community, they promote hatred and violence against them, while claiming they are doing God’s work. Well it is no God I have ever heard of. It certainly is not the teachings of Christ. It is time for true Christians to publicly denounce the hatred and intolerance in their midst, before the real “Silent Majority” is forced to embrace tolerance and reject religon once and for all.

S(ister Mary) Squirrel

12.25.05

Peace On Earth…

Posted in SSquirrel at 9:18 am by SSquirrel

Merry Christmas Everyone!

SSquirrel

« Previous entries ·

cheap discount herbal viagra viagra viagra hydrocodone and tramadol tramadol crushing adipex and tramadol no prescription needed search viagra viagra edinburgh pages online viagra online overnight delivery tramadol online tramadol hcl tramadol cheap celecoxib tramadol interaction buy cialis viagra is tramadol an opioid