Is Good Information Foundation in violation of non-profit laws?

An attorney was asked to spread false rumors about January 6 and offered $400.00 to do so. The Post Millenial has the scoop:

Attorney and TikToker @TrialByPreston revealed in a video that the Good Information Foundation attempted to pay him $400 to spread unsubstantiated rumours and misinformation about January 6, President Trump, and his 2020 presidential campaign.

"I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true," Preston Moore, Esq. said in the video. The Good Information Foundation, headed by Rick Stengel, Former Under Secretary of State in Obama administration, emphasizes that "America is in an information crisis," and that "disinformation is threatening public health, safety, social trust and democracy."

Preston Moore, Esq. turned down this invitation, and he appears to do so on ethical grounds. But my question is this: is what the Good Information Foundation which the article says is a 501c3 non-profit. Could not this action be described as "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office" as the IRS rules specifically forbid?

Oh my god, gonads!

These people are so fucked up.

J-Pod puts the Eric Garner case in perspective

Podhoretz calls the decision inexplicable, and I tend to agree with him. Policing strategies and tactics need to change with the landscape. This is a much different case than Ferguson. Excerpt:

What happened to Eric Garner was certainly not deliberate, but rather the result of a series of horrible choices. First, by Garner, to resist, and then by Officer Daniel Pantaleo to immobilize Garner by using a choke-hold, which New York City cops are trained not to use (but which is not in fact illegal). It strikes me as understandable that a grand jury would look at the events and not see something they would call a murder.

But a murder charge was not the only choice open to them, or so we are being told right now. There are gradations of illegality involving the unnecessary death of someone, and it seems likely that (as was the case with the 1994 choke-hold death of Anthony Baez) the federal government will secure some kind of charge now that it has involved itself in this matter.

The real question that is going to be asked, now, is just how aggressive law enforcement can and should be in an era of low crime, which is what we’re in now. If you defang cops, you are inviting a return to trouble. As I wrote last week, “if we send police officers the message that it is safer for their careers and reputations to stand down, stand down they will. We are the ones who will have to reckon with the results.” At the same time, no civilized society can view the tape showing Garner’s desperate pleading and not ask some very difficult questions of itself.

I can see why people would protest this case because Garner's death seems like a completely disproportionate result of his noncompliance. He wasn't trying to kill Pantaleo like Michael Brown was evidently attempting to kill Darren Wilson. And I don't feel bad for Pantaleo who is probably going to lose his job. He made a bad choice, whereas Wilson wasn't even given a choice.

Something I've been thinking of for the last few weeks with regard to the whole Ferguson fiasco, and especially after Michael Medved echoed my thoughts on his show about a week ago, saying something like "Why this case? Why Michael Brown? What is there about this case which has everybody so excited?" My theory is that the race-hustlers like Sharpton and Holder know that in order to achieve their desired level of chaos they need to have the maximum amount of divisiveness and polarization about an incident. A black man who is innocent being killed wouldn't work for the purposes of demonstrating systemic injustice because everybody would agree on the injustice of the event. Obviously disproportionate responses on the part of police would also get more of a unanimous condemnation, thus precluding any type of claims of enduring racism and injustice. My theory is that if you want to cause maximum chaos, pick an incident which divides people along racial, demographic or ideological lines. Then you can easily create the perception that the system is utterly unjust and biased in favor of the rich, the white or those nasty conservative people. One side says "Michael Brown was a criminal thug and Darren Wilson was forced to act in self-defense. Everything else is irrelevant." The other side says "Michael Brown was a young black man and a white cop, Darren Wilson, harassed him for no reason. Everything else is irrelevant." The lines are drawn, time to go to war.

This is only a theory, and doesn't sound particularly strong to me, but I'm not a psychopath like Al Sharpton so I can't mimic his thinking exactly. There is an interesting comment at the end of this piece along the lines of my thinking:

But it is interesting how the Ferguson situation has calloused people like me who would normally be dismayed by the Garner grand jury verdict. Ferguson is a tipping point.

We have to resist the urge to say "OK, you don't like the police, fine. We won't send them to your neighborhoods anymore." That would just punish the silent, innocent majority, and I think it would give CNN and the race-hustlers just what they want: more chaos. This is why I tell people I had to move out of the City of Cleveland. I felt like if I stayed, I might become a racist.

Please, please use body cams!

I have to agree with one thing that Michael Brown's parents are asking for in the official statement they've released after the grand jury decision to not indict Darren Wilson.

Join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera.

Can you imagine the great footage which will be produced of people goofing up? On camera? Well, you don't have to imagine it, check this out from Conservative Daily:

And of course it will keep the cops honest and behaved. But don't wait until the cams are mandated, guys. Start wearing them now and make sure the word gets out.

Hat tip IJ Review.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Michael Brown's hands were not up

The Daily Caller has the story.

Michael Brown did not have his hands over his head when he was shot by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, a self-identified eyewitness told the grand jury investigating Brown’s death.

The eyewitness recounted his firsthand observations to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch late Wednesday after speaking to the grand jury this week. The grand jury’s decision about whether or not to indict Wilson is expected in mid-November.

Brown had his arms at his sides during at least one phase of his confrontation with officer Wilson, but he never raised his hands over his head at any point, according to the witness. Brown continued to approach Wilson against police orders and stood about 20 to 25 feet away from the officer when he was fatally shot, the witness said.

But will this keep the protestors from doing that "hands up don't shoot" chant? Probably not. But hopefully it will take the wind out of their lying sails.

PSA

42 Botched Chemical Abortions in Ohio

From our friends at Ohio Right to Life:

42 Botched Chemical Abortions Reported to State Medical Board Planned Parenthood Defies FDA Health Protocol for Abortion Pill RU-486

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Laura Beth Kirsop  DATE: Thursday, Aug 22, 2013 PHONE: (614) 547-0099 ext. 309

COLUMBUS, Ohio--Today, Ohio Right to Life urged Attorney General Mike DeWine to expedite the litigation against Planned Parenthood and its practice of off-label prescribing abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) in Ohio. This request comes in light of 42 reports of failed uses of the drug in the state. The Food and Drug Administration recommends that RU-486 (commonly referred to as a chemical abortion) be administered in two doses orally and in the presence of a physician. The FDA approved RU-486 only through 49 days of pregnancy. However, contrary to FDA protocol, Planned Parenthood prescribes chemical abortions through 63 days (9 weeks) of pregnancy. Furthermore, the organization sends women home to complete the chemical abortion themselves without a physician present.  Recently, Ohio Right to Life, via a public records request, obtained 42 reports of botched RU-486 attempts in Ohio. Several involved moderate to severe bleeding and included incidences of hematometra (an accumulation of blood in the uterus). Thirty-five total cases involved incomplete abortions. Women were required to return to the abortion clinic to have the abortions completed surgically.  "Planned Parenthood's reckless, off-label prescribing of RU-486 is no better than the 'back alleys' that the abortion industry references to scare women into supporting abortions on demand," said Laura Beth Kirsop, Director of Communications at Ohio Right to Life. "These reports sadly showcase the hazards that at-home and unsupervised, chemical abortions pose to women's health. Yet Planned Parenthood remains in direct and reckless conflict with the FDA, carelessly sending women home for unsafe, 'do-it-yourself' abortions." In the case that RU-486 fails, Planned Parenthood informs women that they will need to undergo a surgical abortion. This is because the chemical abortion can cause serious birth defects if the pregnancy continues.  One of the public documents noted that one woman never returned to Planned Parenthood for a follow-up to confirm that the abortion was completed. Regarding this report, Kirsop said, "I have to ask the frightening question of where that child is today. Was she born? Maybe not, but maybe. And if she was born, what kind of birth defects would she have sustained because of Planned Parenthood's recklessness? The point is, according to public documents, Planned Parenthood doesn't know, and thanks to their scandalous fight against the enforcement of FDA protocol in Ohio, they don't have to know." In 2004, the Ohio Legislature passed a law requiring that physicians comply with FDA guidelines for RU-486. The law remains embroiled in the courts because of challenges brought by Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio. In October 2012, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2004 Ohio law. Planned Parenthood of Ohio has since challenged the decision, asking for reconsideration. "RU-486 has already killed fourteen women and injured more than 2,000 women in the U.S.," said Kirsop. "The longer Planned Parenthood dodges the enforcement of FDA protocol, the more women's lives and health are put at risk. Ohio Right to Life urges Attorney General Mike DeWine to put an end to Planned Parenthood's game and expedite the litigation of the chemical abortion case." To view the 42 reports of botched chemical abortions, click here.      Founded in 1967, Ohio Right to Life, with more than 45 local chapters, is Ohio's oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement in Ohio, ORTL works through legislation and education to promote and defend innocent human life from conception to natural death. ###

Another Story With a Happy Ending

Here's a good story from the execellent Guns Save Lives site.



The Guns Save Lives site is really a great resource, reporting a lot of stories that national media won't cover because the messaging goes against the politically correct mantra that guns cost lives. So there's the equal time aspect. Stories where the perp is eliminated have the added uplifting elements of savings for the taxpayer and lessening of burdens on the judicial and penal systems.

"She put him down with a 22. Must be a good shot." Love it.

Everything you need to know about the Kaitlyn Hunt case

If you want to support honesty in the Kaitlyn Hunt case, it's really easy, Just go to supporthonesty.net. The author has done yeoman's work on the subject, exposing the massive lies and distortions promulgated by the LGBT mafia and the #FreeKate campaign. Excerpt:

My intent is to present here the facts of the case clearly as a reference, as well as provide some of my own thoughts and concerns on the Free Kate movement.

As the weight of evidence makes clear, the Hunt family is manipulating the facts in order to paint their effort as an LBGT rights crusade, taking advantage of those of us who believe in promoting equality while at the same time collecting tens of thousands of dollars for a "legal defense fund" from supporters who remain largely confused about the basic facts of the case.

In my opinion, this is tantamount to fraud... and THAT is the bigger story here. That Kaitlyn Hunt engaged in illegal sexual activity with a 14 year old girl is a big story in the media and focus of the movement, but it's not even the most unfortunate one. The bigger story is dishonesty and fraud. The bigger story is the demonization that's taking place of the victim's parents, of law enforcement, and the prosecutor... everyone but Kaitlyn Hunt... by those caught up in an emotional frenzy and operating entirely on a version of reality carefully tailored by the Hunt family.

That the Hunt family told self-contradictory and plainly false versions of the facts of the case is apparent and well-documented here. It's up to you to decide what their dishonesty means, but to me it's clear the Free Kate movement relied completely on the confusion and misdirection fostered by the Hunt family to manipulate supporters into an emotional response instead of relying on a fair, reasoned assessment. This movement would not have the support it has had the Hunt family conducted their effort with honesty and integrity, because the facts and the law are not on their side. Contrary to their claims, this is not a legal case based on hate, but...

"Stop the Hate. Free Kate."
... doesn't have the same ring to it, and leaves bare the truth that this is a case of a legal adult simply trying to avoid having to take responsibility for her own choices.

It goes on to show a timeline and expose the lies. One of the main lies is that the perp wasn't 18 when this all started. She turned 18 on August 14, 2012. The whole page is long. Make sure you read the part about how Kaitlyn's dad, Steven Hunt, Jr, is also guilty of a felony:

It's worthwhile to note that the Hunt family come into this series of events with credibility problems of their own. Steven R Hunt, Jr., Kaitlyn's father (who as we've seen has a tenuous connection to the truth) appears to still be serving out a period of probation following an arrest last year for felony fraud charges. According to public records available online from the Indian River Country Circuit Court, the felony charge "832.041 - STOP PAY W INTENT TO DEFRAUD 150 DOLS OR MORE" resulted in an order on 7/23/12 of one year of probation and a fine. It appears that as a result of a "no contest" plea, the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and adjudication was deferred pending the completion of his probation. (court record search, criminal judgement record (PDF))

I don't hate this woman nor her weird family. I'm disgusted with them for lying and trying to trash the victim's parents and smear the vic's parents as being prejudiced (which is a complete joke once you see them), but I don't hate them. If this predator doesn't end up doing her 15 years for this it will be a serious breach of justice. And that would be something to hate.

Here's the author's conclusion:

The law here is clear, and Kaitlyn Hunt's legal case is open and shut. But like I said, I believe there's something even more important than the legal case at play here...

An entire movement of supporters is built around false pretenses, the consequences of which include the demonization of law enforcement officers, who by all objective measures did their job professionally... of prosecutors in the DA's office, who likewise are simply doing their job... and most importantly, demonization of the parents of a 14 year old girl, who had every right to leverage the law to protect their daughter the best they could.

Whether the parents of the victim believe they are protecting their daughter from homosexual influences or simply protecting their 14 year old from an 18 year old is beside the point. Maybe they're loving parents acting to protect their daughter. Maybe they hold the entirely reasonable and widespread belief that a 14 year old should not be sexually active. Maybe they foolishly feared Kaitlyn's influence would seed homosexuality in their daughter. Maybe they're bigots. Maybe reality is a combination of these things. Their motives for reporting the crime against their daughter is beside the point. No matter what they feel they're protecting their daughter from, they have both the legal right and moral responsibility to protect their daughter, and that's exactly what they did. That they've become the biggest target of contempt because of the Hunt family's efforts is horrific. It's not just. It's unforgivable. That the basic truths of the case were wildly misrepresented by the Hunt family to do it make it that much more outrageous.

That manipulation was used to take advantage of a community full of generous people with good hearts who are ready to fight for equality is just as offensive. The dishonesty of the architects of the Free Kate campaign does damage to the credibility of the effort of legitimately persecuted people fighting against real abuse...

Not to mention the lives of the parents who fought to protect their daughter, and a 14 year old girl whose life will never be the same after becoming an unwitting participant in an international media firestorm that didn't need to happen. All of this... so an 18 year old doesn't have to accept the consequences of her own actions.

Well, we're all happy

I couldn't believe the news when I heard it this morning. And I was happy, obviously, we all thought these women were long gone. But immediately I thought "Does this say something about law enforcement around here?"



Charles Ramsey seems like a great guy, and a good guy. But why does he go racial at the end? They should have cut that. Irritating. My kids aren't afraid of people with dark skin, and they're as white as Edgar Winter.

What the Police Really Think

Christopher Dorner: Latest Lefty Whack Job

Well, looky here. It turns out that Dorner is a liberal who has the hots for Hillary, Michelle Obama and Biden.

• Dorner’s statements in support of gun control (“Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one”),
• his attack on President Barack Obama’s critics (“You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs”),
• his adoration of First Lady Michelle Obama’s hair (“I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama”),
• his admiration for Joe Biden (“I’ve always been a fan of yours and consider you one of the few genuine and charismatic politicians”),
• his support for Hillary Clinton (“You’ll make one hell of a president in 2016″),
• his fondness for former President Bill Clinton (“He was always my favorite president”),
• his confidence in San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (“He’s [good people] and I have faith and confidence in him”),
• his love of MSNBC and CNN (“Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite’s lead”),
• his criticism of the National Rifle Association (“Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you’re a vile and inhumane piece of shit”),
• and his hatred of George Zimmerman (“Too bad Trayvon didn’t smash your skull completely open, Zim”).

We noted this earlier with a ho-hum, that these psycho-murderers tend to be on the political left. I mean in reality, not in the movies.

Here's Dorner's full remarks about Wayne LaPierre from his full manifesto:

Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you’re a vile and inhumane piece of shit. You never even showed 30 seconds of empathy for the children, teachers, and families of Sandy Hook. You deflected any type of blame/responsibility and directed it toward the influence of movies and the media. You are a failure of a human being. May all of your immediate and distant family die horrific deaths in front of you.

But I suppose you had "30 seconds of empathy" for the three people you murdered. Stay classy, freak, until you are apprehended or taken out.

Yeah, that's breaking and entering, dummy

Just plain weird.



I suppose she'll send them another bill with late charges once she gets out of jail.

He's obviously not a lawyer

If you murder your baby, don't forget to tell your husband to keep his mouth shut when you get caught. Otherwise he may say something like this:

"My wife was not in her five senses. She didn't know what she was doing," Medina said, choking back tears. "I don't know if many people know what postpartum depression is, but in reality it is something very serious and needs to be treated."

Not "in her five senses." Weak. A sad story, but premeditation was likely involved.

Simmons said Hermosillo's behavior showed she intended to kill her son, regardless of her mental state.

"It's not like she's in a fetal position when the police arrived," he said. "She picks a specific location, drives to the top of the building (and) takes the helmet off. I'm sure she's depressed, the post-partum blues, I'm sure she had some of that."

I have five kids, OK? Do you think there's never been pust-partum depression in our house? It's pretty bad, but murder is something different. Rest in peace, little guy.

A lie within a lie

Just got this email from a scammer.

Dear Paul,

I am Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, a legal practitioner. Please be patient and go through the contents of this email very careful which I believe is a message that will be beneficial to the both of us. I am the legal representative to Late Frank Fry. Who herein after shall be referred to as my late client. He died in June 2006 as a result of heart condition.

Basically, my motive of writing you is to assist me secure the funds left behind by my client before it is confiscated or declared unserviceable by the bank where this fund valued at US$6.8 Million Dollars (Six Million, Eight hundred Thousand United State Dollars) was deposited. I have a mandate from the bank to present the next of kin to the deceased or the funds will be confiscated and so far, all my efforts to get hold of someone related to this man has proved abortive.

I want you to consider this proposal. If you grant your consent that I present you to the bank as the next-of-kin and beneficiary of my deceased client (since you have the same last name), so that the proceeds of this account can be transferred to you, then we can share the entire proceeds on a mutually agreed-upon percentage.

All legal documentation to back up your claim as my deceased client's next-of-kin will be provided. All I require is your honest cooperation to enable us see this transaction through.

This entire process will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law. However, if this business proposition offends your moral values, do accept my apology. Please contact me at your earliest convenient to indicate your interest.

Best Regards,
Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, Esq.

All he needs is my "honest cooperation" with his deception. Of course, the real deception is that there is no dead rich guy. Obviously, the devil tempts stupid people as well as smart.

If this offends your moral values, send Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, Esq. an email at wongyokeeng@lawyer.com.

Normally I just delete these emails, most of which get trapped in my spam catcher nowadays. But this one reminded me of my favorite film, The Usual Suspects. Among many facets of the film which works on many levels, I like the idea that the problem with a life of crime is that eventually you run into someone really evil.

Ollie North: Obama is "Man of the Fear"

Here's a good rundown of Barack Obama's historic fear-mongering in his first year as President. Excerpt:

Nine days after his Inaugural address, the President said: “These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.”

On February 4, 2009, speaking of the urgent need to “stimulate” the economy through massive government spending and debt, Obama told us, “We know that even if we do everything we should, this crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around. But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred.”

Five days later, in Elkhart, Indiana, he warned of dire damage if he was not given “the tools” he needs to “fix” our problems: “Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, millions of more jobs will be lost. The national unemployment rates will approach double digits not just here in Elkhart, all across the country. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse.”

By June 17, the President was hyping the catastrophic consequences of failing to enact more onerous government controls on the U.S. economy: “millions of people have had their lives profoundly disrupted by developments in the financial system, most severely in our recent crisis. These aren't just numbers on a ledger. This is a child's chance to get an education. This is a family's ability to pay their bills or stay in their homes. This is the right of our seniors to retire with dignity and security and respect. These are American dreams, and we should not accept a system that consistently puts them in danger.”

The presidential fright-mongering continues unabated. On September 9, he boldly promised a Joint Session of Congress, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” He then threatened, “if we do nothing…our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.”

Along the same lines, I've been thinking about how the vague and lofty Obama campaign promise to unite everybody in the country and be "post-partisan" will be served by passing his small "s" single-payer health care system. After all, pro-lifers like me will get to finance abortions across the not-so-fruited plain and the radical envirofreaks will get to finance healthcare for my family of seven while we devour resources like bulemic locusts. Everyone will have so much to be happy about, and we'll all give the Big Guy an A minus during his next appearance on an Oprah-clone show.

Andrew Breitbart turns up the heat

This stuff is sooooooo good. This is Part 4 of Breitbart's press conference yesterday

Here's part 5.


There's a part 1 and part 2 also. Part 3 is basically the showing of the video which I posted last night. Catch everything by going to Washington News Observer's Youtube page.

I think ACORN has got to be scared. It's getting like a poker game at this point. Who's going to fold first? Breitbart is not breaking a sweat. Loved the point about the idiots saying "FOX News is behind this." Then: "So... why aren't they suing FOX news??" These criminals are getting sloppy. Naturally, they haven't had to be careful up until now. They are going to screw up.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

Yes. That's what I'm talking about.

Pastor Lawrence Adams leads Westside Bible Church. The retired police lieutenant has taken to wearing a gun under his robe.

Recently, Adams responded to a break-in at his church and surprised a burglar carrying out a bag of money. The pastor shot the man in the stomach after the man swung the bag at him. The burglar survived -- and while Adams says he's thankful for that, he points out that he could have been hurt or killed if he had not been armed.

Adams is one of several area clergymen who are carrying weapons. Minister William Revely also carries a gun at church. He says when he's armed, he has peace in more ways than one.

"I feel more comfortable now going out, and I can move with a lot more security," Revely shares. "I don't always have it on me. I have a holster that I use, but I don't always wear that when I'm preaching."

The story ends with the understatement of the year.

Detroit has seen a rise in crime over the past few years.

I recently heard that the median home sale price in Detroit is around $7,500.00. Yes, you read that correctly. But then I checked and found out that that number was from December of 2008. The number from June 2009 is $6,000.00. Makes Cleveland look like an economic boom-town by comparison.

BTW, I just picked me up a Glock 27 and it rocketh mightily.

NYT Opinion on that Polanski dude screwing a 13-year-old girl

The "smart set" weighs in. Geraldine Ferraro has the best and most coherent piece, and it is the only one worth excerpting:

Notice [the definition of statutory rape] doesn’t talk about force and it doesn’t talk about consent. Neither are needed. The statute is meant to protect children. A 13-year-old can’t consent to intercourse with a man over 18, and certainly not with a man in his 30’s.

Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70’s. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything … or wait — is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot “forgive” the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.

As for France getting all exercised about California moving forward (and the prosecutors there haven’t just let this go for 31 years), who are the French officials to criticize us as a nation and tell us how to deal with our criminals? Too bad for Bernie Madoff that he wasn’t as smart as Polanski. He would have taken his wife, brother, nephew, sons and their families and a billion or two and gone to France to help their economy. Then when the Ponzi scheme was exposed, the French would have, if consistent, refused extradition. He could have stayed for the rest of his life in luxury. Just imagine.

At first Ferraro was the only woman on the page expressing an opinion. Then about an hour ago a history prof named Judith Surkis wrote something boring about the context of what she terms "Affaire Polanski" within French history... (yawn) So the fact that Ferraro was the most direct and to the point might also be related to her being a lawyer and this is first and foremost about a law being broken.

The stupidest remarks come from Lost Executive Producer, Damon Lindelof who ends his opinion with a non sequitur about how much Woody Allen's Annie Hall rocked. I guess he is being loyal to the tradition of his serial television masterwork by insisting on going back 32 years to explain current events. Or something.

The whole thing may be somewhat related to this; you be the judge and jury.

I guess Hassan Nemazee contributed to Sherrod Brown also

This political contributor is in BIG trouble.

A wealthy fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats has been indicted on charges of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft in an alleged $292 million Ponzi scheme.

Federal prosecutors announced the indictment against 59-year-old Hassan Nemazee in New York yesterday. It says he fraudulently obtained loans from three banks between 1998 and this year.

Nemazee served as national finance chairman for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and later raised money for President Barack Obama after Clinton's defeat.

He also was Sen. John Kerry's finance chairman in New York for his 2004 bid for president.

I've always said in my regular speeches at the barber shop that if you're going to bother pulling off a major bank fraud caper, let alone aggravated identity theft, you might as well couple it with a Ponzi scheme to fully leverage the ill-gotten gains. Then contribute money to everyone from Rahm Emanuel to Sheldon Whitehouse.

Here's a list of beneficiaries of Nemazee's scheme. I noticed several Repubs on the list, notably Sam Brownback and Kay Hutchinson. But mostly it reads like a Who's Who list for big Washington Dems. Hopefully Sherrod Brown will return the dough.