Hope and change and whatnot, right?  From Ed Morrissey:

Eric Holder continues to cast a long shadow over the Barack Obama campaign. The former deputy AG for the Clinton administration played a key role in perhaps the most scandalous presidential pardon ever, which Clinton issued to fugitive Marc Rich in the last hours of his presidency. His role in another pardon and in an international custody case has brought the Obama campaign under fire in Florida, where Elian Gonzalez is still seen as a victim of Janet Reno:

Eight years after the furor over the repatriation of Elian Gonzalez to Cuba possibly cost Al Gore the state of Florida in his 537-vote loss to George W. Bush, the international custody saga has returned to haunt another Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

With two top advisers who played key roles in the episode— Greg Craig, who represented Elian’s father in Cuba, and Eric Holder, then a Clinton administration deputy attorney general when federal agents stormed the Miami home of Gonzalez’ relatives to remove the then-six-year-old and return him to his father in Cuba—Obama now finds himself on the wrong side of an emotional issue in a battleground state.

The wound reopened again last week after Gonzalez returned to the headlines in South Florida following a report in a Cuban communist youth newspaper that he has joined Cuba’s Young Communist Union.

The Obama campaign had hoped to make inroads into the Cuban-American community in south Florida this year with a mix of new initiatives and tough talk on Cuba, but the presence of Craig and Holder has provoked anger instead, and not just among Republicans. Danny Diaz, the Democratic mayor of Miami but also the attorney for the Gonzalez family in the US, has so far refused to endorse Obama for the general election. Obama’s normally-adoring crowds get joined by dozens of protestors in Florida, angry at Obama’s inclusion of two men they see as tainted by the Gonzalez affair.
…
However, why Obama wants to associate himself twice over with one of the authors of that case seems beyond understanding. Holder has all sorts of baggage clinging to him like a Midwesterner and his Bible. Now that baggage has transferred to Obama, for no apparent good purpose. If this is the kind of decision-making we’ll continue to see with Obama, voters should wonder what “change” means.

Lemme guess: this isn’t the Eric Holder he knew, right?  Little wonder McCain has an 8% lead here.

This is gratuitous political p0rn of the highest order!  Excerpt from PJM:

…The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”

What remains to be seen is whether new developments will see the same cognitive dissonance apply to Obama’s policy in Iraq.

Read the rest, as it’s tasty stuff.

And the left has been accusing Bu$hitler McRummyburton of wanting to use Iraq to enrich his buddies!  Savor the aroma of irony, my friends.

He’s already got a few convicted pals (see Rezko, Ayers, and Dohrn), so what’s one more heading that direction, right?

The most ethical Congress evah!  From Michelle Malkin:

Here’s another installment in the deadbeat Dem/defaulting Hillary superdelegate chronicles of Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) in case you missed it over the holiday weekend. It’s getting smellier and smellier. Turns out she has defaulted on not one, but three home loans–yet somehow managed to loan her election campaign $77,500. In fact, it appears there is a pattern here of cashing out her homes to fill her campaign coffers. But there has been no uproar in Congress over this lawmaker’s appalling behavior. Why? Because it would upset the bipartisan narrative that all homeowners are victims, all lenders are sharks, and that no bad incentives to walk away exist.

Quick refresher: On May 21, we learned that Richardson had bailed on a Sacramento home and walked away from her $535,000 mortgage on the property. She denied the charges. On May 22, evidence piled up that contradicted her denial; moreover, we learned that she didn’t bother to pay utility fees and property taxes on the house. On top of that, the Daily Breeze confirmed that she did, in fact, receive a per diem housing allowance from the California state government. This woman has the gall to fashion herself a spokeswoman on behalf of aggrieved homeowners and wants to testify in front of the Senate while she swims in debt…

But Andrew thinks people like her should be bailed out at productive American taxpayers’ expense.  I guess me pointing this out makes me an “evil, heartless, uncaring b#stard”, right?  Yeah, I’ll get right to work on caring about that!

This is why you should just keep on “feeling”, Andy Boy, and just leave the governing thingy to us grown-ups.

In related news, Hell freezes over.  From the AP:

The political battle over whether state Attorney General Marc Dann should leave office has taken on the feel of a standoff.

Dann, 46, refuses to surrender to demands by an army of his own Democratic leaders that he step aside following an admitted affair and a sexual harassment scandal at his office.

Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland said Monday that Dann’s refusal to submit to the pressure — including a threat by the Ohio Democratic Party to revoke its endorsement — means Democrats will move forward to impeach him. Republican House Speaker Jon Husted said that his chamber, which takes the first step in any impeachment, was already reviewing the process.

“I think it’s important for Democrats to send a very clear message that we will clean our own house,” Strickland said. Democrats’ calls for Dann to resign were applauded by Republicans, adding a new twist to Strickland’s reputation for bipartisan cooperation. …

There’s a first time for everything, I guess.

Exit question, albeit somewhat rhetorical: If he had lied about the affair or the sexual harrassment, would Dems have rushed to his defense and claimed that it was a “private matter”, like they have in the not-so-distant past?

He’s from Harlem.  He’s black.  Ergo, there’s no fallout.  I’m probably racist just for pointing that out, aren’t I?  Chilerkle, I need some help here, my friend! 

Oh, yeah…I had a point in there somewhere.  From the Big Apple:

You may not realize it, but members of the House of Representatives can lease a car and have it paid for by you — the taxpayer. And it’s not just the car, but gas, registration, insurance … the works.
…
Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month. Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks’ Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.

All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives.

You can probably just imagine the kind of reaction CBS 2 HD got from everyday citizens outside Meeks’ Jamaica, Queens office.

“They should all drive cheaper cars, why not?” Richard Candelario said. “I mean, you know, they’re making the money. I mean, we shouldn’t pay for their cars.”
…
Rangel spoke to CBS 2 HD by phone about the seemingly extravagant expenses being racked up on the taxpayers’ dime:

CBS 2 HD: “How would you answer those people who say, ‘Well, but it’s taxpayer money. Instead of $700 a month, could you find something for, say, $300 a month?’”

Rangel: “I could probably find something for … one of those red cars and then I think my constituents would say, ‘With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?’”

Earlier, Rangel released a statement, further addressing the issue.

“When I’m in New York, my car is my office. I use it to conduct Congressional business. It really pleases me that (my constituents) appreciate driving in a comfortable car, especially the senior citizens,” Rangel said.

“The car isn’t just a vehicle for getting around; it’s an important part of doing my job and my constituents appreciate it.” …

Oh, I get it now.  The taxpayers in Harlem would feel dissed if he drove a more economical car.  Not enough bling for the peeps, word.  He’s just showin’ a little love for his homies by letting them climb into his pimpin’ ride, all while stickin “Th’ Man” with the bill.  Got it, Chuck.  Thanks for the clarification.

Ever the champion of “the little guy”, that Charlie Rangel.

Ironic that a man who doesn’t like the Clintons is borrowing a page from Bubba’s Parsing Dictionary.  From CQ:

Watching the tube in Pennsylvania these days might as well be called watching OBAMA TV. I’ve seen my share of saturation advertising buys during campaigns, but this is unprecedented. In a five-hour session of watching one network I counted 14 ads sponsored by Barack Obama, compared to a total of three ads for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And guess what I woke up to on my hotel clock radio? Yep, that’s right, the audio version of Obama’s ad.

That’s all well and good except for the fact that every one of the Obama ads I saw or heard present him personally telling what can only be charitably described as a half-truth — that he takes no money from Washington lobbyists. “I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take their money,” he says in the ad entitled “For Decades” (see screen below).

Obama is careful to claim in the ad that he does not take money from “Washington” lobbyists. That’s because he does take money from state-based lobbyists.

Long ago the media watchdogs, such as Politifact.com, determined that at best it is only half true for Obama to claim that he takes no money from federal lobbyists. He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.

Lucky for Obama, most of the news media seem not to care about such contradictions.

• Politifact.com: If it quacks like a lobbyist, it’s a lobbyist
• Columbia Journalism Review: Obama’s Lobbyist Line
• ABC News: Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests

Dude’s a corrupt, pathological, shameless liar, plain and simple. No wonder the Dems love him.

UPDATE (03/10/2008 - 06:19 P.M. EST): As DJ astutely observed, nowhere in the article does it mention that Spitzer is a Democrat.  Nor this article, which says that he was caught via a wiretap (Pfffffffff-bwahahahahahaha!).  The word appears exactly zero times.  Sure, you dig a little bit and find out about his efforts to smear a state Republican, but that’s it.  I’m sure it was an oversight, right?  Nope…no liberal media bias!

When he wasn’t busy trying to get criminal aliens drivers licenses, the former NY Attorney General, i.e. the chief law enforcement prosecutor, apparently was involved in a prostitution ring.  Story here.

After Her Highness’ attack dog Howard Wolfson called out the MSM for carrying Obama’s water, the MSM did the unthinkable: their job!  I know, I know…I was stunned, too.  Anywho, Barry O didn’t take too kindly to it, and in the process, demonstrated that the stress of the erstwhile friendly MSM is a little much for him (which is exactly the kind of toughness we need in a CinC, right?).  From the Washington comPost:

It took many months and the mockery of “Saturday Night Live” to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama’s trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. “That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged.”

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. “We’re running late,” the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. “The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a ‘kitchen sink’ strategy,” he protested. “There are, what, three or four things a day?”

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.
…
First came her ringing-phone ad last week: “It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Then the Clinton campaign trumpeted the acknowledgment that a top Obama aide had discussed NAFTA with a Canadian official — contradicting adamant denials by Obama and his underlings. Add to that the opening of the trial in Chicago for Obama pal Tony Rezko, and Obama had lost any hope of controlling the theme of the day.
…
Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate’s public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. “Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened,” Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a “courtesy” and involved no “winks and nods.”

Then an agitator — columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times — broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too “quiet,” accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.

“I don’t think it’s fair to suggest somehow that we’ve been trying to hide the ball on this,” Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago’s CBS affiliate. “How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?”

Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was “a boneheaded move” to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. “These requests, I think, could just go on forever,” he said. “At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what’s pertinent.”

Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out “last question,” and Obama made his move for the exit — only for reporters to shout after him in protest. “C’mon, guys,” he pleaded. “I just answered, like, eight questions.” (Ooooooo…a whopping eight questions! - Ed.)

The questioning, however, has only just begun.

The Rezko trial could be the answer that Hilldawg’s been waiting for.

Why do I call the guy naive?  Read the intro of the story, and note the emphasis:

Kahraman Sadikoglu remembers the day in May 2003 when a U.N. agency asked him to move forward with a business deal that would make the world a better place — and help him earn a tidy profit.

“I was very proud to be working for the U.N., because the U.N. is the best in the world, and it solves the problems,” the Turkish shipping tycoon said in a recent interview. “I thought we were going to help the Iraqi people.”

Sadikoglu was asked by the U.N. to clear from the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr several sunken ships that were blocking this major supply artery into the war-torn country.

But nearly five years later, the colorful billionaire insists he’s out more than $50 million — with the meter running on another $100,000 a day in interest and expenses — and has been blocked from providing life-saving aid by the very agency charged with overseeing the project, the U.N. Development Program, or UNDP.

That’s not all. Dozens of crew members living on a virtual armada of Sadikoglu’s salvage ships — nine in all — remain stuck in limbo at an Iraqi port, unofficially held hostage, he claims, in a stalemate the UNDP seems uninterested in or unable to resolve.

Corruption, deceipt, and sleaziness. The United Nations: more useless than non-alcoholic beer in a Kennedy refrigerator.

I suppose had she been accused of boinking a lobbyist, they may have cared.  OK, let me reprhase that: had she been a Republican and accused of boinking a lobbyist, the NYT may have cared.  From The American Thinker:

Since the 2006 Congressional victory by Democrats, The New York Times has ignored a highly questionable situation involving Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi among other leading Democrats, instead focusing on alleged Republican offenses.

On August 2nd, 2007 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a bill to the U. S. House of Representatives which raised a potential conflict of interest involving the Speaker’s widely publicized family stock holdings, corporate sponsors, and former staffers turned lobbyists. The Speaker submitted the bill called the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) to the House with bipartisan support. It would allow states to decide whether or not to extend Medicare benefits for HIV treatment to some currently not covered.
 
Speaker Pelosi submitted ETHA one day after Medicare officials announced new rules to cut back on significant expenditures for the drugs PROCRIT® made by Johnson & Johnson and EPOGEN® made by Amgen. The new Medicare rules were primarily geared to reduce the use of the drugs for cancer patients. Those pharmaceuticals are used to treat anemia often seen as a side effect of HIV medications and for other conditions. Both companies enjoy massive revenues from the sales of those medicines, with Johnson & Johnson reporting $3.2 billion in earnings from PROCRIT® and a similar drug and Amgen showing $6.5 billion for EPOGEN® and a similar drug during 2006.
 
Last year Amgen started losing stock value as word of the cuts spread. A press release from Amgen at its’ corporate website stated “”Recent changes in coverage rules and adjustments to Amgen’s FDA approved labels for EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp have and will adversely affect Amgen’s revenue.” The company then announced layoffs.
 
The ETHA bill would increase the number of HIV infected persons able to receive government assistance. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis conducted in 2003 estimated that the act would increase eligibility for treatment by 30,000 people. In turn the government purchasing of the anemia medications associated with their treatment will certainly increase, making up some of the difference caused by the planned Medicaid purchasing reductions. In effect, this law could turn things around for Amgen and increase Johnson & Johnson stock values.
 
Considering that the bill was submitted only one day after the Medicare announcement, some viewed it as a reaction to the new guidelines and an attempt to improve the finances of those two drug makers. Unless Speaker Pelosi has divested herself of certain stocks that she held in 2006 by the time she sponsored ETHA, then she stood to profit from the bill. Inquiries to clarify her holdings have gone without response from her office. In addition she has strong connections to Amgen.
 
According to the ethics guidelines for the House of Representatives, an elected official must declare perosnal investments and holdings. Those declarations are available online and can be viewed at a website called opensecrets.org. The last declaration on record that covers the calendar year 2006 shows the Speaker owned over $500,000 dollars worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. Such a scenario creates the impression of a conflict of interest.
 
In addition, her close ties to biotech firm Amgen come into question. Two of her key staffers have left to become lobbyists working for Amgen directly or through lobbying firms. They include George Crawford, described by the San Francisco Chronicle as the Speaker’s former chief of staff and Howard Moon, described in a Washington Post article as a former senior policy adviser who was named the government affairs director for Amgen.

In addition, Amgen has supported her campaigns through PAC money and by sponsoring fund raising events. While she does not appear to own stock in Amgen, the timing of the bill raises questions about just how closely she is tied to the company.
 
Between 2002 and 2006 Amgen became a superstar stock amid soaring price hikes and massive profits. Nancy Pelosi attempted and failed to pass the Early Treatment of HIV Act during that run-up. In 2006 Amgen sponsored a fund raiser for Pelosi.
 
The Democrats won Congress in 2006 on a pledge to clean up the “culture of corruption” they ascribed to the majority Republicans. In one example, a Republican congressman in 2004 announced that he was considering taking a position with a pharmaceutical lobbying firm after he had negotiated pharmaceutical legislature. Congresswoman Pelosi charged at the time that the move was an “abuse of power”.
 
The pharmaceutical industry was expected to be hit hard as Democrats strove to lower prescription drug prices through government negotiations. Pharmaceutical stocks were expected to fall. Speaker Pelosi herself was viewed by many as a threat to ‘big pharma’. One common investment technique for drawing profit from the markets is to buy when prices fall and sell when they go high again. According to the Speaker’s 2006 disclosure she was invested in multiple pharmaceutical and biotech firms that make medications.
 
This new scandal recalls the early 2007 incident in which the Speaker promoted a minimum wage hike that would include all U.S. areas except American Samoa. Some large companies with canneries in Samoa are headquartered in the Speaker’s district. Amgen is a powerhouse in Northern California, with a significant presence in the Speaker’s district. That fact mirrors the Samoa controversy in which critics accused Pelosi of playing favorites with her district. And in 2007 it was revealed that the Speaker sponsored a massive earmark that would probably affect the value of property in which her husband was invested.
 
This summer, under extreme pressure from Congress, led by Pelosi, Medicare dropped its’ planned regulation changes. J&J and Amgen stock immediately soared as The New York Times reported:

Medicare has eased up on some of its proposed restrictions on the use of popular anemia drugs made by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.

The decision, announced late yesterday, could provide some relief for the two companies, which have already experienced steep drops in sales of the drugs. [....]
The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services had proposed in May to sharply limit coverage for the drugs - Aranesp from Amgen and Procrit from Johnson & Johnson. Some analysts had predicted at that time that use of the drugs could be cut by as much as 50 percent. [....]
But investors reacted favorably, sending shares of Amgen by more than $2 in early after-hours trading, though it then began to drop back. Shares had closed at $56.19, up 57 cents.
Shares of the larger and more diversified Johnson & Johnson rose about 30 cents after hours, having closed at $60.07, up 30 cents.

How very interesting that The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of a rumor concerning McCain while the Democrat Speaker of the House gets a free ride on such an apparently blatent abuse of power to enrich herself and friends.
 
And it doesn’t end there. Congress pressured Medicare to backdown from the regulations with votes in the House and the Senate. The Sense of the Senate nonbinding resolution was approved unanimously (with no votes recorded therefore). As a Senator, Hillary Clinton would have also voted on this measure that proved a financial boon for Amgen. Senator Clinton is also tied to Amgen.
 
Bloomberg recently reported that President Clinton’s former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist,  received a $1.7 million payment to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton’s campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions assembled by a lobbyist at a firm that profited from the success of earning her vote. 

One of those contributions was from Howard Moon, a former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill on Aug. 2nd, 2007 a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign.

Barack Obama who claims not to take lobbyist money received over $12,000 in private donations from several Amgen corporate executives (listed as executives, directors, and vice presidents) as revealed by government watch dog group opensecrets.org. The donations listed occured just before the September 4^th, 2007 Senate vote on the Sense of the Senate resolution and the day after.

This easily discovered appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Democratic leaders weighs far more heavily than the thin evidence provided against Senator McCain. Maybe the The New York Times has an ethics problem of its’ own.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Yes, that Google.  “Do no evil.”  I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “evil”, right?  We all know they’re run by a bunch of leftist hacks, but now they’re not even pretending otherwise.  From FNC:

How big do you have to be to earn the wrath of the United Nations and Internet giant Google?

If you’re journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.

Lee is the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that’s taken on Goliath-sized entities like Citigroup since 1987.

Since 2005, he’s been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stories online almost daily.

He’s been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.

Many of Lee’s stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.

But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.

“I think they said, ‘If we can’t get this guy out of the U.N., let’s disappear him from the Internet,’” Lee said.
…
Lee said he felt certain that the Internet company and the international agency had now joined forces to make his work less accessible to the public.
…
According to Stricker, on Feb. 1 someone e-mailed Google a complaint about Lee’s Web site, alleging that Inner City Press was a one-man operation, thus violating the Google News ground rule that news organizations it lists must have two or more employees.

Lee is vague about how many people work for the Inner City Press, but said there’s at least one woman who works for the organization full-time, as well as “about half a dozen” volunteers.

“If people work for us as volunteers, why does it not count?” he said. “Is it their business?”
…
The reaction to the de-listing, however temporary, has been furious. The non-profit Government Accountability Project lambasted the company, calling Inner City Press “the most effective and important media organization for UN whistleblowers.”

“We’re alarmed,” said Bea Edwards, GAP’s international-program director. “The question is, is what user sent the complaint? And it’s probably not too hard to guess. We would guess the complaints came from the UNDP.” 

Everyone knows the U.N. is useless and corrupt, but to have Google doing their dirty work is shameful.

If I’m reading this correctly, it sure looks like it.  From Beantown’s fishwrap:

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000. 

In other words, the very people who can (and likely will) decide the Dem nominee can have their votes bought or heavily influenced?  “Hey, Mr. Carville, I know that Hilldawg has ponied up $50k, but how’s about I see her $50k and raise her $25k?”  Does this qualify as part of that “culture of corruption” thingy the Dems have been whining about?

Exit question: if it is “unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters”, then isn’t it equally unseemly to hand out wads of casah to “elected officials serving as superdelegates”?

For those of you who are paranoid enough to think Bu$hitler McRummyburton is spying on your calls, you will be relieved to know that you’ve been given a reprieve.  From the AP:

Telephone companies cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time, according to a Justice Department audit released Thursday.

The faulty bookkeeping is part of what the audit, by the Justice Department’s inspector general, described as the FBI’s lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

And at least once, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation — the highly secretive and sensitive cases that allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies — “was halted due to untimely payment.”

I can see it now:  “Muhammed, Ibrahaim said that the explosives are going to be detonated at…(click!)“

According to a DOJ Inspector General audit…:

As part of our audit, we analyzed 990 telecommunication surveillance payments made by 5 field divisions and found that over half of these payments were not made on time. We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was halted due to untimely payment.

According to FBI field division officials, the various types of telecommunication charges, coupled with the number of invoices resulting from each surveillance order, make it difficult to identify and track incoming surveillance bills. The FBI also lacks proper guidance and consistent procedures necessary to track telecommunication surveillance bills accurately. Lacking such headquarters-issued procedures, FBI field divisions have instituted separate, ad hoc tracking mechanisms, which had mixed results in paying bills on time. For example, a primary carrier sent a list to one of the field divisions we tested detailing $66,000 in unpaid telecommunication costs resulting from surveillance activity.

When they’re not fouling up border security and enforcement of immigration laws, and when they’re not frisking senior citizens at airport checkpoints while letting those who “look” Arab/Muslim walk right by, DHS and TSA are finding creative ways to showcase their incompetence.  Feel safer now?  Me neither.

McCain’s campaign is dying from Ebola and a case of hypocrisy and corruption…but mostly from a case of hypocrisy and corruption.

Johnny Mac, the Arizona RINO whose purported contempt of “special interests” in DC spurred him to push a campaign finance reform bill, is screaming like a banshee right now.  Mac, you bend over and kiss your campaigning behind goodbye.  From Drudge:

MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
Thu Dec 20 2007 10:56:57 ET

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper’s Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain’s aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

MORE

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.

The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.

Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about jounalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.  (Pffff-bwahahahahahaha!  Yeah, I’m sure that concern really crossed Keller’s mind! - Ed.) 

McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication. 

When McCain decried the influence that “special interests” have, who knew he was referring to the influence they had on himself, too?

What is it about former Arkansas governors selling clemencies/pardons for party loyalists?  Check out the most recent revelation on the Huckster:

Questions are being raised about then-Gov. Huckabee’s 2004 decision to grant clemency to a repeat Driving While Intoxicated offender in Arkansas named Eugene Fields, despite the objections of a law enforcement official at the time. Documents obtained by NBC News reveal Fields’ case was handled differently from any other DWI clemency or pardon granted by Huckabee, and some Republicans are now suggesting significant political contributions may have influenced the governor’s decision.

In August 2001, Fields, of Van Buren, Ark., was convicted of his fourth DWI charge, a felony in the state of Arkansas, was sentenced to six years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Fields reported to prison in August of 2003.

But prison records obtained by NBC News show that six weeks into that six-year sentence, Fields’ application for clemency, a commutation of his sentence the governor could issue to grant Fields an early release from prison, was unanimously supported by the parole board. Within months, Huckabee issued his intent to grant executive clemency to Fields, who was released from prison soon thereafter.

On Fields’ application for a commutation of his sentence, four options are listed as possible reasons as to why the application was being made, including, “I wish to correct an injustice which may have occurred during trial,” and, “I want to adjust what may be considered an excessive sentence.” No boxes are checked on Fields’ application; instead “N/A” is written across the top of the sheet, for “Not Applicable.”
…
A review of campaign-finance records shows that Fields’s wife, Glenda, made two $5,000 contributions to the Arkansas Republican party — one on June 26, 2003 and another on July 14, 2003. Less than two months before Glenda Fields wrote the first of those checks, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied Eugene Fields’s petition for rehearing his 2001 felony DWI conviction.
…
Political contributions weren’t the only donations made by the Fields family. Also contained in his application (along with a character reference from his Southern Baptist pastor) were copies of thank-you notes and tax receipts for financial contributions from charitable causes and organizations he’d supported: The Salvation Army, Arkansas Children’s Hospital, U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, and the First Baptist Church of Van Buren’s “Women’s Mission Ministry.” The scope of his charitable donations, which began around the time of his second DWI conviction, expanded as his DWI rap sheet grew.

Did I mention how I’m not going to vote for this guy, ever?

Corruption at the United Nations is about as new as Moses’ robe (for those of you on the left, Moses was a high-profile dude in the Bible).  But this is just shameful:

After releasing new figures showing that the global AIDS epidemic is smaller than it previously reported, the United Nations’ AIDS-fighting agency denied yesterday that it had inflated estimates for years in an alarmist effort to raise funds.

Having lost two friends to AIDS in the 1990’s, I do not trivialize the seriousness of the disease or the impact it has on family and friends left behind. However, “cooking the books” in order to obtain funding could have an adverse impact on efforts to combat the disease, because it can lead to a “boy who cried wolf” situation.

Exit question that you can probably see coming from a mile away: if the UN wildly inflated the number of HIV cases in order to obtain funding for research, is it unreasonable to think the same thing is happening with that junk science fad known as global “warming”?

Ah, yes…those coveted Euro electoral votes!  From the Beeb:

Guess who is coming to dinner in Dublin?

None other than former US president Bill Clinton, who is mingling with a host of Ireland’s elite at a fundraising bash on Saturday night.

The 1,600 euro (£1,145) a head dinner is in aid of his wife Hillary’s presidential campaign fund - and the places have been much coveted.

The Irish-Americans for Hillary Group said they could sell the 140 available places over and over again. 
…
The paper said that some Irish people who were so desperate to attend the fundraiser have been seeking out US citizens through whom they can channel the $2,300 (1,600 euro) admission charge.

Never let it be said that Shrillary doesn’t adapt.  If you can’t get your hands on some Chinese funny money, go for some Irish green.  Here’s guessing that there will be no legal repercussions for such a flagrant violation of federal election law.

As Bryan says, “Quid, meet pro quo“:

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety…

One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.

Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign in August.

Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who gave Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to “report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.
…
Pardoned by President Clinton for charges he had mishandled government secrets — but before the Department of Justice could file the proper paperwork against him — Deutch, now a professor at MIT, gave Sen. Clinton the maximum allowable donation, $2,300.

Illegal?  Nope.  But in light of Her Highness recent Hsu-nanigans, the “smartest woman in the world” is looking dumber by the day.

Friggin’ wonderful.  With federal incompetence like this, why in the hell would anyone trust those dolts to manage our health care?  From MSNBC:

Current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News that Nada Nadim Prouty had a much bigger role than officials at the FBI and CIA first acknowledged. In fact, Prouty was assigned to the CIA’s most sensitive post, Baghdad, and participated in the debriefings of high-ranking al- Qaida detainees.

A former colleague called Prouty “among the best and the brightest” CIA officers in Baghdad. She was so exceptional, agree officials of both agencies, the CIA recruited her from the FBI to work for the agency’s clandestine service at Langley, Va., in June 2003. She then went to Iraq for the agency to work with the U.S. military on the debriefings.

“Early on, she was an active agent in the debriefings,” said one former intelligence official. “It was more than translation.”…

“The issue is that she had access to very sensitive information regardless of where she was in the hierarchy,” said [NBC analyst Roger] Cressey. “Because she was able to interview high-value targets, that put her in a very unique position. So if she therefore shared that information, it could have cost major damage to our nation’s security.”

If we’re going to “fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here”, is it too much to ask not to put them on the federal payroll?  From Michelle Malkin:

The document of the day is a press release from the Justice Department announcing, “Former Employee of CIA and FBI Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy, Unauthorized Computer Access and Naturalization Fraud.” A Lebanese illegal alien was working for the Bush FBI and CIA, got into our computer systems, got access to info about her Lebanese relatives and the terrorist group Hezbollah, arranged a sham marriage (where have we seen that before), and nosed around in bribery and extortion conspiracy probes. Debbie Schlussel, Jihad Watch, and Allah have full coverage of Nada Nadim Prouty’s guilty plea and the appalling security lapses involved.

Debbie Schlussel points out: “The FBI and U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy (and before him, U.S. Attorneys Craig Morford and Jeffrey Collins) knew Prouty was a spy for Hezbollah back in 2003, but they allowed her to work for the FBI and CIA for over FOUR Years! They did not remove her from the job until the end of this past September–1.5 years after her brother-in-law was indicted for financing Hezbollah!!!!!!”

And Robert Spencer notes, “This story has everything: an illegal immigration angle, a Keystone Kops angle, an espionage angle, a moderate-Muslims-condemn-terror-or-do-they angle, and more. It would make a great movie. If this kind of thing doesn’t kill us first.”

The Bush administration’s cavalier attitude toward illegal aliens in its employ should be no surprise, of course. The Pentagon has allowed known illegal alien fraudsters to remain in the military as a matter of policy. And remember the illegal alien working in the White House who got his picture taken with the Cheneys?

When I broke that story in 2003, I ended my piece with this question for President Bush:

[I]f his own guardians can’t keep low-level, illegal border-crossing impostors out of the White House backyard, how in the world can we count on his administration to keep far more sophisticated, illegal alien evildoers…out of ours?

Answer: We can’t.

How many other illegal aliens and jihadi sympathizers are working in sensitive positions in the shamnesty-promoting Bush administration?

Could the crony-riddled DHS even tell us if they tried? 

Undermining American security and working with terrorists must be one of those “jobs that Americans won’t do” that Jorgé W. Bush was telling us about.

Hypocrisy, corruption, etc.  That’s the United Nations for you.  Glad to see those folks taking climate crisis so seriously!  From Pajamas Media:

The would-be regulators of the world’s climate (and your wallet) will be jetting to Bali this December for Ban Ki-Moon’s next UN weather fest: “UN Climate Change Conference 2007.” UN policy allows even the lowlier UN staffers to travel business class on long-haul flights (your tax dollars at work), the better to arrive wined, dined and ready to hit the ground …and the beaches … and the golf courses … and the tennis courts — running. Apparently there is so much to discuss that the conference will run for a full fortnight, from Dec. 3-14, at Bali’s seaside luxury resort of Nusa Dua.

For all those taxpayer mugs out there who have not had the experience of flying business class to spend a fortnight at Nusa Dua, check out the spectacular seaside photos of the Bali International Convention Center, with its slogan: “The Place…Where Business is a Pleasure.” For more information, page through the Bali conference outline on the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change, or UNFCC, web site. This includes a handy list of pre/post conference tours, and a list of hotels (Nusa Dua Beach Hotel and Spa, and Melia Bali Villas and Spa Resort, already sold out) plus recreational facilities: sailing, fishing, snorkeling, ocean kayaking, and, of course, the shopping gallery.

There, undistracted by the winter winds whipping past the UN’s NY headquarters (now prepping for a $2 billion renovation), they will discuss the many ways in which the UN can collect fees and fund more conferences via taxes and productivity caps administered by the same UN system which refuses to open its own books to the public (where is that full and transparent accounting we were promised for the tsunami donations?).

Recall that the UN apparently rebuffed out of hand a recent invitation from Canada to move its headquarters north. One might just wonder — would “climate change,” be such an urgent UN issue were UN bureaucrats required to hold their meetings without availing themselves quite so amply of other people’s money to enjoy their own convenient change of climate.

Quick Multiple Choice Quiz on the UN system: Will the UN release for the perusal of Joe-average taxpayer a detailed post-conference breakdown of staff expense accounts for Ban’s bash on Bali?

A. Ha

B. Ha-ha

C. You’ve got to be kidding

D. In order to operate, the UN must preserve its confidentiality in such matters. Tennis, anyone? 

I don’t think there’s much more for me to add to that, now is there?  Well, maybe one thing: the United Nations is more useless than tits on a boar.

Ah, yes…the most ethical and hard-working Congress evah!  From the NYT:

Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.

But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.

Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”

His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington.

“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.

It’s a good thing we got rid of those lazy #ss Republicans, and replaced them with lazy #ss Democrats!  Can’t get anything done, so why bother trying, right?

Get this:

“Unlike Congress, the American people do not mistake motion for progress,” said Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan. “They want results. And given the approval ratings, they are certainly convinced they aren’t getting them.”

Mr. McCotter said changing the schedule was an example of Democrats’ breaking promises. “They said ‘five-day weeks,’ ” he said. And he scoffed at the notion that Mr. Hoyer was also responding to Republicans who wanted more time in their home districts.

“I wish he had that much concern and was as responsive to Republicans’ calls for input on major legislation,” Mr. McCotter said.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said.

So the Republicans failed so badly last year, that the Dems needed to put in extra time…which naturally means that they’re going to put in the needed time by working less!  I’m going to try that line on my boss, and see how that works.  Wish me luck, my friends!

Not to be outdone by Shrillary’s Hsu-shining corruption, Barry O is angling for some of his own.  Apparently, not only is Osamabama running for the children, but he’s running bankrolled by the children.  From the Washington comPost:

Elrick Williams’s toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year’s presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.

Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.

“It’s not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they’re often left wanting to do more,” said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “That’s when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity.”

Asked about the Williams family giving, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “As a policy, we don’t take donations from anyone under the age of 15.” After being asked by The Post about the matter, he said the children’s donations will be returned.

How about “as a policy, we don’t take donations from anyone still using a teething ring”? That would be a nice start.

This stuff is getting old.  Who will be the next Hsu to drop?  From the LA Times:

Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate — Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
…
As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations (Funny how that seems to happen all the time! - Ed.). At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. (Well, that would certainly help explain her affinity for illegal aliens! - Ed.)
…
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs — including dishwasher, server or chef — that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Her Highness sure has a knack of finding poor Chinese folks who somehow give tons of jack to her quest for power, doesn’t she?

From Seattlestan’s fishwrap:

Tucked away on Seattle’s Portage Bay, a sleek, 85-foot speedboat sat idle for years — save for an annual jaunt to maintain its engine.

The Navy paid $4.5 million to build the boat. But months before the hull ever touched water, the Navy gave the boat to the University of Washington. The school never found a use for it, either.

Why would the Navy waste taxpayer dollars on a boat that nobody wanted?

Blame it on Sen. Patty Murray and Congressmen Norm Dicks and Brian Baird. All three exercised their political muscle to slip language into a 2002 spending bill to force the Navy to buy the boat from Edmonds shipbuilder Guardian Marine International.

Year after year, the Washington lawmakers did favors for the tiny company, inserting four “earmarks” into different bills to force the Navy and Coast Guard to buy boats they didn’t ask for — $17.65 million in all. None of the boats was used as Congress intended.

The congressional trio say they were helping Guardian Marine because it had a great product. But each has also received generous campaign donations from the company’s three executives, its sole employees: $14,277 to Baird, $15,000 to Murray, and $16,750 to Dicks.

Earmarks are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.

This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful.

For example, Murray directed $6 million to a Redmond company for high-tech battle gear that the Army had rejected as flawed for its armored-vehicle Stryker Brigade.

Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., directed the Marines to buy $2 million of combat T-shirts from an Oregon company. But they couldn’t be used in battle in Iraq due to a subsequent ban on polyester garments that could melt under fire and badly burn the troops.

Until recently, the earmark process was secretive. Congress did not have to publicly reveal the names of companies getting the contracts or those of the sponsoring lawmakers.

The Seattle Times investigated the 2007 defense bill, examining the relationships between who got money in the bill and who gave to lawmakers’ campaign funds. Reporters were able to tie nearly half of the bill’s 2,700 earmarks to their sponsoring lawmakers. 

Government waste and corruption at its finest.

Actually, this guy is a genuine war hero, which makes his lie more curious. From JWF:

Looks like we have another case of a Democrat embellishing his military record. Though, of course, this account from the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn’t identify his party affiliation.

To be fair, the Mayor of Atlantic City, did indeed serve in the military, but claimed to be a Green Beret when he was not.

A.C. mayor goes AWOL

ATLANTIC CITY - Where’s the mayor? Not since “Where’s Waldo?” and “Where’s the Beef?” has such a query caused such a stir.

In this resort, where the streets are literally paved by gambling revenues, they’re taking bets on what might have become of Mayor Bob Levy and whether his disappearance signals another impending scandal involving the city’s top job.

Amid reports of a federal probe into false claims that Levy admits he made regarding his Vietnam military service, the mayor drove off last Wednesday in a silver, city-owned Dodge Durango and has not officially been heard from since.

His lawyer says that Levy is in a hospital, but isn’t giving up anything else.

Rumors flew last week that Levy was ready to resign and would hold a news conference. But his assistants insisted that none of that was true.

Then where is he? Might this have something to do with it?

Levy’s public problems started last fall, when he acknowledged to a reporter for the Press of Atlantic City that he misrepresented his military background during his mayoral campaign.

He had claimed to have served in the Army Green Berets during the Vietnam War, but in November said he never was in the elite Army Special Forces group.

Levy’s service record shows he served two tours in Vietnam and was decorated for bravery twice.

Why would someone who was decorated for bravery twice find it necessary to embellish his record?
…

…
Since then, Levy has been outed by the local newspaper, The Press of Atlantic City, for padding his résumé, and he has admitted the lie. Last Friday, amid reports that the federal government was investigating his military record, he abruptly went on medical leave and dropped out of sight.
…
As a veteran, he was entitled to veteran’s payments, but by embellishing his record, he could get more money, the sources said. The total financial benefit gained in this way would be less than $25,000, they said. His current salary is around $101,000, according to the acting mayor.
…
The government left no doubt that Levy had a distinguished war record. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for valor over two tours in the combat zone. Yet for some reason, Levy told people he’d also been a Green Beret. The elite unit was formed early in the Vietnam War and its members — soldiers with additional training in ways to kill and elude capture by the enemy — wore distinctive green berets.

This lengthy account from the Star-Ledger also mysteriously leaves out his party affiliation. As it turns out, he’s a former Republican. (Yes, he’s a Democrat. - Ed.)

Since it’s so easy to identify his party, why does the media omit this information?

I’m sure we’ll be seeing the left condemning his Macbethesque dishonesty any minute now. Nope…no liberal media bias!

Regarding Her Highness’ hairbrained “$5k baby bonds” brain fart, we get this below-the-belt-but-totally-called-for nugget from James Pethokoukis of the US News Capitol Commerce:

Now, while the Democratic front-runner may know a thing or two about cattle futures, she clearly is no personal finance expert—at least based on those comments.

Ouch.

Looks like Her Highness is getting her fingers dirty yet again. Go figure. From Hot Air:

This one’s not connected to Runaround Hsu, at least that we know of.

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, documents show.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it.

In addition, the group’s former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for travel-related costs.

ACT was the big union group that George Soros donated $10 million to toward defeating President Bush in 2004. Hillary cannot plausibly claim to not know that ACT was both connected to Soros and that it was the third most heavily fined election law violator in US history. And she hired much of its top tier to help run her campaign.

ACT is disbanding, but that really doesn’t matter since much of its leadership is now ensconced in the Clinton campaign. And I’m sure Soros will come up with some new cleverly acronymed group through which he can pour money next time around.  

Nothing to see here, move along…

The Hsu has dropped, but Shrillary’s shamelessness continues. From Hot Air:

You cannot be serious.

The campaign is refunding $850,000 to [Hsu’s bundled] donors, viewing the money as tainted. Yet the campaign is also risking another public relations mess by saying that it would take back the money if it clearly came from the donor’s bank account, not from Mr. Hsu or another source. The risk is that Mrs. Clinton will appear to want more cash no matter whether it was once colored by a disgraced donor.

The campaign will try to get most of the donors to give the money back right after the refunds, said a senior Democratic strategist who advises Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. “That’s the plan,” the strategist said.

The strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal campaign deliberations, added that the Clinton campaign was deeply worried that the controversy could grow.

“They are worried there are more out there,” the strategist said. “Bundlers. The feeling is there are a few more that will have Hsu problems.”

Riddle me this: If the worry is that Hsu was using at least some of these people as fronts so that he could exceed the federal limits on how much he could donate to Hillary, then how will the money be any less tainted if they re-gift it to her? I.e., if Hsu cuts John Doe a check for $100,000 and asks him to spread it around among Democrats A-Z, then giving that money back to John so that he can give it right back to you doesn’t “cleanse” it. It’s Hsu’s money; John never should have had it in the first place. If you donate the money to charity and then hit John up for a donation from his own bank account, that’s fine. But that ain’t what she’s planning to do. Exit question: Why not at least wait until the DOJ investigation of Hsu’s bundled donations is over so you know which donors are clean and which aren’t? 

These people are despicable.