Now is when I remind you that not only does Obama have very strong ties to ACORN (he worked on their behalf as a lawyer at one point), and its sister organization, SEIU, and let’s not forget that Obama gave $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate to “get out the vote” during the Election Season. And ACORN, the alleged non-partisan organization, currently under investigation in at least 14 states for voter fraud, the organization that helped create the Fanne Mae/Freddis Mac fiasco, is receiving YOUR tax paying dollars, $53 million to date, and stands to receive $8.5 Billion in Stimulus money.

The aforementioned article? It is this: Former Leftist Activist, Turned FBI Informant, Pulls Back the Curtain On ACORN. Well, you know that caught my eye right away – this guy, Brandon Darby, was a leftie activist, like many of us were, but unlike most of us, worked with the FBI on terrorism. Here is Darby’s story:

I first experienced ACORN in post-Katrina New Orleans. I was part of a relief organization, Common Ground Relief, which had been delivering much needed aid to the 9th Ward, an area that had been hit especially hard by the flood waters and by neglect. Rumors immediately began surfacing, questioning our motives and intentions. I was very confused by these rumors. Who was behind them? How could anyone question the vital work we were doing in the community? We lived and worked in the 9th Ward. We suspended our regular lives and, in many cases, left our families to travel to New Orleans to help those affected by Katrina and poverty. We slept on dirty plywood floors and shared everything we had with the residents. Most of us were white. Was our skin color the issue? I knew from personal experience that the majority of the Black 9th ward residents didn’t care what color our skin was. It took me awhile to get over the hurt I felt at such allegations and to find out where they were coming from.

In the following weeks, I was made aware of the fact that ACORN had reopened its New Orleans office (several months after the storm). Various groups from around the city informed me that Acorn was upset with us because we were in “their” community and had not sought approval from ACORN to operate there. I was told that ACORN said that we were “privileged white people who had come to a Black community as saviors and we refused to work with local Black leadership.”

The more I pondered the matter, the more I realized what was happening. As usual in marginalized and impoverished communities, a small group of radical self-proclaimed leaders was insisting that all local aid and relief came through them—even if they were AWOL for several months. Though the majority of residents either hadn’t heard of ACORN or simply disagreed with their politics- ACORN insisted that they were THE Black leaders. This was upsetting to me. Sure, the local pastor we worked most closely with was Black; but that didn’t matter to ACORN. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t evoke the name of Elijah Mohammed or Malcolm X. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t submit to ACORN’s mandate that ACORN was the sole leadership of Black New Orleanians.

Am I reading this correctly? Only black people can work with black people as far as ACORN is concerned? Dang, I bet all of those organizations and churches who sent so many people and aid to New Orleans didn’t know the rules. I know I didn’t when I sent money, and took my niece and nephew there post-Katrina to spend tourism dollars as requested. I think we all thought we were helping our fellow Americans. This is a bit of a shock, I have to say.

Back to the article:

As then director of Common Ground Relief’s 9th Ward project, I was warned by many that ACORN would ruin me politically if I didn’t submit to their leadership. I believed in what I was doing and how I was doing it. I refused to submit. The political fallout was almost unbearable. I just kept my eyes on meeting the needs of the community. When confronted by adherents to ACORN’s brand of race analysis, I pointed out that ACORN was not there immediately after the storm, so I could not have sought their leadership even if I had wanted to.

Over the following years, that particular style of political attack was prominent in New Orleans. Anytime that ACORN was displeased, the other party was deemed a racist. If the other party disagreed with the label or with ACORN’s agenda- they were met with “of course you feel that way. You are a racist.” Though it is clearly woefully inaccurate and unethical to use such an accusation as a political attack and as a means of shutting down philosophical debate and discourse, some at ACORN didn’t let that stop them. I refused to submit to it. I believed in listening to the majority of the community, who were desperate for our help, and not only to the self-proclaimed leaders. I paid a dear price for it.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not least of which is the people there NEEDED this help. They still do. People who WANT to help, who take time to do this, are then treated shabbily, and labeled racist to boot. Wow. I can only imagine how that felt to Darby after all his work there on behalf of that community.

And where does the FBI fit into all of this? Here’s how:

I returned to Texas after a couple of years adminst the political quagmire of post-Katrina New Orleans. My experience there with various groups was educational and life-changing, though some of these groups concerned me. Eventually I began to see some of them as dangerous and deceitful about their missions. This, along with a growing appreciation of my country helped lead me to work with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

I was as proud of this new era in my life as I was of my time in New Orleans. I had the privilege of participating in efforts where lives were saved; both in the United States and in Israel. While working undercover with the FBI at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, I helped to uncover a bomb plot. Two men had made firebombs with a homemade napalm mixture of gasoline and oil. Their initial targets were Republican delegates. These bomb-makers (domestic terrorists) later decided to attack a staging area for the Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies. Fortunately, they were stopped and arrested.

I was asked, and agreed, to testify against them. As was expected, the more radical elements of the media began to attack both me as an individual and the FBI as a whole. One of the men accused plead guilty; the other hired an expensive defense attorney and concocted a story about the FBI building these bombs to “set up left-wing activists” and stop dissent. But once the facts became clear, the defense changed their story and instead tried to blame the FBI for ”influencing” the terrorists. Thankfully, after one hung jury and many months of intense media attacks against me, the other bomb-maker (domestic terrorist) decided to come clean and admitted to the judge that he had invented the whole story.

What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.

I was even more shocked as I continued reading the article. ACORN’s “founder” went on to mention that another self-proclaimed “radical” activist who had worked closely with him was also involved in my story. Her name is Lisa Fithian. I first encountered Ms. Fithian in New Orleans. She came to town after Common Ground Relief had started operations. She assumed a position of prominence and continuously challenged my work and leadership. During the RNC bombing trial, she cooperated with the defense of the bomb plotters and led media attacks on me and the FBI.

Ms. Fithian has been quoted in various mainstream news articles as saying, “Nonviolence is a strategy. Civil disobedience is a tactic,” and “Direct action is a strategy. Throwing rocks is a tactic.” She is also quoted as stating that “When people ask me, ‘What do you do?’ I say, ‘I create crisis’, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.”

ACORN receives tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to promote their agenda. Free speech is sacred, of course. However, it is clear that ACORN has made a practice of blurring the lines between free speech and tax-payer-funded activism. Fortunately, our federal government is adept at investigating and identifying the misuse of federal funds. It will be interesting in the near future to see how Mr. Rathke and his ACORN associates stand up to the same scrutiny they have focused on our military, the FBI and other governmental groups and agencies.

After the revelations exposed in the O’Keefe/Giles videos, maybe the FBI will get the hint and take a look into ACORN. If they need a reminder, they can go back and look at the testimony of ACORN Whistleblower, Anita Moncrief, who had PLENTY to say about how ACORN operates, and acknowledged the connections between ACORN and Obama. It is a shocking reminder of what the MSM let go by in order to carry water for Obama.

So, maybe it’s not too late? Maybe after all of these recent (and not so recent) revelations SOMEONE in law enforcement will do the right thing and go after ACORN? Make the connections, hold them accountable, and do it now? Heaven knows, there is enough information available, isn’t there?

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! Anita Moncrief, the ACORN whistleblower, is going to be on Paulie Abeles, Sins of Omission NQ radio show SEPTEMBER 21st at 9:00 PM (EST)!! WOW!!!! I cannot wait. I’ll be there – hope you will, too!

No, I am talking about political connections that can get you into the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Like if you are related to Tony Rezko, for example (if you want more information about Rezko, just do a search at NQ – you’ll get plenty of posts on him and his connections to Obama). Oh, I am not making this up. It has been a big scandal in IL. Haven’t heard about this? Huh – there’s a surprise!! Ahem. Seriously, though, Board of Trustee members of the flagship university have been resigning like rats fleeing a sinking ship over this issue, including the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Niranjan Shah. Shah resigned earlier this month. Considering this story broke in MAY, it makes me wonder what took so long…

And about Tony Rezko’s relative, the Chicago Tribune reported:

In one case, a relative of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the now-convicted influence peddler for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, got admitted after U. of I. President B. Joseph White wrote an e-mail stating that the governor “has expressed his support, and would like to see admitted” Rezko’s relative and another applicant.

White’s message to the university chancellor was passed on to admissions officials on the same day they entered a rejection decision for the Rezko relative. “He’s actually pretty low,” replied an admissions officer, referring to the applicant’s ACT score and other credentials. “Let me know when the denial letter can go out.”

Instead, the relative was admitted.

Since 2005, about 800 undergraduate students have landed on the clout list for the Urbana-Champaign campus. It’s unknown how many would qualify for entry on their own, but their acceptance rate is higher than average. For the 2008-09 school year, for example, about 77 percent were accepted, compared with 69 percent of all applicants.

Wow. It seems that maybe “Chicago-style” politics are actually “Illinois-style” politics. Especially considering what this means in terms of academics, and what the University President had to say about all of this:

That’s in spite of the fact that patronage candidates, as a group, had lower average ACT scores and class ranks than all admitted students, records show.

In 2008, for example, freshmen on average ranked in the 88th percentile in their high school class, while clouted students ranked in the 76th percentile.

High school counselors and admissions experts said letting clout affect admissions compromises the integrity of the university.

“Whether it’s [a Rezko relative] or any other kid who takes a spot, he typically takes a spot of someone who is more qualified. That’s the part that gets my blood boiling,” said Jim Conroy, a New Trier Township High School college counselor. “This is not a private institution. This is yours and mine. Our flagship state university should not be part of any political shenanigans.”

President White said it’s not unusual for selective universities to receive input on applicants from interested parties, and it’s important to have a system to track the requests. The additional information can help the admissions office make a more informed decision, he said – though the university discourages applicants from sending letters of recommendations, saying on its Web site that “sending unsolicited materials can be distracting.”

He declined to discuss specific cases, including the Rezko relative, but said: “I would never support admission of a student over better-qualified students simply because of connections and pressure.”

But the Tribune review of about 1,800 pages of documents shows politically appointed trustees and lawmakers routinely behave as armchair admissions officers advocating on behalf of relatives and neighbors – even housekeepers’ kids and families with whom they share Hawaiian vacations. They declare their candidates “no brainers” for admission and suggest that if they are not accepted, the admissions system may need revamping.

Um, well, yes – I would say that’s a Newsflash from the Department of DUH on the whole revamping thing.

Here’s what the investigation found: The investigation found:

–University officials recognized that certain students were underqualified – but admitted them anyway.

–Admissions officers complained in vain as their recommendations were overruled.

–Trustees pushed for preferred students, some of whom were friends, neighbors and relatives.

–Lawmakers delivered admission requests to U. of I. lobbyists, whose jobs depend on pleasing the lawmakers.

–University officials delayed admissions notifications to weak candidates until the end of the school year to minimize the fallout at top feeder high schools.

For example, this spring an applicant described as having “terrible credentials” by the undergraduate admissions office was denied admittance. She sought help from Trustee Frances Carroll, who encouraged her to appeal the denial – an option not mentioned in rejection letters or any university literature. Carroll forwarded the appeal to University Chancellor Richard Herman and sought his help. The applicant was admitted.

Then, to avoid drawing attention at the applicant’s high school, where her acceptance could raise eyebrows, documents show the university planned to wait until the end of the school year to notify the applicant.

Carroll said the Lincoln Park High School senior, whom she didn’t know, had a 3.2 grade-point average, participated in many extra-curricular activities and deserved a spot at U. of I. Carroll said she likes to help disadvantaged students who may not understand the system.

Patronage has become such an entrenched part of the admissions process that there’s even a name for the applicants with heavy-hitting sponsors: “Category I.”

While some trustees and lawmakers said they didn’t realize there was a separate category for their requests, the records showed they needed only to forward a name and a few vital statistics to have the student placed in it.

And many did so without reservation.

Doesn’t this all sound eerily familiar? Sure does to me…

The Washington Post’s ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record “salons” was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. For a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as “Hosts and Discussion Leaders” for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.

While Brauchli and Weymouth say they should have realized long ago that the plan was flawed, internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were raised with both of them months ago. They also show that blame runs deeper. Beneath Brauchli and Weymouth, three of the most senior newsroom managers received an e-mail with details of the plan.

They were all aboard a fast-moving vehicle that, over a period of months, roared through ethics stop signs and plowed into a brick wall.

The crash occurred July 2, when Politico.com disclosed details of a Post flier seeking underwriters for the first dinner to be held July 21 at Weymouth’s District residence. The damage was predictable and extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers and Washington’s pay-to-play culture. The Post’s reputation now carries a lasting stain.

Read the rest of Mr. Alexander’s findings here. As he points out, amidst their own budget crisis, as with many other media outlets, WaPo is seeking “creative” ways of raising revenue. Ironic that part of the reason their readership is down is a sense that there is a bias and lack of integrity in their reporting — only to be exacerbated by actions like this one…no wonder the paper is in trouble.

Just as worrisome, as detailed in Politico’s article, No bar on ’salons’ in W.H. ethics rules, by Kenneth P. Vogel, it seems that the current administration’s ethics rules, purported to be the strictest ever, are not strict enough to bar participation in debacles such as the one described above:

Reacting to the controversy over The Washington Post’s abortive attempt to hold “salons” with lobbyists and Obama administration officials at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth, the White House did its best to distance itself. The Post’s plan for money-making, off-the-record sessions “was not consistent with the administration’s ethics policy,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said this week.

But the White House counsel’s office, which has the authority to approve or reject invitations to appear at private events, could have cleared administration officials to accept the Post’s invitation without running afoul of Obama’s ethics executive order, according to most of the ethics lawyers consulted by POLITICO.

Obama touted his executive order as the strictest government ethics policy ever when he signed it on his first full day in office, but less than three weeks later, the independent agency tasked with implementing the order, the Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with the counsel’s office, issued a little-noticed memo inserting a number of exemptions into the order’s provision banning gifts – including meals and tickets – from lobbyists.
(snip)
Just as the idea for the salon, which was scrapped amid accusations that the paper was selling access to reporters and the government officials they cover, sparked a re-examination of journalism ethics, it could also prompt another look at the government’s complicated ethics rules. That’s because officials can expect to continue receiving invitations to media-hosted insider confabs, as an increasing number of cash-strapped national media outlets have already leveraged their reputations as in-the-know information brokers to expand into the lucrative elite-meeting planning business. Even the Post, in spite of its admittedly clumsy inaugural foray, has not given up on the concept.
(snip)
At first blush, media dinners at which lobbyists pay big bucks to break bread with journalists and high-ranking public officials they’re seeking to influence seem precisely the types of scenarios government ethics rules were designed to avoid.

“The loopholes they’ve created are big enough to drive a truck through,” said former House general counsel Stan Brand, a lawyer who defends public officials in corruption cases. “In some sense, they almost swallow the rule, so [the Post’s salon] would just be one more example of that. I don’t know that it would be any more egregious than the ones that they already engage in with other interested parties.”

Companies and groups seeking to influence government for years have taken advantage of loopholes in gift rules to fete politicians at lavish convention parties and host them at trade conventions.

So much for a new way of doing business in Washington.

Mr. Alexander of the Post concludes:

As of late this week, only two Post readers cited the controversy as a reason for canceling their subscription. Only about 50 readers had written critical letters to the editor, about half the number The Post typically receives on a controversial topic.

But the criticism of The Post has been withering in the blogosphere, among commentators and the Washington establishment. The episode has left a scar that will be visible for years, and it has badly shaken the newsroom.

Let’s hope more of us voice our displeasure.

And he’s right, the attacks against him are a great insult.

What kind of firing is this… “Hey buddy, we think it’s time you just move on. Why? Well, we’ve decided we’re going to call you senile.”

What is that?

Jake Tapper has more: Third Inspector General Controversy Emerges

Why are these happy guys celebrating? According to a disturbing story by Christopher Hayes they may have just scored lots of our hard earned tax dollars by doing something outrageous.

Let’s start from the beginning so you can see how shameful this travesty is. Black Liquor provides much of the fuel used to make paper. The great thing about Black Liquor is that it is a byproduct then put to good use.

Hayes describes it as follows:

Since the 1930s the overwhelming majority of paper mills have employed what’s called the kraft process to produce paper…Wood chips are cooked in a chemical solution to separate the cellulose fibers, which are used to make paper, from the other organic material in wood. The remaining liquid, a sludge containing lignin (the structural glue that binds plant cells together), is called black liquor. Because it’s so rich in carbon, black liquor is a good fuel; the kraft process uses the black liquor to produce the heat and energy necessary to transform pulp into paper. It’s a neat, efficient process that’s cost-effective without any government subsidy.

So far so good. But here’s the harsh rub. The paper industry has figured out how to get taxpayers’ money—billions of it–by doing something wickedly creative. Oh, and they screw with the enviornment at the same time. A “twofer” disgrace.

Thanks to an obscure tax provision, the United States government stands to pay out as much as $8 billion this year to the ten largest paper companies. And get this: even though the money comes from a transportation bill whose manifest intent was to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, paper mills are adding diesel fuel to a process that requires none in order to qualify for the tax credit. In other words, we are paying the industry–handsomely–to use more fossil fuel. “Which is,” as a Goldman Sachs report archly noted, the “opposite of what lawmakers likely had in mind when the tax credit was established.”

So, adding the unnecessary diesel fuel to black liquor qualifies for a mixed-fuel tax credit, allowing them, as Hayes puts it, to turn black liquor into gold.

Many critics are saying that stimulus money will primarily go to those who need it the least. Stories like this make me sadly realize that they are probably right.

ADULTS ONLY — here is Bear Stearns’ famous (infamous) Jimmy Cayne, from a Financial Times book review of the January 2009 book, “House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street“:

Cohan does not offer us a guide through this maze. In spite of his subtitle about hubris we are meant, I think, to be in awe of the larger-than-life characters who populate Manhattan restaurants and New Jersey golf clubs, though also to be faintly appalled by their greed and aggression. They talk tough, certainly. Here is Cayne on Tim Geithner, then the president of the New York Fed, now the Treasury Secretary, when he refused to bail out his bank. “This guy thinks he’s got a big dick. He’s got nothing, except maybe a boyfriend. I’m not a good enemy. I’m a very bad enemy … for some clerk to make a decision about whether or not they’re a good credit? Who the f*** asked you? I want to open up on this f*****, that’s all I can tell you.”

Check this book out, and support our monthly payments for No Quarter’s pricey servers!

House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street

Can you imagine the scenario in my toon actually happening? It seems ludicrous beyond words. The police would probably make a quick stop at the nearest mental facility just to assess how delusional this dumb sap is before booking him for robbery.

And yet it is exactly parallel to what is happening at AIG. I was stunned when Edward M. Liddy said that he asked his executives who ran the company into the ground to give back at least half of their bonuses if they were more than $100,000. Like that would make everyone happy. (Oh, and leave those poor babies alone whose bonuses were still more than what most of us make in an entire year.)

Some are saying that the AIG bonus fiasco is a diversion from more critical issues involving far more than 183 or 220 million (whichever number—several are floating) in bonuses. That amount is, after all, peanuts compared to our country’s overall financial headaches

I disagree. It is a very big deal because it serves as the symbol for what is wrong with America now. Those people played an active role in downgrading and even destroying America lives. Greedy, self-serving, and incompetent people are making decisions that impact on the rest of us–and that involves both financial executives and government officials, including some members of Congress–and are suffering no consequences. Many will actually gain from our pain. And the worst that might happen is that their booty for screwing up may shrink a little. Hell, even if that goofy 90% tax on bonuses goes through, they all still end up with something!

It’s these kind of people who got us into all of our other messes, so don’t you think that spending time reflecting on what we can and should do about how things get done in our country is a worthy use of our time?

Meanwhile, our main street robber will serve 5 to 10 in a state penitentiary.

Centrist, milquetoast Democrat Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) hopes to resign from her position as Governor of Kansas in order to assume the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services under her friend Barack Obama. But she is yet to be confirmed for the position by the Committee of jurisdiction in the US Senate. Sebelius endorsed Obama during the primaries immediately after she delivered a hopelessly boring and soporific response to Bush’s State of the Union Address last year. Staging a media event on behalf of the sexist and misogynistic machine that undemocratically secured Obama the Democratic nomination, Sebelius is owed a favor.

She was considered for the position of Obama’s Vice Presidential running mate, but sexist Obama chose a man named Biden instead.

Tom Daschle’s lobbying and tax problems created a vacancy in the Cabinet, however, and now Obama can finally reciprocate the favor Sebelius performed during the primary. Too bad Sebelius may be just as controversial as Tom Daschle.

According to the Kansas City Star, Republicans in Kansas are investigating the mismanagement of Medicaid funds under Kathleen Sebelius. This is relevant, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services oversees and supervises Medicaid. The article explains how a not for profit organization politically connected to Sebelius received $713,000 in extra Medicaid funds at a time when state agencies told other service providers that no Medicaid funds existed.

Lenexa-based Community Living Opportunities was awarded nearly $713,000 in extra Medicaid funds. The group serves developmentally disabled Kansans, primarily in Johnson and Douglas counties.

At the time, the agency’s board of directors included Kansas Democratic Party Chairman Larry Gates, a Sebelius confidant, and his former law partner, Dan Biles, whom Sebelius appointed to the state Supreme Court this year. Lew Perkins, the University of Kansas athletic director, also serves on the board. Biles has since stepped down from the board.

The allegations come as Sebelius, a Democrat, awaits U.S. Senate confirmation to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers Medicaid.

Neither Sebelius nor Gates was at the hearing Wednesday. But Sebelius has said she had nothing to do with the funding decision, which was made by Don Jordan, her secretary of social and rehabilitation services. Gates also has denied speaking to Sebelius about the funding request.

Yet other service providers maintain that the state told them no extra funding was available. They told lawmakers at the hearing Wednesday that Community Living Opportunities was allowed to skip the usual process of requesting extra funds, which involves going before a local agency that oversees such requests.

Carolyn Risley Hill, chief executive of Starkey Inc., a Wichita-based service provider, worked for the state for 20 years and said she never saw a provider get the special treatment that Community Living received.

Community Living Opportunities, a service provider connected to Sebelius, received a grant at a time when other service provides of Medicaid were told no funds existed. But even worse, this organization did not have to complete the usual process to gain these extra funds. These reeks of political cronyism, of special treatment, of quid pro quo politics. More egregious, however, is how this cronyism involved Medicaid funds, funds that are usually spent to provide health care to the disabled.

How did Community Living Opportunities, the Medicaid provider politically connected to Sebelius spend the extra funds? Here is the Kansas City Star:

Yet at the same time Community Living petitioned the state, it was developing a 40-acre ranch in Douglas County for use as a therapeutic equestrian and activity center for its clients. The property cost $400,000, Community Living executives told lawmakers Wednesday. A home, stable and swimming pool have been built.

At a time when they were petitioning state government for more Medicaid funds, Community Living Opportunities was building an exclusive ranch with luxurious amenities on a piece of property that cost $400,000. And they were allowed to circumvent the process whereby providers normally apply for such funds. Medicaid, in other words, went toward a ranch to be used by the politically connected and the powerful. Funds for the disabled instead went to a ranch that in many ways resembles a resort.

And Obama thinks the person who may have been responsible for funneling Medicaid dollars to a politically connected organization that obtained that money while they were building a ranch should manage the nation’s Medicaid funds? Will Medicaid dollars now be funneled to Obama’s political contributors who will invest it in property or use it to build resorts? Why does this remind me of Rezko?

The Kansas state legislature is investigating the matter, and more and more questions arise as they probe deeper and deeper into the connections between Sebelius and her friends at Community Living Opportunities. Daschle had tax and lobbying problems, and Sebelius has what appears to be a political cronyism problem at the expense of the indigent and the disabled. Is someone who views funds for the indigent and the disabled as cash for political allies fit to serve as Secretary of Heath and Human Services? Is she the one who should be managing the nation’s Medicaid funds?

And when will Obama finally learn to vet those he nominates to his Cabinet?

Government is buying you off.

If anyone is going to raise an angry mob, and scream *off with their heads!* at anyone, it is the American people on Washington. The fault lies with Washington. Those who granted the bailouts, those who wrote the loopholes for those bonuses, those who didn’t monitor what was happening with the bailout money, and those who claimed to know what was happening with the money, and granted even more bailout money. Watch this video.

That’s not to say there aren’t some at AIG guilty of mismanagement, or that some big wigs worked with the Treasury Department to ensure those bonuses remained. They have some responsibility in this financial mess, but we elect Congress, and the President, to spend our money wisely. They failed. They lied. And they are trying to cover it up, and create distractions.

Mob rule in Washington.

The bad guys aren’t those at AIG. The bad guys are in Washington. They are lying, covering up, and creating distractions (see my post obama hypocrisy watch). They are either the most corrupt or the most stupid people, ever.

Case in point – this little tidbit of Breaking News!

At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.

Rep. John Lewis, chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.

Banks and other firms receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating they had no unpaid taxes, Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.

Washington is granting all these bailouts, with tax payer’s money, and these companies owe MILLIONS in back taxes. Stop the insanity!!!

Here is a bonus video, which touches on some of what I wrote about the other day, in my piece president bamboozler.

For Obama it’s politics over principle.

The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs, and then he was being yelled at by my husband, Max, for smoking in the house. It was not clear whether Max was feeling protective of the president’s health or jealous because of the cigarette.

The other day a friend of mine confided that in the weeks leading up to the election, the Obamas’ apparent joy as a couple had made her just miserable. Their marriage looked so much happier than hers. Their life seemed so perfect. “I was at a place where I was tempted daily to throttle my husband,” she said. “This coincided with Michelle saying the most beautiful things about Barack. Each time I heard her speak about him I got tears in my eyes — because I felt so far away from that kind of bliss in my own life and perhaps even more, because I was so moved by her expressions of devotion to him. And unlike previous presidential couples, they are our age, have children the same age and (just imagine the stress of daily life on the campaign) by all accounts should have been fighting even more than we were.” … [emphases mine]

DAMN! I forgot to warn you to grab a bucket. Hope you made it to a barf bag in time! But wait. There’s more, and it’s even WORSE. Like this much worse: “Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president.” …

[...]

Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president. In these dreams, the women replaced Michelle with greater or lesser guilt or, in the case of a 62-year-old woman in North Florida, whose dream was reported to me by her daughter, found a fully above-board solution: “Michelle had divorced Barack because he had become ‘too much of a star.’ He then married my mother, who was oh so proud to be the first lady,” the daughter wrote me.

There was some daydreaming too, much of it a collective fantasy about the still-hot Obama marriage. “Barack and Michelle Obama look like they have sex. They look like they like having sex,” a Los Angeles woman wrote to me, summing up the comments of many. “Often. With each other. These days when the sexless marriage is such a big celebrity in America (and when first couples are icons of rigid propriety), that’s one interesting mental drama.”

[...]

One woman wrote that when she couldn’t get to sleep at night, she “lay in bed and thought about the Obama girls in their rooms at the White House. I thought about Marian Robinson up on the third floor. And about Barack and Michelle, a couple who clearly have a ‘thing’ for each other, spooning together in bed. It helped me relax.”

I understood perfectly where these cozy dreams of easy familiarity came from. It was that sense so many people share of having a very immediate connection to Barack Obama, whether they’re black or biracial, or children of single parents or self-made strivers; or they’re lawyers or community organizers or Ivy League graduates or smokers or basketball players or Blackberry users or parents or married or Democrats. A lot of people share the fantasy that having the Obamas over for “dinner and a game of Scrabble,” as one daydreamer put it to me, is something that really could just about happen. …

And these poor people have “Obama anxiety” and WISH they had lived HIS life, and given themselves SO unselfishly to the betterment of mankind! Why hadn’t THEY been community organizers like he? Why, why, why, why, why????? Why hadn’t they sacrificed like he did?

Why didn’t they make sordid deals on pensions to benefit their crooked cronies like Tony Rezko? Why hadn’t their wives used their position on the historic preservation board to find and grab a mansion and then used Rezko’s money to enable them to buy it, no matter that they knew that Rezko was already being investigated and followed by the Feds everywhere?

Why hadn’t they tipped off their rich buddies like Cullen and Allison Davis so they could rip off millions and millions from taxpayers and let Mssrs. Davis do NOTHING about the appalling conditions in the former public housing, and allow the gentrification of such properties, even though the original intent was to preserve low-income housing?

Why hadn’t they given a stirring speech to terrified workers at the Maytag plant in Illinois, promising those workers their jobs would be saved and taking their hard-earned money as campaign contributions, and then going to visit the patriarch of the billionaire Crown family, with controlling stock in Maytag, and never once mentioning to patriarch Lester Crown the plight of those workers, while sucking up all the campaign contributions he could from Lester Crown as well as every member of the Crown family and all of their extremely wealthy friends and allies? (Oh yes, all those jobs went to Mexico, but the Crowns said that Obama never asked them about saving those jobs, according to Chicago newspapers.)

Watch this infuriated union leader instead of indulging your sex fantasies, you boobs:

– From “Machinists Union Tells It Like It Is” (about Obama)

Why, oh why?

Oops. Did I just ruin the sex fantasy for you? I’m so sorry. Not.

A teaspoon of knowledge about who this man REALLY is would sober these people up plenty fast, and they’d no longer be plagued by their insanely goofy obsessions with him and his supposed fantastic sex life. Good god almighty. I just shake my head.

That stimulus package should include counseling and psychiatric help for all of these still-delusional Obamabots living in their unreal Obamatopia.

:::::

For those stout enough to take it, the full “article” is here: “Sometimes a President Is Just a President.”

Meet the poster boy for what’s wrong with people who control money.

While Merrill Lynch was laying off employees, cutting salaries, and heading towards a $27 billion loss for 2008, John A. Thain, the previous (and last) CEO, was redecorating his office to the tune of $1.2 million.

Here is a partial list of what Thain just had to surround himself with while America was burning:

Area rug, $87,784
Mahogany pedestal table, $25,713
19th century credenza, $68,179
Pendant light furniture, $19,751
4 pairs of curtains, $28,091
Pair of guest chairs, $87,784
George IV chair, $18,468
6 wall sconces, $2,741
Parchment waste can, $1,405
Roman shade fabric, $10,967
Roman shades, $7,315
Coffee table, $5,852
Commode on legs, $35,115

Thain’s defenders note that government bail-out money was not used because the office was refurbished before the big crash. But Merrill Lynch had already posted a write-down of over 8 billion dollars when Thain took over the already troubled company.

AND, just before Merrill Lynch was bought out by the Bank of America, a 4 billion dollar giveaway went to Merrill’s top players. (Most of us face consequences when we fail. But if you are in the right circle, you get a bonus.)

Of course, my toon isn’t really about spending a fortune on fancy digs, but about the corporate attitude of “Me first and screw America and its people.” The Redecorator might as well have mounted heads on the wall.

Thain has since been ousted from Bank of America and has promised to pay for the pricy stuff from his personal funds. But no one is worried about his ability to pay his mortgage or feed his family.

The most recent piece by Kass deals with an issue about which very few people are talking: Rahm Emanuel’s seat. Yeah, right? Hardly anyone is talking about who is going to fill his seat:

With the eyes of the nation on the saga of Tombstone Burris—and our Illinois politicians hopping predictably toward impeaching the governor like those dancing chickens at the state fair—don’t forget another vacant congressional seat of prime importance to the Obama White House.

Until last week, it belonged to U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Tomczak), now chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, who ran on the platform of bringing reform to American politics.

With so many new readers from strange lands finally getting interested in how Chicago works—and by this I mean the editorial boards of many American newspapers—you might start by learning about Emanuel’s 5th District.

It is dominated by the shadow governor of Illinois, state Sen. James DeLeo (D-How You Doin’?), the state central Democratic committeeman, the fellow who’ll decide who gets slated by the party, the guy behind the guys.

Say, whaaaa? You mean there are more Chicago-style politics going on in the state even though good ol’ Blago has been charged with some shenanigans? Of course, you know that type of politics has NOTHING to do with Obama, or emanuel, or Emil Jones , or any other Chicago politician, right? Oh, sure:

Emanuel’s district runs from the historically mob-dominated town of Melrose Park on east, through Elmwood Park into the city, to Chicago’s Viagra Triangle along Rush Street. No, how you doin’?

Jimmy’s not talking to me these days. He didn’t like the columns about his luxury car leasing deals and those trips to the casino in Aruba with that other big risk-taker, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

Yeah, that Jesse White.

That is from the, “you can’t make this shit up” file. Kass continues:

Yet there is another expert on Emanuel’s political rise, the world’s foremost authority in the field:

Don Tomczak.

Unfortunately, Mr. Tomczak, a top political operative for that other famous reformer, Mayor Richard Daley, is indisposed.

Tomczak will be indisposed until July 3, 2010, when he is scheduled to get out of federal prison, where he was sent after pleading guilty to taking $400,000 in bribes for city trucking contracts in that department Daley still doesn’t know anything about.

“Mr. Tomczak was a gentleman of the old school,” his lawyer, Patrick Cotter, said the other day. “That was the only way he was ever taught to do things. That’s not an excuse, but it is an explanation.”

“A gentleman of the old school”? That’s a LEGAL defense these days?? Oh, no – just in Chicago, the very place in which Obama CHOSE to begin his political career. Hmmm – I wonder why:

Years ago, Daley put Tomczak in charge of an illegal political army of stooges on the city payroll who worked elections to get promotions and overtime to benefit Daley’s machine.

City Hall allowed Tomczak to bring the Democratic army out to Will County to elect his son Jeff as a Republican state’s attorney. But the important work was in the city, where Tomczak muscled for Emanuel in 2002.

There were hundreds of Tomczak/Daley stooges knocking on doors, manning precincts, passing literature for Emanuel to install him and knock out a true progressive local Democrat, Nancy Kaszak.

Tomczak testified to this at a federal trial of other convicted Daley patronage chiefs. The mayor was so upset that his mouthpiece, David Axelrod, felt compelled to write an op-ed piece in the Tribune that took the side of patronage and clout, saying it wasn’t all that bad, really.

Well, if AXELROD said it “wasn’t all that bad,” then surely, it wasn’t (cough, choke):

Simultaneously, Axelrod was massaging the message for Obama about transcending the old, corrupt politics and ushering in the sunshine of reform, a slogan that sent tingles up the legs of pundits.

After Tomczak cooperated and testified, Emanuel defended Daley and denied any knowledge of the Tomczak army that elected him.

“I am not here to excuse any illegal acts or the violation of the public trust,” said Emanuel at a lunch at the City Club. “Corruption is corruption. It cannot be excused and it cannot be overlooked.”

But he did overlook it, saying Daley didn’t know what was going on at City Hall because the mayor “outsourced” his politics, and Rahm didn’t know who sent Tomczak and hundreds of knuckle-draggers to install him in Congress to do the people’s business.

And now this pause until we can all stop laughing. Rahm claims Daley didn’t know what was going on or that he was clueless about the legion of people out drumming up support on his behalf (wow, does THAT ever sound familiar). And that corruption cannot be tolerated???? Oh, hahahaha – that’s a good one, Rahm! You card, you!

Okay – now that we’ve wiped our eyes from laughing ’til we cried at this massive hooeyfication, get this:

“I guess when you have hundreds of city workers show up to help you on your campaign, you don’t ask any questions,” said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association, in an interview Thursday.

“Rahm is one of the few people who defended the mayor in these corruption scandals. He’s a creature of Chicago politics. As Mayor Daley benefited from Tomczak’s efforts, so did Rahm Emanuel,” Stewart said.

I have a question. Do ANY of these people believe the crap that comes spewing out of their mouths? I mean, REALLY – any one of them? I’m just asking because I cannot imagine saying stuff like this and not crack up laughing, or feel compelled to TELL THE TRUTH, but that’s just me.

Meanwhile – Rahm defended Daley from all of the corruption scandals? For real? And now he’s Obama’s right-hand man? Wowie zowie:

Now that Emanuel is working to help Obama bring reform to the nation, 5th Congressional District candidates will eagerly rub up against Jimmy DeLeo, and the lucky one will get a kiss on the cheek. DeLeo is having a big meet soon at the Zam Zam Banquet Hall, and the neighborhood will be awash in the sound of puckering.

But do chickens really have lips?

In the meantime, Blagojevich will be impeached and his Senate appointee, Burris, will fill Obama’s seat.

Tombstone will ooze into the job the way lime Jell-O fills one of those terrifying fish-shaped molds your grandmother keeps in her cupboard. So no real surprises there.

But if you really want to see dancing chickens, watch what happens in the 5th Congressional District.

Emanuel will want someone to sit still and keep the eggs warm until he’s ready to reclaim his nest. And here’s my question.

Are they chickens, or are they just dancers?

jskass@tribune.com

I’m sorry, too – but it had to be done, don’t you think (and trust me when I tell you I found the shortest, best one!)?

I guess only time will tell for these Chicago-style politicians – both in IL and in DC…

Don’t get me wrong. I admire ambitious people who want to make money by earning it through honest means. What I despise are those who scheme to feed a limitless hunger for power and control and don’t care who they ruin in the process. Or they just don’t give a shit. It’s all about playing the game. They often don’t even need the money.

So-called “white collar crime” (even the name is, well, white washed) is a paradox. Sure, coming home and finding some of your stuff missing or having your briefcase snatched on the street is a most unpleasant experience—psychic rape. Common thieves do jail time if they get caught. They don’t have fancy lawyers to whittle down the sanction.

But too many of those who silently bleed us to near death–a drop at a time and we can’t directly experience being drawn into their jaws–seem to stay free and rich, even after they get caught.

So I made my difficult decison from an overflowing plate of despicable creeps. I settled on 70 year-old Bernie Madoff for his alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme. We will all be affected by the trickle-down impact of this one.

Too many other greedy people, including some of those who invested with Madoff, were involved as well. They knew it was too good to be true. They knew his scheme was rigged and that they were getting rich on what they presumed to be insider trading.

A lot of Madoff’s investors were in for a surprise and ended up losing money themselves. But what’s a couple of million if you are worth 50? Maybe Madoff will see jail time, but for how long and where? Club Fed? (read indictment here )

In the meantime, I hope you all will be able to keep your jobs and stay in your homes. I have too many friends who have lost both.