Alabama Right News: Sep 2, 2010

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Sheriff Joe Arpaio SLAMS Obama Administration. "Now It's Time to Take The Gloves Off"

The U.S. Department of Justice led by Attorney General ~~Stedman Graham~~ Eric Holder filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio today alleging that his department was refusing to cooperate with an investigation into whether it discriminated against Latinos while trying to enforce immigration laws.

Sheriff Joe not one to "take a punch," hit back at the Administration calling the DOJ back stabbers and saying that it was about time that America see this administration for what it really was "Calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country." Along with the Sheriff's statement, his lawyer issued a statment saying that they had indeed been cooperating with the DOJ

"The Obama administration has filed three lawsuits against Arizona in the last few weeks ... one against a college district, one against the state of Arizona and now one against my office. Each lawsuit centers on something to do with alleged racial discrimination.

These actions make it abundantly clear that Arizona, including this Sheriff, IS Washington's new whipping boy. Now it's time to take the gloves off.

As for today's lawsuit against my office: These people in Washington met with my attorneys only a few days ago. And in that meeting, Washington got our cooperation; they admitted they already have thousands of pages of the requested documents; and they were given access to interview my staff and get into my jails. They smiled in our faces and then stabbed us in the back with this lawsuit. The Obama administration intended to sue us all along, no matter what we did to try to avert it.

Washington isn't playing fair and it's time Americans everywhere wake up and see this administration for what it really is. Calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country. "

Sheriff Joe's attorney, Bob Driscoll added this written statement

"Today's lawsuit by the Department of lustice is part of a deliberate media strategy to "get tough" on Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and undermine immigration enforcement by a local Sheriff who is trying desperately to make up for this Administration's own indifference to the topic.

The DOl suit speaks loudly by what it does not say. It does not allege that Sheriff Arpaio or the MCSO have discriminated against anyone because the DOl, after 18 months of soliciting allegations against Sheriff Arpaio, has come up empty. Even the purported basis for the suit, which alleges a lack of "cooperation," is a sham.

In fact, after meeting with the DOl last week, just last Friday, on behalf of MCSO, I informed the DOl that MCSO would cooperate with all reasonable document requests and would schedule tours of MCSO facilities and interviews with senior MCSO command staff. We were awaiting a response from DOl, and this lawsuit is apparently it.

Clearly DOl is more interested filing its third lawsuit in as many weeks against Arizona defendants than in looking into the allegations that purportedly gave rise to its investigation. This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to obscure the fact that DOl still has no case. Today's suit over documents does not change that."

Its interesting to note, while the case of the New Black Panthers who tried to intimidate voters from entering a polling place in Philadelphia was dropped, an action against ACORN who systematically committed voter fraud across the country was never filed, and the case against the terrorists who attacked the USS Cole was put on hold, the Justice department has filed suit against a man who who was enforcing the law.

The administration wants to make an example of Sheriff Joe because he represents everything they are fighting against, protecting America's borders. Arpaio became sort of a cult figure for zealously enforcing the law especially against people who come into the US illegally. His reward came in March 2009 when he got a letter from the justice department informing that he was under investigation for "patterns" of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Even before they started investigating the Sheriff the DOJ tried to take away his authority to enforce immigration laws.

This action is more than an attempt to stop Arpaio, it an attempt to silence any other Sheriff who dares to protect their citizens from harm.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/H2HPV6T_GeQ/sheriff-joe-arpaio-slams-obama.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Scandal Widens: Congresswoman Gave Scholarships to Relatives,Denied Request From Deserving Constitue

The scandal surrounding Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) is getting bigger. Earlier this week we reported that Johnson violated Congressional Black Caucus Foundation rules by awarding scholarship money to four relatives and a top aide's two children, according to an attorney for the Foundation. Today we heard Johnson speak out about the issue for the first time, and to make matters worse, evidence emerged that she turned down qualified students while giving relatives the scholarship money.

Johnson said today,

"I never heard the rules even discussed," she told KRLD-AM (1080). "I can't really blame anyone. I could have researched them myself. But the rules just came to me. One sheet came last year, which I didn't read well, which was my mistake. They were really very ambiguous rules."

What makes that a little hard to believe is that Johnson helped to make those "ambiguous" rules. Johnson was not only Chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) the scholarship sponsor in 2002, but she served on the board of the CBC foundation from 2002-2005 which distributes the money for the CBC (the questionable scholarships were awarded in 2005 and 2006). If she didn't have a general idea of the rules, she couldn't have been very good board member.

Foundation officials say nepotism rules and residency requirements have been in place all along and should have been followed. Applicants, they noted, are required to sign a certification saying they aren't related to anyone involved in selecting winners or running the program, including members of the black caucus and their aides.

The Congresswoman repaid the $31,000 to the foundation yesterday and then lashed out at everyone involved in reporting the story.

Johnson, whose district covers most of South Dallas, took issue with that this morning but said that "with the way it was reported" in The News, she could see why "someone would rush to that judgment.

"This reporter has been trying to find something negative on me for a long, long time and I think it was exaggerated," she said.

She also alleged that "a fired employee" had leaked damaging information to The News.

"They made a big story out of it. I'm sorry about it. I'm sorry it happened. But If I had known that I was wrong, it would not have happened. But more than that, this employee that was fired would have never even known about it, but he took the records out of the office and fed it to the person that everybody knew didn't like me," she said.

But she didn't say the story was not true. Earlier this week Congresswoman Johnson told The Dallas Morning News that every eligible applicant to her office got a share of scholarship funds, though she added that she might not have made awards to relatives if more applicants had surfaced.

Today we found out her claim of no eligible applicant turned away was not true.

At a news conference this morning, Republican challenger Stephen Broden said Johnson failed to properly publicize the scholarships, leaving qualified candidates out of the loop, and should face an investigation by a House ethics committee.

Stephen Broden distributed a letter sent to Johnson in October 2007 by retired Marine Lt. Col. Ray Huebner, asking her to help find financial aid for an outstanding High School student he met while she was a volunteer at the North Texas Veterans Administration Hospital. Unfortunately for the student, the Lt. Col asking for the help was a Republican

Johnson wrote back, advising that the student, Davetta Carter – who lives in her district – should explore resources with her school counselor. The letter makes no mention of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarship program or any other.

"While I appreciate the opportunity to financially contribute to this very worthy mission, I must unfortunately decline your request," Johnson wrote. "As you can imagine, I receive many requests for financial support and it is impossible to contribute to all worthy endeavors."

Ms Carter, who is now a cashier at Staples, told the newspaper that she ran out of money after her sophomore year and had to drop out of Stephen F. Austin State University.

"It would've been a great deal of help if I had actually received that financial support," she said, "because after two years, I had to leave. … I couldn't afford to go to school anymore."

She added that the misused scholarship funds "hurt a lot of people. … She could've given that money to many other students, not just myself, and helped them out."

There are probably other Davetta Carters's out there.

Even if we suspend disbelief and believe that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson didn't know that the official rules banned giving the scholarship money to relatives, the fact that she didn't have the common sense to realize that nepotism was unethical says something about her qualifications for re-election. It's common sense whether you are aware of specific rules or not.

Source: Dallas Morning News

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/vNdOgx98INY/scandal-widens-congresswoman-who-gave.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Feds sue Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe - AOL News

http://feeds.aol.com/_t/rss_2.0/news/national/news_top_nat/http://news.aol.com/story/_a/feds-sue-arizona-sheriff-in-civil-rights/n20100902195009990007<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/app/mobilerss-pro-google-rss-news/id325594202?mt=8" style="text-decoration:underline;color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">MobileRSS for iPhone</a></div>

Sent from my iPhone

Obama Unpopular Ahead of Midterms: Will the GOP Benefit? - TIME

Found this interesting link on the Drudge Report:

Obama Unpopular Ahead of Midterms: Will the GOP Benefit? - TIME

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015629,00.html

Cantor: Beware of the Obama tax increases - USATODAY.com

Found this interesting link on the Drudge Report:

Cantor: Beware of the Obama tax increases - USATODAY.com

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-02-cantor01_ST_N.htm

It’s Come to This… Feds Subpoena Chuck E. Cheese

Government Gone Wild–
The federal government subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese this week. They suspect the company may be marketing their product to teens and children.
Ya think?

"Chuck E. Cheese: Where a Kid Can Be a Kid!"

The federal government has subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese for marketing their product to children.
Advertising Age reported:

The Federal Trade Commission is once again handing out subpoenas to companies that market food to children and teens.

Three years after initially delivering what is technically known as "orders to file special report" to 44 marketers, the FTC last week began sending subpoenas to 48 companies in order to prepare a follow-up to its 120-page report issued in 2008, "Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities and Self-Regulation."

"This is a follow-up to measure the effects that self-regulation has had over the last three years," said Carol Jennings, spokeswoman for the FTC's Division of Advertising Practices/Bureau of Consumer Protection. "We are supportive of industry voluntary efforts to limit their marketing to kids and this will see whether more is needed."

Ms. Jennings said the findings will be made available to the public.

A handful of marketers that received subpoenas in 2007 were left off the 2010 list, presumably because they have limited their marketing to children. Twelve companies on this year's list are new, but 36 companies are once again receiving subpoenas — including Yum Brands, which was called out by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz in a December 2009 speech in which he said, "Many companies that market heavily to children and teens have yet to join or make a commitment. Why, for instance, hasn't Yum Brands, with its KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut chains, stepped up? Or Chuck E. Cheese and IHOP? Or the marketers of Air Heads and Baby Bottle Pops?"

Calls to Yum Brands were not returned. A spokeswoman for CEC Entertainment, parent company of Chuck E. Cheese, said she could not comment without having seen the subpoena.

Here's the list of companies: