Shouldn’t Presidential Candidates be held to the same conduct standard you are held to?

Why do we allow Presidential candidates and other politicians to make promises that we the voters “rely” on and then simply ignore the fact that they do not fulfill their promises?  Not only do they not fulfill their promises–they often show a clear artifice of intended deception, and do precisely opposite than what they represented, in order to obtain your vote.  Why do we not hold politicians to the same standards that we ourselves are held to under the penal code of the United States Government.  I can answer the question easily.  Because there is not a federal or state prosecutor with the moral strength to enforce the U.S. penal code.  Do politicians have governmental immunity for being prosecuted for commiting wire fraud and/or fraud on the factum?  No.  Why shouldn’t we insist; no demand, that politicians who clearly commit fraud under a probable cause standard be prosecuted for fraud on the voter?  Don’t you at least believe a Presidential candidate should be held to a higher standard than a Congressional candidate?  Afterall, the President can walk into office and immediately effect your life, libery and pursuant of happiness without much more than a blink of his eye.  You doubt that, then see Executive Orders.  Obama has already had a major affect on your life, your children’s life and your grandchildren’s life.  Don’t you think he should be scrutinized strictly against what his “give me your vote” promises were?

What is wire fraud you ask?  What is fraud on the factum you ask?  What about RICO?  Should Presidential candidates and other prominent politicians be charged with RICO violations where there can be shown that their commission of fraud is a part of a criminal enterprise?  What is RICO you ask?  Seee below.

What is Wire Fraud?

AT 18 U.S.C. § 1343 United States Criminal Code the crime of wire fraud is defined as follows:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.1

Okay, let’s break down the elements of the crime.

1. Intend to or devise a plan to defraud or to obtain your money or property;
2. By false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
3. Using, or causing to be used, wire, radio, television (Internet?) communication in interstate or foreign (Berlin?) commerce;
4. writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing the plan to defraud or obtain your money or property;

is guilty of federal wire fraud.  Wow!  Do you know of any prominent politician that made promises to the United States voters with the intent to defraud the voters of their vote (whether from the left or the right) or with the intent to take your money (increase your taxes beyond imagination) using a false pretense, representation (change you can believe in) or promise (95% of all Americans will receive a tax cut) while using the radio and television with pictures and sounds for the purpose of obtaining your vote and ultimately your property?  Do you know of anyone that may have committed wire fraud just to get elected?  How different is a politician’s misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining your property (by increasing tax burden) vis-à-vis your vote under false pretenses than what Madoff has admitted to doing. Madoff has apparently admited to fraud in the big time.  Hasn’t Obama comitted fraud in the big time as well?  I think so, and apparently so do others.  Many people (including those who voted for him) believe that Obama has lied to the voter.  These people may not think in terms of whether his conduct is in violation of the criminal code but perhaps everyone should start holding politicians to the same standard of conduct that all citizens are held to.  Why would we think differently?  By the way, for those of you who really do not know of the many misrepresentations that Obama made as a part of his artifice to defraud you of your vote and property, let me know and I will be happy to then list them in a separate post.  I believe most people already know of his lies in less than 75 days into his Presidency.  By the way, for example of a average citizen’s outrage; see: Not the Change We Voted For.

What is fraud in the factum?

Fraud in the Factum is a type of fraud where misrepresentation causes one to enter a transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred.   Determination of whether an act constitutes fraud in the factum depends upon consideration of “all relevant factors.” Fraud in the factum usually voids the instrument under state law.2  Another definition is: fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note)3  Can we argue here that the execution of a vote (the transaction) using the voting ballot is arguably a situation where a voter enters into a transaction often without accurately realizing the risks incurred in voting in the manner in which she/he does.  If you voted for Obama on the basis of his deliberate misrepresentation, deception, promises, and use of his charisma to perpetrate a scheme or artifice without fully understanding the risks to your life, liberty, property and pursuant of happiness; do you not feel defrauded?  If so, you might ask what is your remedy?  Well, since fraud in the factum is a generally a state law, not a federal law, perhaps your vote should be voided just as if it were a negotiable instrument or contract.  Afterall, Presidents are elected upon the basis of a state by state electoral college, then state law should control–not federal law or the absense thereof.  If your vote was casted in reliance of deceptive misrepresentations or promises then shouldn’t your vote be recinded and thereby perhaps causing a recall of the popular vote in the state which you reside?  Of course this assumes that the representations and promises were made in an intended deception i.e., for you to rely on them; you did rely upon them; the promises/misrepresentations were important (material) and such reliance resulted in injury or damages, for example a substantial increase in your tax burden or the tax burden of your heirs.  Interesting question, is it not?  An extremely important point to contemplate is this.  The novel, 1984 writen by George Orwell was published in 1949! Thirty five years before the time came but yet today we almost recognize the reality of his novel.  I say this because I believe sooner or later we will hold Presidential Candidates to some level of legal integrity with respect to their representations and their intentional conduct after they take office compared to what they promise in their campaigns.  I make this prediction while hoping that it will not be thirty-five years before its time.

Let’s talk about RICO.  Civil RICO and Criminal RICO.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is ingenious, intrusive, vague, powerful, and adaptive!  It’s the long-term “gotcha” of federal criminality.  I say this, if we’re going to continue to use and capitalize on RICO type federal statutes then you (the people) should demand that it’s promulgation include deceptive and corrupt political behavior.  Why should it not.  Politicians are granted a certain degree of immunity primarily for what they say on the House or Senate floor or otherwise in the good faith execution of their duties.  With that said, politicians are not immune from criminal prosecution and should be held to the same standard you are as citizens with respect to deceptive, fraudulent, conduct involving misrepresentations and perpetuation of criminal artifices in order to be elected or remain in elected office.  When a politician engages in a behavior that is patently fraudulent and knowing and clearly against the representations made to his constituency, he or she should be subject to criminal prosecution.  In some cases I believe the violations are so onerous that RICO should be considered.

The The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was passed by Congress with the intent to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.   One RICO authority, Mr. Jeffrey Ernest Grell states on his website, RICOACT.com; 

 ”Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.”

If RICO, civil or criminal can be applied to political protest groups or may otherwise arise in “almost any context” then let’s consider it application to politicians.  The statute and its attendant definitions are exposed at:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (”RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994) which provides in part Prohibited activities

 It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketerring activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

 It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of any unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

 It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

 It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.:  (emphasis added).

Okay, let’s break this down in the most basic and simplistic form in the context I am advocating: Any politician (elected or not-elected?) whom

1. directly or indirectly receives income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity;
2. to directly or indirectly use or invest such income or proceeds of such income to acquire an interest in, operate, or establish any enterprise;
3. which is engaged in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

would conceivably be guilty of a RICO crime or under a different standard be civilly liable for triple damages to injured parties.  Of course the questions presented are: 1) What is a “pattern of racketeering activity,? and, 2) What is an “enterprise?”  There are volumes of federal judicial case law which attempt to answer those questions in a host of criminal and civil contexts.  There are statutory definitions for us to read and consider.  Those three key and important definitions are as follows:

 Definitions

As used in this chapter -

(1) “racketeering activity” means . . . (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: . . . section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), . . .

(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;

(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

So, arguably, Obama is guilty and/or liable under the provisions of RICO if the following facts could be proved:

a) Obama is a person who directly or indirectly receives income derived from a pattern (two or more acts) of racketeering activity; and

b) he directly or indirectly used or invested such income or proceeds thereof to acquire an interest in, or operate, or establish any enterprise which is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.

How might of Obama engaged in a racketeering activity?  There are quite the litany of acts which constitute a racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 however, the two most likely applicable here are the wire fraud and mail fraud provisions referred to above.  So, if it can be shown by probably cause that Obama violated the mail fraud and/or wire fraud provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1341 or 18 U.S.C. 1343 two or more times then the requirement for a pattern of racketeering activity is fulfilled in order to bring a RICO charge or claim.  The next question is, “what is the enterprise” prong on the statute and how might that apply to the Obama campaign or Presidency?  That’s straight forward and rather simple.  Obama is an individual who many can argue committed the requisite criminal acts or at least conspired to commit the requisite acts.  If not Obama himself individually or personally, he arguably did so by association with his own political campaign organization or in any event as a member of a “group” associated in fact.  The factual questions that are relevant are this.  Was Obama’s campaign itself an enterprise that he directly or indirectly used income derived from the racketeering activity to acquire an interest in, operate or establish?  If not the campaign, then what about the Presidency?  Is it an enterprise in which Obama directly or directly used or invested income in which was derived from a racketeering activity, that is to say from wire or mail fraud?  Next we have to ask; “did Obama directly or indirectly receive income from wire or mail fraud?  If you, like many citizens already have, conclude that Obama has turned out to be a liar and has deceived his voters then it goes without saying that he did indeed use the “mail or wire” services of the United States in order to further his deception, scheme or artifice to become elected and take your property.  These indeed are ugly questions to ask but forget your political affiliations for a moment and simply ask yourself.  Why do we not hold these people accountable for their intended fraud on the voters, citizens, and constituencies?  I know some will say that if we did hold politicians to a criminal standard or civil liability for their fraud we might not have anyone to step forward and serve.  What a bunch of crap that argument is.  I’m not talking about some politician that is unable to fulfill a campaign promise.  I’m referring to those individuals who engage in illegal conduct.  Those politicians who engage in deceptive practices i.e., knowingly make false representations and promises that they do not intend to fulfill but want you to believe and rely on such misrepresentations in order to give them your vote should be held to the same standard that you as a citizen would be held to.

Again, this article does not list and analyze Obama’s specific conduct, promises, misrepresentations etc. in order to clearly identify how and why he should be arguably charged with a crime or otherwise be held to civil liability–I will leave that to others who are more resourceful and more knowledgeable of the facts.  Also you should be advised there is a vast amount of information and law out there regarding the “conspiracy” to commit the subject crimes, i.e., “mail fraud,” “wire fraud,” and RICO violations that I did not cover here in this post intentionally.  Finally, your should note that the civil application of RICO is arguably just as on point as the criminal sanctions overviewed here however, federal judges in particular have been extremely active in attempting to limit the application of civil RICO liability.  What took place in the 90’s was that creative lawyers were using the civil RICO provisions to “flood” the federal courts with more civil cases than the Article 3 Judges thought was proper and thus began to create some rather onerous hoops for civil litigants to jump through.  You can spend many hours researching this issue.  With respect to Obama; if indeed he is a fraud (and let not your heart be troubled, I think he is and has always been in over his head) we know the only real remedy that would ensue is impeachment proceedings initially.  That being said, I do believe that U.S. citizens should be able to demand criminal prosecution for the type of criminal violations I have described here.  Parting shot.  The only way that this would likely come about is through extremely creative lawyering before an extremely brave and ambitious conservative judge.  

Obama is insecure and addicted to attention and power.  America, beware!

1. See; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
2. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_the_factum
3. See; http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fraud-in-the-factum.html

Ms. Kennedy is seeking Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. 

This is a cheap, easy way to become a Senator without having to seek the vote of the New York electorate.  It requires no profile in courage to seek public office in this manner.  One has to ask themselves very quickly, “Well, then why didn’t Caroline Kennedy seek the position in the last election?”  Perhaps, you know because Caroline would have to convince voters that she is, like qualified.  I wonder if Caroline could convince Sarah Palin she’s qualified?  Speaking of being qualified to be a Senator, Caroline states that:

[I]t’s about what I can do to, you know, help New York get its fair share [stimulus funds], help working families, travel the state [like Hillary did], bring attention to what is going on up there. So that’s why I think I would be good. 1

“My lawyer won’t let me tell you about it.”

Getting right to the point.   When the Democratic Governor Blagojevich story hit the news, one of my initial reactions to Jessie Jackson Jr.’s potential involvement was this.  Why has Mr. Jackson lawyered up so quickly?  My next thought was; U.S. Attorneys’ are not stupid nor are they often wrong.  This particular U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald is successful, well-known for sure, and famous for his work ethic.  He’s the attorney who prosecuted the CIA leak case which almost got Karl Rove in trouble.  Fitzgerald is also the prosecutor who put Scooter Libby away for a short while.

Yes, we all know the presumption of innocence applies to Jackson–and to Democrat Blagojevich as well.  However, most of us have a tendency to believe that when you have nothing ["absolutely no involvement in any wrongdoing"] to hide, you seldom need a mouth-piece.  Let’s review some of the facts as we know them, and maybe a reason or two will surface as to why both Jackson’s have run to their lawyers.

However, before reviewing facts, let me have a bit of fun and point out to you that in my November 7, 2008 blog post “Gold Flush”, I said (because Obama won the election):

Jessie Jackson, Jr. will soon replace The Organizer [Obama] in the U.S. Senate and therewill be brotherly love again between Jessie Jackson and The Organizer.

People that read the article probably know I was being a bit factious.  But, I do admit, there is a smile is on my face.  So, one of the latest Jackson statements is that “he openly sought appointment to Barack Obama’s Senate seat but denied offering favors in return. . .” but, just two days ago, J J said, “I never sent a message or an emissary to the governor to make an offer, to plead my case or to propose a deal for the U.S. Senate seat, period.”   How does Jackson openly seek the appointment to Obama’s Senate seat and yet at the same time claim that he never sent a message, or emissary to the Democratic Governor Blagojevich to plead his case?  Come on, J J do you think we are all stupid.  Just two months ago, Jackson was on stage with the Democratic Governor.  Regardless of whether Jackson did anything wrong or not, I can hardly believe he is really telling the American people that he never indicated to Blagojevich what his DREAM was?  The Governor, Jackson, and President elect Obama, are Democrats, all in politics, all from or in Illinois, and all worked hard to defeat Bush in the election.  Hhmm, the thought that Blagojevich would be appointing a replacement to the U.S. Senate never crossed Jackson’s mind while he was “openly seeking the appointment.”  The rampant deceit is insulting.  Let me give you another example.

Jackson has been reported as saying this:

Jackson Jr. added that his meeting on Monday with the governor about the Senate seat was the first time he had a meeting with Blagojevich in four years. Jackson Jr. said he presented his qualifications during the 90-minute meeting, and did not discuss any kind of pay-to-play deal.1

This 90 minute meeting with Blago would have been Monday, December 8, 2008.  It is also reported that Jackson received a call on Monday evening, the night before the Blago was arrested from the U.S. Attorney’s office advising him that Blago’s arrest was happening!  Imagine you’re Jackson.  You’re getting a call (at home?) on Monday night (the same day you met with Blago for 90 minutes) from the U.S. Attorney.  You’re being advised that Blago is going to be arrested.  Most likely, if you’re Jackson you would ask the caller, “what is he [Blago] going to be arrested for?  You suppose?  Apparently the answer would have been, “for attempting to sell the appointment to the Senate to replace Obama.”  Oh, by the way the U.S. Attorney surely said; “Blago tells us that you [Jackson] are the one willing to buck-up serious dough for the appointment.”   Don’t you realize the only purpose for the U.S. Attorney’s office to call Jackson was to take a measure of his response to Blago’s statement?  Trust me, the U.S. Attorney’s office did not owe Jackson a “heads-up” call prior to arresting Blago.  The next day, the arrest takes place and Jackson and his father have lawyered up.  I’m just saying, doesn’t this smell just a little.  Isn’t this all just a bit coincidental?  By the way, apparently the federal agents showed up at Blago’s house to arrest him at 6 a.m. for trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder.  Ouch, hope he had at least his first cup of joe.  Most likely Governor Blagojevich doesn’t own a Clover but he probably can afford one. 

This is one I really laugh at.  On Wednesday, Jackson is:

“. . . shocked and saddened to learn that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested yesterday by federal law enforcement officials.”

Despite knowing all about it since Monday evening, Jackson is of course still in a state of shock on Wednesday as if to infer that he’s like us and just found out about it.  Jackson may indeed be saddened because most likely Blago will not appoint him to fill the Senate seat while the alleged “corruption” lingers.   

America, here’s another insult to your intelligence.  Do you truly believe that Obama himself had no conversations with Blago as to whom should be appointed to fill the Senate seat?  I can smell the Illinois political stench way up here in British Columbia.  I agree with what the Voices of Kansas City said:

Still, the charges against Blagojevich have raised the ugly stench of Illinois-style corruption around Obama at the most inopportune time — as he’s preparing to become president.

If you were to ask Obama about it directly, I’m confident that his reply would be something like this.  ”Don’t you realize that the origin of the land called Illinois is: Algonquin for “tribe of superior men.”  I’m  just saying.

America, here’s more insult to your intelligence [of course, you should be used to it by now].  Obama said, the one thing he was certain of was that he did not have any discussions with Blago concerning the appointment of his replacement to the Senate.  If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.  If you do believe that, you’re telling yourself that Obama never considered who would replace him in the U.S. Senate if indeed he were to win the Presidential Election.  Are you kidding me?  But here is the real a great example of the stereotypical spin.  Obama said that he would find out for us if any of his staff had any contact with Blago bla bla bla, and after he {Obama} has had a chance to “gather the facts,” he’ll get back to us on that.  Are you holding your breath for the detailed factual disclosure coming your way.  It is always amazing to me how the most important people in the world never seem to know what “their staff” is up to when questioned about shady conduct.  Surely the American people can accept the fact that Obama is far to busy to concern himself with what his staff is doing or whom they’re talking to.  I mean, come on, for God’s sake He is the President elect.  Just want to remind everyone that “change in Washington has arrived.”

It is difficult to believe that no one else will be charged.

It would be refreshing, if indeed Jackson committed no wrongdoing.  But just because he jumps out there talking about his good name and character does not convince me of anything.  I know, few people would admit that they feel the same way but I am confident that I am not in some small minority.  In any event, it is difficult to believe that if Blago is guilty of trying to “sell” the Senate seat, then my question is this; Was there no one out there that actually offered quid pro quo?  In other words, do we believe that if Fitzgerald has Blago dead to rights there is no one single person (candidate) on the other side of the potential transaction that is culpable?  If Blago has been caught red-handed, my money bet is that there will be an additional criminal complaint filed against someone Blago was potentially going to do business with.  If you think I might be far off on this point, then take at look at what the Chicago Tribune generally had to say about this:  The Chicago Tribune:

reported today that businessmen with ties to Blagojevich and Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the Senate seat.2

Keep in mind that the prosecutors allege that Blagojevich was considering awarding the seat to a politician identified as “Senate Candidate 5″ because emissaries for that candidate were promising to raise as much as $1.5 million for Blagojevich’s campaign fund.  Jackson is the Senate Candidate 5 that is identified in the criminal complaint.  Man, there is serious smoke here.  Just like the wood stove in my home, when there’s a billow of smoke in the stove, there’s usually some fire coming shortly.

Jackson may not be the one to get burned but someone will other than Blago.  He’s probably going to want to make a deal with Fitzgerald and the quid pro quo for Blago, if he’s guilty, will be to testify against someone else i.e., “fully cooperate” with the U.S. Attorney.  ”The next step is anybody who thinks they may have some culpability is going to be running with their lawyers to Fitzgerald’s office to broker some sort of a deal,” said James Cohen, a professor at Fordham Law School. “This is really just the beginning.”   Professor Cohen believes that anyone that thinks they have any culpability will lawyer up. Hhmmm. 

Thank you in advance for reading and feel free to comment.

1. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Unidentified-Characters.html
2. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6443337&page=3

The real question is, did you know it was happening and simply not care?

When I say you been pwned, I mean that non-Minnesotans own you. To say it differently, you’ve been bought with the eliest money from Hollywood and from attorneys from basically every state in the union. Ouch!

As this article is being written, Minnesota is about to start a recount of election returns for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Norm Coleman. The well publicized challenge is from the famous (in his own mind) Democrat Al Franken. It is currently reported that Coleman leads Franken by 206 votes which, includes the counting of thirty plus absentee ballots for Franken found in an election official’s car two days after the election.  Now, that’s real election integrity at work.  I realize that you did not have to come here to get this news, but there is much more to the story than is being reported by prime news organizations.  The slice of the story not being reported or discussed is: Where did the Franken money come from?

Elections are often won by the one with the most money.

Although I believe most Americans have always known it to be a fact that whichever candidate has the most money is the one that wins.  However, Fox News just reported the 2008 election facts with respect to money spent by the candidates.  In the 2008 Unites States Senate election, ninty-four percent (94%) all the Seante election races were won by the candidate that spent the most money!  Most political pundit’s would agree that but for a major influx of money to the Al Franken campaign, the Minnesota Senate race would not have been close at all.  So, that being a given, the question is, how did Al Franken get enough money to mount this serious, if not winning, challenge against Coleman.  For sure, the lion share of money did not come from Minnesotans but came from all over the United States and abroad.

The total amount of money received for Franken is startling given the fact that prior to entering this Senate race, he was virtually an unknown.  More than 17 million dollars were contributed to Mr. Franken to help him defeat the Republican incumbent.  The disproportionate amount of this 17 million came from out-of-state contributors. Hey Minnesotans, do you think these out-of-state people really give a damm about your best interest? This issue of who actually won this election will be in the news forefront for many months to come.

Not everyone that contributed to the Franken campaign is a famous Hollywood liberal or an attorney; there are many out-of-state contributors that are teachers, physicians, and big dogs from investment management companies from around the country.  However, out of the ten thousand plus contributors, more than ten percent of the contributors were attorneys from the four corners of the union.  How interesting is that?  Why would an attorney or law firm from New York, California, Florida or Washington care who was elected as the Senator of Minnesota?  Here’s even more of an interesting question: Why would famous Hollywood types give a damm?  Is it because those actors and actresses are more politically savvy; that they care about the citizens of Minnesoata; and they know best what Minnesotans need.  I don’t think so.  Well, no matter what the reason Minnesotans: You’ve been pwned by Hollywood and other non-Minnesota residents!

Here’s just a partial list of those “caring” contributors that want to see Franken elected.

Most of the contributors gave the maximum of $2,300.00 for the general election and many gave an additional $2,300 for the primary election.

Jason Alexander (Seinfeld), Alex Baldwin, Dan Aykroyd, Al Gore, Candice Bergen, George Clooney, Larry David (Seinfeld), Herb Albert - what?, Michael J. Fox, Ted Danson (Cheers), Susan Saint James, Phil Donahue, Larry & Laurie David (Seinfeld), Ashley Garrett, Tom Hanks, Christie Hefner (Playboy - Politically Savvy Bunny), Kevin Kline, Bill Maher (Calls himself a comedian), Paul Newman (disappointing), Leonard Nimroy (Star Trek), Rosanne O’Donnell, Carl Reiner, Meg Ryan, Garry Shandling, and Paul Simon.

What all people should know–not just Minnesotans, is this; if Franken wins the election, the vast majority of the big money he used was not from Minnesotans.  My friends, that fact is disconcerting and sad.  It’s sad because it’s probable that the candidate that spent the most money will be elected.  It’s disconcerting because the result could easily be that the best candidate to represent Minnesotans is not elected.  Moreover, it is sad and disconcerting to face the reality that representation in the Senate can be purchased, and by anyone.  Fox News just recently reported that the average amount on money spent by the winning candidates running for Senate was $6.5 million.  Shown above, the Federal Election Commission records reveal that Franken spent $15.5 million to “market himself” to the Minnesota voters.  Franken’s FEC reported balance sheet reveals that he still has $1.5 million in cash.  Maybe Minnesota will get some of that cash!  In any event just imagine the good things that Minnesotans could have done with $15.5 million other than elect a third rate comedian to the Senate.

Let me know what you think.  Thank you in advance for your comments.

Kelley Acted Like Former FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover. Yesterday, the Governor of Ohio Put Her On Administrative Leave!

If you’re not outraged, you should be, whether you live in Ohio or not.

About two weeks ago, right as the story broke about the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services doing a sub-rosa search on Joe “the Plumber” (Wurzelbacher), I did a little extra research fully intending to write this post soon thereafter.  One of the first articles I read concerning this issue on October 28, 2008 was Ohio’s Head of Job and Family Services Approved a Child-Support Search on Joe Wurzelbacher Immediately After Third Debate at Ace of Spades HQ.

A follow up story was featured on The O’reilly Report, Thursday, November 6, 2008.  In case you missed it, here’s the outrage.  Helen Jones-Kelley, Director of Job & Family services took it upon herself to order an underling to do some digging around on Joe Wurzelbacher, a fellow Ohio resident, immediately after the third Presidential Debate between McCain and Obama.  Prior to the debate, Obama was caught on film answering  a tax question from Wurzelbacher wherein Obama referred to his tax plan as a plan to “spread the wealth around.” McCain used this against Obama in the third Debate.  Mr. Wurzelbacher was soon referred to on the debate as “Joe the Plumber” and has been ever since.  As soon as it was clear that McCain was using Obama’s comments against his opponent and that Joe the Plumber was a McCain supporter, the coincidence that Kelley went to work soon thereafter surfaced.  She directed a worker to do a records check on Mr. Wurzelbacher.  The fact that Helen Jones-Kelley was a “maxed-out” Obama financial contributor had nothing to do with her actions.  Right.  When this unethical intrusion into personal records, if not illegal intrusion went public, her lame excuse was that “We always do for anyone who comes into the public light.”  What?  Initially it was reported that the records search on Joe the Plumber was limited to child support records.  Now it has been reported that the records searches went far beyond which was originally admitted to!  See, Agency head defends ‘Joe’ searches at Fox News.

It was reported that Kelley contributed $2,500 to the Obama campaign, but what was not disclosed that I  discovered was that she also dropped an additional $2,500 to the “Obama Victory Fund” a Democratic PAC!

So, what we are asked to believe by Director Kelley, and by Democratic Governor Ted Strickland in a statement he made on October 29, 2008 in the Columbus Dispatch; is that “there were no political motives in the data-checking. . .” However, Governor Strickland, apparently as a result of political pressure, has ordered Director Kelly to go on leave in what is now being described as a fund-raising probe. Ms. Kelley is now being investigated for possibly misusing public computers in ordering those records checks on “Joe the Plumber” as well as possibly using state email accounts for political purposes.

Now all of this may have gone by the way-side rather quickly if it were not for a credible and ethical employee working in the Department of Job & Family Services, namely, Vanessa Niekamp.  Ms. Niekamp was the state employee that was actually directed by her superiors to do one or more of the record checks.  Her statements to the press, as reported by Randy Ludlow, Columbus Dispatch totally contradicted Kelley’s story.  Following these reports, many Ohio government officials began to call for investigations.

For those of you who weren’t around in the 60’s, J. Edger Hoover was Director of the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972.  Hoover became famous for a number of reasons, the least of which was that he amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.

Hoover has also been accused of trying to undermine the reputations of members of the civil rights movement. His alleged treatment of actress Jean Seberg and Martin Luther King, Jr. are two such examples. U.S. Senate officials declared his intelligence gathering activities toward U.S. citizens as being illegal and against the Constitution of the United States.  See, J. Edger Hoover: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

What Helen Jones-Kelley has done is albeit, a microcosm of Hoover’s tactics and abuse of power. Nonetheless, her ordering record checks as an attempt to “gather” information on political activists who disagree with her politics is no less excusable.  This is one of those examples of a government agency being misused against citizens and at the expense of the state’s taxpayers.  What we have to do now is contact the appropriate officials in Ohio and express our outrage that a government employee would we allowed to engage in these type of improper if not totally illegal activities for political purposes.  I invite you to express your disagreement with her actions by sending comments to the proper Ohio government officials that are in a position to do something about it.  Select either link and make a statement that may help protect you or others against this type of abuse in the future.  Tell me what you think pro or con–give me your comments.

Contact the Governor of Ohio

Contact the Office of Inspector General of Ohio