Tuesday, September 04, 2007

a little more important than footsies in a gay crapper.....

click image to enlarge
Tracking the friends of Norman Hsu
By Michelle Malkin • September 4, 2007 03:51 PM


Over the holiday weekend, I pointed you to Flip Pidot’s excellent investigative post charting Norman Hsu’s campaign finance contributions. He’s done more digging and has a new report:

[I]t turns out there’s quite a bit more under the campaign finance rock than previously realized.

The Journal originally collected contribution data largely from federal campaign disclosures. After re-constituting that FEC data, I collected state-level campaign data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which served as the basis for the previous post. That tally totaled roughly $1.37 million in contributions to dozens of candidates since the 2004 cycle, slightly less than half of which were made by Hsu directly.

I’ve since added data from municipal elections (most of which turned up in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) as well as the most current data available in each state’s respective campaign finance database. Additionally, the NYC Campaign Finance Board collects “intermediary” data, which frequently identifies the bundler associated with a given contribution. This revealed three new individuals in Hsu’s network: Noah Yago, Youn Hadar, and Susan Chilman. While Yago’s and Hadar’s contributions appear to have been isolated incidents, a search for Chilman among the state and federal records turned up scores of additional donations. Totaling nearly $40,000 over three years, the size and timing of Chilman’s contributions frequently fit the suspicious patterns that have already led the FEC and the DOJ to investigate Hsu’s fundraising history. In the disclosure reports, Chilman lists herself as a self-employed actress. I’ve included Chilman’s contributions in the aggregate data, but not Yago’s or Hadar’s.

The grand total currently sits at roughly $1.6 million.

In the spirit of open-source blogging, Pidot has made his data available as a Google spreadsheet above.

The taint goes way beyond Hillary. Above is Flip’s chart of candidate recipients of the foreign funny money:


Do you have a public official/candidate who’s received Hsu-linked money? Will they be keeping it or unloading it? Let us know.

Monday, September 03, 2007

this day during the war of northern aggression...

This Day In 1861...
Confederate General Leonidas Polk commits a major political blunder by marching his troops into Columbus, Kentucky—negating Kentucky's avowed neutrality and causing the Unionist legislature to invite the U.S. government to drive the invaders away.

Kentucky was heavily divided prior to the war. Although slavery was prevalent in the state, nationalism was strong and Unionists prevented the calling of a convention to consider secession after the firing on Fort Sumter in April. Governor Beriah Magoffin refused to send troops to either side, and a special session of the legislature in the summer of 1861 issued a warning to both the Confederate and Union armies not to deploy forces in the state. Union and Confederates alike recognized the folly of entering Kentucky into the war, as it would tip the delicate political balance to the other side.

President Lincoln, a Kentucky native who carefully observed the state's neutrality, soon realized that the Confederates were acquiring resources and recruiting troops from the state. However, in three special elections held that summer, the Union cause had gained support. Kentucky's geographic location made permanent neutrality nearly impossible. The major rivers of the upper south drained into the Ohio River through Kentucky, and the state had the country's ninth largest population.

Troops from both sides began to build fortifications along the border in the opening months of the war, but the Confederates made a critical blunder when General Polk occupied Columbus, Kentucky, on September 3. This preemptive move against the forces of General Ulysses S. Grant, who waited across the Ohio River in Illinois, proved costly for the Confederates. Kentucky's Unionist legislature invited Federal troops in to drive away the invaders, and on September 6, Grant occupied Paducah and Southland, at the mouths of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, respectively. These were vital positions that allowed the Union a tremendous advantage in the contest for Kentucky and Tennessee.

During the war, some 50,000 white and 24,000 black Kentuckians fought for the North, while 35,000 joined the

i guess the idiot leahy isn't all bad...

Holy Beltway, Batman! Sen. Patrick Leahy to Appear in 'The Dark Knight'

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Holy Beltway, Batman! Sen. Patrick Leahy has a part in the next Batman movie.

"I don't wear tights," the Vermont Democrat said.

Leahy's scene was filmed this summer for "The Dark Knight" and involves Batman, played by Christian Bale, The Joker, played by Heath Ledger, and Alfred Pennyworth, played by Michael Caine.

• Get the low-down on Tinseltown in the Movies Center.

The longtime Batman fan would reveal little about his role other than he is called the "distinguished gentleman."

"It's a pretty tense scene," said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's going to be a very interesting one."

He's done voice-overs on Batman cartoons, written the preface for a Batman book and had small roles in the last two Batman features.

He said he will donate his earnings from the film to the Kellogg-Hubbard children's library in Montpelier, where the senator got his first library card.

"The Dark Knight" is scheduled to be released next summer.

excellent on el presidente's middle east strategerie!

Has Bush Boxed Himself In?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

As Americans anguish over how to extricate this country from Iraq without a disaster greater than what we now have, and without our friends suffering the fate of our friends in Cambodia and Vietnam, they had best brace themselves. This escalator is going up.

George Bush and his generals are laying out the case for a new war. And there has been no resistance offered either by a vacationing Congress or the major presidential candidates.

On CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, No. 2 commander in Iraq, said, "It is clear to me that (the Iranians) have been stepping up their support" for enemy fighters in Iraq.

"They do it from providing weapons, ammunition, specifically mortars and explosively formed projectiles. ... They are conducting training within Iran of Iraqi extremists to come back here and fight the United States."

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said his troops were following 50 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who have been crossing the border and training fighters in Iraq. The State Department is about to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Earlier in August, President Bush directly charged Tehran with aiding Iraqi insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers:

"I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq ... to send the message that there will be consequences for ... people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill American troops."

The EFPs are roadside bombs that penetrate Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks. They have taken the lives of scores of U.S. soldiers.

Whether Bush has made the decision to attack the al Quds training camps inside Iran, he has painted himself into a corner.

If he does not strike the camps, he will be mocked by the War Party as a weak commander in chief, too timid to use U.S. power to protect soldiers he sent into battle or to punish those killing them.

Thus, Bush must either announce that his diplomacy has worked, and attacks out of Iran have diminished or been halted, or he will have to explain why the Top Gun of the carrier Lincoln was too wimpish to do his duty by the soldiers he sent to fight.

Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on Al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."

The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.

Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.

As for Bush and Cheney, if they go home without hitting Iran's nuclear sites, and Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the Bush Doctrine will have been defied by the Ayatollah as well as Kim Jong-il, and their legacy will be a no-win war in Iraq.

The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

First, the al Quds camps, then Natanz, Isfahan and Bushewr.

Initially, Americans might cheer the bombing of Iran, and Congress would head for the tall grass. But as U.S. strikes would be an act of war, rallying the Iranians behind the failing regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and igniting a long war the end of which we cannot see and the troops for which we do not have, there are powerful arguments against a new war.
Iran and the United States would both pay a hellish price, and Iran at least seems to recognize it. Both the Iraqi and Afghan governments say Iran is behaving as a good neighbor. There is evidence Tehran's nuclear program is faltering, or being curbed. Iran is said to be making concessions to U.N. inspectors.

Iran has released an American seized in response to our seizure of five Iranian "diplomats" in Iraq. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, in a letter to the Washington Post, denies Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency and calls on the U.S. government to "proffer evidence" and "provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are operating in Iraq."

If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran.

As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?

Or has it given Bush and Cheney another blank check?