Breaking: Michael LoPorto Found Not Guilty in Ballot Fraud Trial

July 18, 2012 at 3:45 pm (Ballot Fraud, Bob Mirch, Democrats, John Brown, Michael LoPorto, New York, Rensselaer County, Sara Couch, Trey Smith, Troy, Voter Fraud, WFP, Working Families Party)

Former City Councilman Michael Loporto, has been acquitted on all 22 counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, in the upstate New York ballot fraud scandal.  In May, we predicted that this would be the outcome:

“LoPorto was wise in having his trial separated from his colleague (Ed McDonough).  The hard evidence against LoPorto’s knowledge of the scam is limited, and even witness testimony on his side of things was inconsistent.”

When the re-trial got underway, testimony was again inconsistent.  While several people had placed LoPorto at the scene of the ballot forgery, witnesses who testified could not agree on his exact placement.  One witness had placed him in close proximity, about an arm’s length, while another had him a good 20 feet away.

JJFWFPER7HR6

But the real break for LoPorto came in May, when Working Families Party operative Sara Couch, requested to change her original testimony.  The Troy Record reported:

A key witness in the original trial of Democrats Ed McDonough and Michael LoPorto for their suspected roles in the 2009 Working Families Party ballot fraud scandal seeks to add to her original testimony.

Couch plans to add one statement that wasn’t contained in her initial testimony as well as adding some words LoPorto had said to her after she left a meeting with former City Councilman John Brown which took place at LoPorto’s restaurant. Brown, who was later convicted of a felony charge in connection to the case, tried convincing WFP members present at that meeting to put a press release out blaming the scandal on former city DPW Commissioner Bob Mirch. LoPorto was said to have been in the back cooking and not part of the meeting.

The contrasting statements gave two very different impressions.  In her previous testimony, Couch said that LoPorto had told her, ““I never gave you those ballots”, suggesting a cover-up.  In her revised statements, Couch said LoPorto followed her to her car, gave her a hug and said, “Had I known, I would have never handed you those ballots.”

LoPorto had maintained his innocence throughout the scandal.  His legal team has made a good point throughout, which is this – The prosecutor Trey Smith, seems to have given very favorable deals to Democrats in the scandal who stood to be most readily convicted for their part in the fraud, while actively pursuing those who played a minor or unwitting (in this case) role.

The question is, why?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Romney: President Obama Has "Just Given Up on the Economy"

July 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm (2012 Election, Crisis, Economy, Given Up on the Economy, Jobs, Jobs Crisis, Mitt Romney, Ohio, President Obama)

I wouldn’t say he’s given up on the economy, more like he’s actively working to dismantle the American economy.

That said, here are some excerpts from Romney’s expected message at today’s 2:05 PM Town Hall event in Ohio.  Hopefully Mitt will capitalize on the impressive speech he gave in Pennsylvania yesterday.

“We have a jobs crisis in this country, a real emergency. Yet President Obama seems to have just given up on the economy. He hasn’t convened a meeting with his jobs counsel in six months, but has held more than a hundred fundraisers for his campaign. The only job he is interested in saving is his own.”

“President Obama’s insult of business owners was shockingly revealing, insulting and dismissive America’s entrepreneurs. In a world where “somebody else” – government – builds businesses and creates prosperity, it’s makes sense to raise taxes on small business owners and create more and more layers of bureaucracy to manage the economy. I understand that we need to unleash the private sector and encourage small business owners, not punish them with higher taxes and burdensome regulations. This is the difference between a bottom-up economy driven by the innovative spirit of America and a top-down economy driven by the government.”

“What made President Obama’s comments so insightful is that they reflect the policies he’s pursued in office – policies that reward people for who they know, not what they know. While he gave taxpayer money and special carve-outs to friends, donors, supporters, and special interest groups, the middle class has been working harder for less. This has to end, and it will when I am president.”

How could a guy whose mantra was ‘hope and change’ have given up?

Mitt’s right. It has to end.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Union Bosses Admit Green Jobs Program is Bulls***, Then Help Get Taxpayer Money For Business Designed Solely to Dig Holes and Fill Them Back In

July 18, 2012 at 11:32 am (Chuck Schumer, Democrat, Fraud, Government Waste, Green Jobs, Green New York, James O'Keefe, Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, Project Veritas, Republican, Taxpayer Money, Unions, Waste)

James O’Keefe has released a new video from his Project Veritas website which shows union bosses confessing that the Green Jobs, Green New York program is ‘a lot of bulls***’.

Green Jobs – Green New York is a statewide program aimed at “promoting energy efficiency and installing clean technologies to reduce energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

The program was created under former Governor David Patterson, and was funded using money that some would consider a scam in the first place – $112 million acquired by auctioning carbon emission credits through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

One union boss seen in the video below is John Hutchings, director of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) New York State Laborers’ Organizing Fund (NYSLOF).

Hutchings states:

“You know, the Green Jobs, Green New York, between us, a lot of it is bullshit… even if it’s bullshit, I think as long as people are working, that’s not bull, you know what I mean?”

Hutchings and other union members then try to demonstrate their expertise in the field of bulls*** businesses, when they try to help the individuals in the investigative video get taxpayer money for a fictitious and wholly useless business.

Here is a description of that business:

First, our excavation specialists insert their shovels into the ground and remove the soil. This presents the problem of an existing hole in the earth, creating a dangerous situation that could lead to hazards, including but not limited to tripping, falling, and bodily injuries.

Then there is the renewal process. At Earth Supply, we train professional backfillers to renew the soil in place of the existing hole, restoring the earth to its original condition.

Some folks say we’re just digging ditches and filling them back up again. But it’s about more than that. It’s about jobs.

They’ve created a business that digs holes and then fills them back in.  And when they ask local union bosses to move subsidies through legislatures for that type of company, the unions are more than willing to lend a hand.

The justification?  The fake company has created new union members.

What’s more is that these union people essentially admit to having no concern about wasting taxpayer money on the project.

One business manager for the local AFL-CIO branch compares the dead end hole-digging enterprise to a program run under FDR in the ’30s.

“They dug the roads up, put ‘em back!” says an animated Tocci.

Says Tocci, “You just wanna get the money. Then you figure out afterward.”

To pressure legislators into going along with the union scheme, the group intends to use well-placed lobbying firms that will make the claim that the fictitious company will create jobs, and provide more union laborers who will receive union benefits.  These firms will lobby both Democrat and Republican politicians, and are very tight with Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Just another example of taxpayer money being wasted at the disposal of unions in New York State.

Find out more here… 

Permalink Leave a Comment

Chris Matthews: Obama Needs to Explain His Accomplishments to Americans "As If He Were Talking to a Two-Year-Old"

July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am (American People, Chris Matthews, Hardball, MSNBC, Perfect American, President Obama, Racism, Slow, Stupid, Thrill Up My leg, Tingles, Two-Year-Old)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews ended his show last night by suggesting that the American public doesn’t have the intelligence to grasp the greatness of his tingle-inducing muse, President Obama.

I want President Obama to focus on something between now and November.  What I’d like him to do is speak simply and clearly to this country about what he’s accomplished. I said simply and clearly.  Remember Denzel Washington in the movie Philadelphia? He played the lawyer who told prospective clients to “explain this to me like I’m a two-year old.”. . . He needs to sell his auto-rescue plan, his jobs act, his health-care act as if he were talking to a two-year old.  And he can do it.

This comes on the heels of Matthews gushing about the President being “the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American”.

“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy. And it’s impossible for me to believe they would have said the same thing about a Walter Mondale or a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton. There’s an ethnic piece to this. It’s very hard to nail it down because they always cover it in ideology. But I’ve never heard anybody in this country call its opponent regularly anti-American or non-American.”

Shorter version for those with the intellect of a two-year-old:

President Obama is perfect, and if you can’t see that, you’re racist.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Permalink Leave a Comment

Chuck Schumer: There Ought to be Limits on the First Amendment

July 18, 2012 at 7:00 am (Chuck Schumer, Citizens United, Democrats, DISCLOSE Act, First Amendment, Free Speech, Nancy Pelosi, New York)

Despite more pressing and urgent business at hand for the Senate, Democrats have placed the DISCLOSE Act – a bill which requires disclosure of political activity by restricting the First Amendment – on the front burner.

The Act is sponsored by New York Senator Chuck Shumer, who recently blatantly admitted the need to curb freedoms assured by the First Amendment.

Schumer:

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.

Shumer isn’t the only Democrat who wants to re-write the First Amendment.  Nancy Pelosi previously stated her desire to amend the First Amendment using the same DISCLOSE Act.

Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the roll of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns).

The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.

If you’re wondering how this would lead to censorship of everyday things like books, papers, or the internet, Chief Justice Roberts can explain…

The case in question led to this opinion written by Roberts:

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,” wrote Roberts. “It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns.”

JJFWFPER7HR6

Permalink Leave a Comment