TweetyNMe's Blog

An attorney got home late one evening, after a very taxing day trying to get a stay of execution for a client, James Wright, who was due to be hanged for murder at midnight. His last-minute plea for clemency to the governor had failed and he was feeling worn out and depressed.

As soon as he got through the door at home, his wife started on him about,"What time of night do you call this? Where have you been?" And on and on.

Too shattered to play his usual role in this familiar ritual, he went and poured himself a shot of whiskey and headed off for a long hot soak in the bathtub, pursued by the predictable sarcastic remarks.

While he was in the bath, the phone rang. The wife answered and was told that her husband's client had been granted his stay of execution after all. Wright would not be hanged tonight. Finally realizing what a day he must have had, she decided to go upstairs to give him the good news. As she opened the bathroom door, she was greeted by the sight of her husband's rear end as he was bent over naked, drying his legs and feet.

"They're not hanging Wright tonight," she said.

He whirled around and screamed,           "FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WOMAN, DON'T YOU EVER STOP?"

Obama's Sleazy Online Donations: Still Just Internet Rumors at the NYT
The Obama campaign is ignoring basic security measures to stop illegal donations, but the scandal has yet to make the newspaper.

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/31/2008 3:55:08 PM

Heard anything about Barack Obama's sleazy online fundraising, where thanks to purposely lax security measures his site is able to receive untraceable donations from obviously fake names? Not if you've been reading the New York Times.

The Washington Post has run two stories, most recently on Wednesday: "Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations: Contributions Reviewed After Deposits." Post reporter Matthew Mosk explained how the Obama campaign isn't taking the most basic steps to ensure the validity of the online donations made to the campaign:

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Those two Post stories mark a Woodward-and-Bernstein level of intensity compared to the Times' treatment. A search indicates that the Times has published zero stories on recent revelations concerning the Obama campaign's avoidance of basic security measures to stop illegal contributions. The paper has posted  a couple of desultory stories online: "Obama's Easy Credit" by Tobin Harshaw on the nytimes.com Opinionator Blog October 29, and an October 23 posting by reporter Michael Luo on the "Caucus" blog, "Donor Patrol: Obama's Online Site Accepts More Fakes."

 

The last time the paper addressed the issue of dubious Obama donations at all was apparently this October 10 story about donations under fake names. But that story didn’t touch the new revelations about the campaign's complete lack of online security measures. Since then, the Times has gushed over Obama's record-setting donations from September without questioning how all that money was collected.

 

From Luo's October 23 blog item:

Erika Franzi, a 36-year-old mother of four, had been following recent news reports examining how people using obviously fake names had made thousands of dollars in contributions to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign without being detected.

So this afternoon, sitting in her family room at her home in Weaverville, N.C., while her two-year-old was watching “Sesame Street,” Ms. Franzi got on her laptop to conduct an experiment. She used her debit card to make a $15 donation to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Ms. Franzi, who described herself as conservative and preferring Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama, used the name “Della Ware” and entered an address of 12345 No Way in Far Far Away, DE 78954. Under employer, she listed: Americans Against Obama; for occupation, she typed in: Founder.

To her surprise, she said, her contribution went through in “fewer than three seconds.” Then, in order to be fair, she repeated the experiment on Mr. McCain’s Web site, entering the exact same information. Three times, she said, she received the message: “We have found errors in the information that you submitted. Please review the information below and try again.”

Luo threw in a defense of the Obama camp:

To be fair to the Obama campaign, officials there have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount.

But a New York Times analysis of campaign finance records looking for obvious anomalies in donor information quickly found more than a dozen contributors to Mr. Obama using obviously fictitious name. This was a tiny fraction of Mr. Obama’s donor pool, but it appeared from the analysis that Mr. McCain had far fewer apparent fake names among his donors.

Obama has aunt living in US illegally

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

 

Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in Obama's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case.

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

Onyango's refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, non-criminal violation of U.S. immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system. Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the United States.

The AP could not reach Onyango immediately for comment. No one answered the telephone number listed in her name late Friday. It was unclear why her request for asylum was rejected in 2004. The Obama campaign declined to comment late Friday night.

Onyango is not a relative whom Obama has discussed in campaign appearances and, unlike Obama's father and grandmother, is not someone who has been part of the public discussion about his personal life.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Kelly Nantel, said the government does not comment on an individual's citizenship status or immigration case.

Onyango's case - coming to light just days before the presidential election - led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP.

The unusual directive suggests that the Bush administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyango's case coming to light so close to the election.

Kenya is in eastern Africa between Somalia and Tanzania. The country has been fractured in violence in recent years, including a period of two months of bloodshed after December 2007 that killed 1,500 people.

The disclosure about Onyango came just one day after Obama's presidential campaign confirmed to the Times of London that Onyango, who has lived in public housing in South Boston for five years, was Obama's half aunt on his father's side.

It was not immediately clear how Onyango might have qualified for public housing with a standing deportation order.

 

AP writer Elliott Spagat reported from New York.

  I received this piece in an email and thought I'd share. The email did not provide the name of the original author.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beach front property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as I. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and they are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing With The Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here, pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

CNN had a 2 one hour programs  called Candidates Revealed. 

The first hour was on Sarah Palin.  The program naturally began with the history of Sarah's childhood and proceeded on up to the present.  CNN had no problem finding people that were willing to speak ill of Sarah Palin.  And CNN gave these people plenty of airtime.  Information that has already been made public that would give a different slant to the presentation was missing.  You could equate the program with being on trial with no defense in sight.

So it is with great interest that I watch to see how they present the other VP hopeful.

On to Joe Biden.  Again the program began with his childhood and progressed to the present.    They presented his first marriage and the death of his wife.  They showed Joe tearfully reading from his book a passage about his second wife.  They later  came to his near death experience.   CNN was quite brief in sharing a  few of the negative aspects of Biden's career and found not one person with a negative remark on his character or politics.  Not one.  For a person with 30 plus years in politics, how could there not be one person with something negative to say?

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign has admitted that he has misled the public since 2004 on a hot-button social issue, but Big Media has virtually ignored the story.

 

The Illinois senator and a leading pro-life organization have accused each other of lying about his reasons for leading the fight against an anti-infanticide bill in the Illinois state senate between 2001 and 2003.

 

On Saturday, Obama accused the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) with “lying” about his record. On Sunday, however, his campaign was forced to concede the NRLC’s charge was accurate.

 

Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has been a major problem for his political campaigns since 2004, when his opponent in the U.S. Senate race accused him of supporting infanticide.  BAIPA would have required hospitals to provide care to infants that survived an abortion attempt, rather than withhold treatment and allow them to die. 

 

Most such cases involve an abortion procedure in which labor is induced prematurely.  The infants are expected to be killed by their own mothers' contractions, but a few survive the birthing process.  The lungs of the survivors usually are not mature enough to sustain life, so the babies need immediate medical intervention.  Many Illinois hospitals, however, decline to provide the lifesaving care.

 

Why would anybody oppose such a bill? According to CNSNews editor Terence Jeffrey, Obama opposed it because it would have defined a baby that survived an abortion procedure as a person: “Defining a ‘pre-viable fetus’ that survived an abortion as a ‘person,’ he argued, ‘would essentially bar abortions.…’”

In 2002 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a federal version of BAIPA with a “neutrality clause” stating the bill did not affect the legal status of “the species homo sapiens prior to being ‘born alive.’”  Even the radically pro-abortion organization NARAL withdrew its opposition to the bill.  Since 2004, Obama has said he would have supported the Illinois BAIPA if the state version of the bill had included “Roe-neutral” language found in the federal version.  Has he been telling the truth?

 

Not according to NRLC.  Last week, NRLC produced Illinois legislative records it said proved Obama had “blatantly misrepresented” his opposition to BAIPA.   According to NRLC, Obama presided over a 2003 committee meeting that amended the Illinois bill to make it virtually identical to the federal bill – then voted against the amended bill anyway. 

 

In an interview following Saturday’s Saddleback Church presidential forum, CNN/CBN reporter David Brody asked Obama to comment on the NRLC allegations.  Obama told Brody, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.” Obama continued, “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.”

 

On Sunday, however, Obama’s campaign staff conceded to The New York Sun that Obama “had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate.”  The staff tacitly admitted that Obama has been misleading the public since 2004.

 

Pro-life organizations immediately seized upon the controversy, but except for CNN, the liberal media have ignored it.  NewsBusters reports that on Monday, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer played a clip of Obama’s accusation that NRLC was “lying.”  Blitzer said CNN is “checking the facts,” but so far CNN has not reported NRLC’s documentary evidence or the Obama camp’s acknowledgement that NRLC has the facts straight.

 

Big Media has been ignoring the BAIPA story for months; the essential facts were reported by Jeffrey as early as January. This weekend, Obama put the story on the national radar screen by publicly accusing the NRLC of “lying.” His campaign staff's subsequent admission that NRLC was correct – calling into question Obama’s reasons for opposing a bill that would have prevented infanticide – has created a story screaming for attention. 

 

How could a U.S. presidential candidate have opposed a bill that protected the lives of innocent, fully born babies, a bill so incontestably in the moral right that the most ardent pro-choicers in the U.S. Senate supported it unanimously?  Is Barack Obama even more radically pro-choice than NARAL?  Would Obama deny medical care to living, breathing infants just to reinforce the abstract right of mothers to decide whether their children are to live or to die? Big Media owes it to the public to tell the full story.

 

As of this writing, stony silence.   What else does Big Media hide for their golden child?

I just came across this piece and had to share

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.

 

Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog.

Attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel notes foreign nationals are barred from making contributions in connection with any election -- federal, state, or local -- and an individual is allowed to give only $2,300 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

 

"The donations are basically through and through illegal -- that's number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it," Schlussel chides. "They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the 'GA' from Gaza so it makes it look like it's legal; and then for the zip code it says '972,' which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza," she contends.

The attorney comments that if the Obama campaign is willing to "accept thousands of dollars beyond the legal limit and they're also going to flout [Federal Election Commission] restrictions...that's very indicative of what kind of president [Obama] is going to be."

 

"They're not going to be worried about the details and they won't mind if they break the law to get to the final result that they want," adds Schlussel. She believes it is a "major news story when a presidential candidate receives money from 'a bastion of Islamic terrorism.' And Schlussel argues that the media is "bending over backwards to help Barack Obama and cover up any negative news about him."

 

Schlussel says Pamela Geller will likely file a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Obama campaign for violating restrictions and limits on campaign contributions.

Workers at the Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day but will instead be given the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr as a holiday. 

 

According to a news release from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new 5-year contract at the plant included the change to accommodate the hundreds of Somali Muslims who work at the plant .

 

Eid al-Fitr — which falls on Oct. 1 this year — marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Union leaders say implementing the holiday was important for the nearly 700 Muslims, many of them Somalis, who work at the plant that employs a total of 1,200 people.

 

The Shelbyville Times-Gazette newspaper quotes union spokesman Randy Hadley as saying the negotiating team felt this change was "extremely crucial, since this holiday is as important to Muslims as Christmas is to Christians."

 

The newspaper also quotes the union as saying two prayer rooms have been created at the Shelbyville Tyson Foods' plant " to allow Muslim workers to pray twice a day and return to work without leaving the plant."

We've all heard this slogan - Change.   And this one - Celebrate Diversity

We've watched foreign nationals drag, step on or burn our flag and then raise the flag of a foreign country. We're being forced to learn a language native to another country.   We're told to celebrate diversity. Be open to change. Why is it considered bad to have something as unifying as a common language, a national flag? People try and compare those that immigrated centuries ago and assimilated to those that invade now and try to force change.

Let's take a look at what is happening elsewhere. Another place that didn't take a stand when foreigners push for change. Britain.

A person would expect that being in Britain you would have to follow British law. Not so anymore. A great number of Muslims are populating this country. Are they motivated to assimilate and live like the British? Yeah right, about as much as the foreign nationals that have come to the United States are looking to assimilate and follow our laws.   The Muslims in Britain are looking to dominate!

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. So much for British law. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her. A Muslim man has no obligation to support a former wife or her children after the divorce. A Muslim man does not have to consent to a divorce if his wife wishes to have one. A Muslim woman cannot use abuse as grounds for a divorce.  Abusive Muslim men can have custody of his children. 

Although we haven't yet gone down this particular path you can see it coming, because like Britain we are allowing foreigners to tell us what changes we should make in our country. We're being told to celebrate diversity to the point of losing our national identity. We're being told to ignore our laws because there's a group of people that want us to.  Is it unrealistic to expect those that immigrate to follow the law of the country they've entered? The British are going to be wishing they'd had hindsight in a few years. Will we?

Women, which employer would you be more likely to work for?

Employer A -  Pays women $7,000 less than men

Employer B - Pays women $2,500 more than men

Being a woman, I'd want to be paid the same as a man doing the same job.  Getting a few extra bucks wouldn't hurt though.

Employer A has a few quotes I'd like to share with you.

"But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer. ... It starts with equal pay."

"I support a  Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination."

"We can't afford an economy where folks keep working harder for less. We can't let the women in our workforce get paid even less for doing the same work."

It would appear Employer A doesn't think he needs to actually pay women the same as men, although he sure does talk a good game.


Employer A is Barrack Obama

Employer B is John McCain


This information is provided by the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Most interesting is that the Obama campaign does not respond to questions on this matter. 

I received this in an email and verified with Snopes to assure it was true.  This was published shortly after 9-11.  Six years ago we were admired for our freedom.  Today we lay down while the government strips our freedoms away.

~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united?  They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color!  They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.

Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about. Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.

 
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing:'God Bless America !'
  
 I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.

 
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?  Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.

 
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way?  
Their land?  Their history? Their economic Power?  Money?  
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.

Cornel Nistorescu

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.”  The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1.  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY):  In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records.  Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals.  Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again).  And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007.  Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):  Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll.  While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training.  Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful.  Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3.  Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):  In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer.  Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity.  When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'”  When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?”  The power play didn’t work.  Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea.  Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA):  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process.  Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty.  Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing. 

5.  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY):  Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…”  ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense.  All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6.  Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR):  Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record.  According to The Associated Press:  “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.”  And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations?  Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7.  I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby:  Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.  Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes.  Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook.  In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8.  Senator Barack Obama (D-IL):  A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007.  In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.  In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections  It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors.  One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares.  Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9.  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress.  The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco.  Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark.  Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon.  And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10.  Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):  Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different.  According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal.  As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.”  Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials.  Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- According to Kern High School District officials, a local student was duct taped by his teacher last week when he failed to follow his teacher's request to stop interrupting class.

According to school officials, the young man was making noises with his mouth and hands when his teacher, Carol Humphrey, warned him to behave. After failing to comply with his teachers request, Humphrey proceeded to put duct tape over his mouth and fingers.

John Teves of the Kern High School District said Humphrey thought it would be funny to address the boy ' s disruptiveness by using the tape. Fellow classmates laughed at the situation and took cell phone pictures, but officials said the boy was not amused.

Humphrey asked the boy to stay after class to help him remove the tape, but the young man reported the incident to school officials instead.

Officials said she has been working with the district for more than 30 years, and they have never had any disciplinary problems with her.

While the case is not considered a criminal matter, Humphrey was placed on administrative leave and will not return to class until the school investigation is complete.

LONDON -- British health officials are recommending stomach-stapling surgery for severely obese children.

Britain has the worst obesity rates in Europe, with a fifth of its children projected to be obese by 2010. And it's the first European country to recommend surgery for obese children.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said obesity is now more damaging to health than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty.

The agency said surgery should only be offered to children who have gone through puberty, have such risk factors as diabetes or high blood pressure and have not been able to lose weight through diet and exercise.

Stomach-stapling reshapes the stomach by using staples and bands to create a small pouch. That limits the amount of food the patient can eat.

OMAHA, Neb. -- The government maintains that an Omaha woman is dead, but Margaret Carol Morris said she's very much alive and fighting to prove it.

Margaret Spring, Morris's daughter, said it started when she fired a hospice nurse for inadequate care. Hospice workers notified the government that they weren't caring for Morris.

The hospice director told KETV NewsWatch 7 that Medicare workers made a mistake by entering the code for dead instead of dismissed into a computer.

The mistake is costing Spring as she tries to keep up with her mother's medical bills while Medicare isn't paying.

"A lot of stress. A lot of frustration, and I don't know where to go. I don't know what to do," Spring said. "I've cashed in $3,000 worth of bonds. All of that hasn't gone toward the medicines but a good part of it has."

Spring said she's used her savings since June to pay for her 95-year-old mother's heart medicines because the insurance company won't.

"I called them up and they said she's dead," Spring said. "I get a letter from Social Security of condolence saying they were sorry for my mother's death."

Margaret called Social Security to say her mother wasn't dead.

"They said, 'You can get a doctor to verify she's alive,'" Spring said, and she followed that advice. "'The patient is awake, alert and functioning well. She did not expire.'"

She took letters from her mother's doctors to the Social Security building in Omaha.

"The lady there was very nice she said she understood the problem and she would take care of it," Spring said.

The manager of the Social Security office here in Omaha told KETV NewsWatch 7 that workers updated the information to show that Morris is alive. The information has been sent to Medicare Part D administrators, but it hasn't yet been updated.

Morris has congestive heart failure and takes about a dozen pills a day, she said.

The manager of the Omaha Social Security office said she would call the regional Medicare office immediately to change Morris's status from dead to alive.

"I want her back alive," Spring said. "I want her back on Part D for her medicines."

The local manager said she hopes to have Morris's problem fixed in two or three days.