The only thing worse than a liar is a deadbeat liar, and Joe Walsh qualifies. It seems that while he’s had money to loan his campaign $35,000 and gallivant around with his girlfriend, his ex-wife and children haven’t received anything from him. Yeah, this from the same guy who had the nerve to open up his video with this: “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.” Chicago Sun-Times: Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000. “Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.” Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.” He personally wrote in court filings that he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money he owes. He noted that the children have lived with him for part of the last nine years. Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday. There’s lots more in the article but I could have written it myself because I was a kid with a dad just like Walsh. Never do they pay for what kids really need, and then they swoop in like Superman to be the dad-hero and take you somewhere that seems really cool with their girlfriend who they’re really trying to impress so you just once again sort of sit on the sidelines. I can feel Walsh’s ex-wife’s frustration in those court filings. Joe Walsh clearly lies whenever it suits him to avoid obligations, he gets away with all sorts of exceptions others wouldn’t. Others would get their license suspended or their wages garnished. But Walsh seems to manage to stay one step ahead of it whenever he can. This is the Tea Party writ large right now. Lie, cheat, steal, and then walk away from moral and financial obligations as though they were nothing to worry about. And he has the nerve to call President Obama a liar.
Continue reading …By OSWALD ALONSO, Associated Press MIACATLAN, Mexico — A Mexican judge on Tuesday sentenced a teenage U.S. citizen to three years in prison for homicide, kidnapping and drug and weapons possession. Authorities say the teen confessed to killing four people whose beheaded bodies were found suspended from a bridge. Edgar Jimenez Lugo, known as “El Ponchis,” was given the maximum sentenced allowed for a minor in the central state of Morelos, said state prosecutor Jose Manuel Serrano Falmerol. Jimenez was tried in a state court because Mexico does not have a justice system to try minors at the federal level. Mexican prosecutors said Jimenez was 14 years old. Authorities say the teenager confessed to working for the South Pacific drug cartel, led by reputed drug lord Hector Beltran Leyva. When he was handed over to federal prosecutors, the boy calmly said in front of cameras that he participated in four killings while drugged and under threat. The bodies were found in the tourist city of Cuernavaca. In November, stories of a hit boy, maybe as young as 12, spread after a YouTube video appeared with teens mugging for the camera next to corpses and guns. One boy on the video alleged that “El Ponchis” was his accomplice. Jimenez was born in San Diego, California. He and a sister were arrested in December as they tried to board a plane to Tijuana, where they planned to cross the border and reunite with their mother in San Diego. The teenager has been in a juvenile detention center in Morelos since his arrest and will serve his time there, Serrano said. The two siblings allegedly worked for Julio “El Negro” Padilla, a reputed drug trafficker who authorities say has been fighting for control of the drug trade in Morelos. Morelos was formerly under the control of the Beltran Leyva gang, which broke up after alleged leader Arturo Beltran Leyva was killed in a shootout with Mexican marines a year ago. The battle among remnants of the gang has caused an unprecedented spike in violence in Morelos and in neighboring Guerrero state, where the resort city of Acapulco is located. A relative has said Jimenez was nicknamed “Ponchis” by his family because he was a pudgy child.
Continue reading …Wanted: Better fact checkers for MSNBC. For today's “Flashback” feature on the “Daily Rundown,” anchor Chuck Todd misinformed viewers by noting that on July 28, 1868, the 14th Amendment went into effect. In fact the amendment went into effect when South Carolina ratified it on July 9, 1868. But not only was Todd off by 19 days, he selectively quoted a passage of the 14th Amendment that has some relevance to the debt ceiling debate: …it's a little-known section of the Fourteenth Amendment that's getting all the attention these days. It's a section that states, quote, “the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.” Some Democrats, of course, are calling for President Obama to invoke this clause and end the current crisis by raising the debt ceiling himself. The White House maintains that invoking the 14th Amendment is not an option, that they've talked to their lawyers and it can't happen. Okay. Here's the actual language of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment (emphasis mine): The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. You'll notice that Todd omitted the key phrase “authorized by law,” as in legislation that has passed Congress, not a presidential fiat. Todd noted that White House lawyers say they can't raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval, but it would have been more instructive to inform MSNBC viewers that the notion that a president can unilaterally act to boost the debt ceiling is so outrageous that even liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe has objected to it. Here's a relevant excerpt from Tribe's July 8 New York Times op-ed (emphasis mine): The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred. Some have argued that this principle prohibits any government action that “jeopardizes” the validity of the public debt. By increasing the risk of default, they contend, any debt ceiling automatically violates the public debt clause. This argument goes too far. It would mean that any budget deficit, tax cut or spending increase could be attacked on constitutional grounds , because each of those actions slightly increases the probability of default. Moreover, the argument is self-defeating. If it were correct, the absence of a debt ceiling could likewise be attacked as unconstitutional — after all, the greater the nation’s debt, the greater the difficulty of repaying it, and the higher the probability of default. Other proponents of a constitutional deus ex machina have offered a more modest interpretation of the public debt clause, under which only actual default (as opposed to any action that merely increases the risk of default) is impermissible. This interpretation makes more sense. But advocates of the constitutional solution err in their next step : arguing that, because default would be unconstitutional, President Obama may violate the statutory debt ceiling to prevent it. The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress. Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?
Continue reading …A little girl’s body has been exhumed 54 years after her murder by cops who now think they can nail the killer using new forensics techniques. Prime suspect Jack McCullough, a former neighbor of the 7-year-old girl and an ex cop, has already been extradited from Washington to Illinois to…
Continue reading …Inventive French hackers managed to turn their country’s equivalent of the White House website into an anti-Nicolas Sarkozy game. For several hours, visitors to the Elysee Palace website were rerouted to a page—viewable here — featuring a cartoon image of the president being pushed out of the presidential palace toward…
Continue reading …All said, Q2 wasn’t such a bad one for the black logoed Motorola Solutions, with sales of $2.1 billion, up six percent from this time last year. That number includes $1.3 billion for government sales and $747 million for enterprise, up four and 11 percent over last year, respectively. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (MSI to its friends) was formed earlier this year , when the tech company split in two. Solutions specializes in things like barcode scanners and two-way radios, while Motorola Mobility Holdings deals with the more familiar (to us, at least) smartphone and Xoom-y side of things. Continue reading Motorola Solutions hits $2.1 billion in sales for Q2 Motorola Solutions hits $2.1 billion in sales for Q2 originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:21:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …“I deal with answers and questions,” Jeopardy host Alex Trebek told the crowd at National Geographic World Championship after hobbling onstage on crutches. “Today I’m going to start with the answer to a question on many of your minds right now. The answer is: ‘At 2:30 yesterday morning, chasing…
Continue reading …MASTAD1984 says: I don't encourage drunk drivin, but think it mess up that they gave jalen rose jail time for it…..
Continue reading …THE_goldnchild says: RT @TinkALinkSweet : Nw : the amy winehouse e true hollywood story
Continue reading …