The Real President Joe Biden Is Starting to Come Out, It Seems

We hoped he'd be stronger.  We hoped he'd be stronger than this, especially this early. It's not a complete surprise but that doesn't mean it's not a disappointment. Here's the first.

Biden's refusal to go big on student loan relief is one of his first big stumbles as president

He, President Biden, insists he can't pardon $50,000 of student higher education debt. He says he can, constitutionally, pardon $10,000 in debt but not $50,000.  

What??

I'm pretty sure if the Constitution says you can forgive 10, you can forgive 50.

Number two. First he does and says this.

Biden says $15 minimum wage won't survive Covid relief talks

Then he backtracks yesterday.

President Biden reiterates his support for a $15 minimum wage

Mr. President, sir, I have to tell you, that first statement weakens you and weakens your position on this issue as far as the Republicans are concerned. You get that, right?

And finally, third today.

Under Biden, Justice Department presses fight against Omarosa

A new brief takes an aggressive stance against outspoken Trump critic Omarosa Manigault Newman in a financial disclosure flap.

Check this story out.

The Biden Justice Department is showing no sign of letting up in a two-year-old legal fight against a former White House aide who became an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump.

While the Justice Department has sought to pause or drop a number of high-profile court battles due to the change in administration, government lawyers are pressing on aggressively with a lawsuit claiming that Omarosa Manigault Newman failed to file a required financial disclosure following her attention-grabbing firing in December 2017.

Manigault Newman has described the suit as a vendetta aimed at her for turning on Trump, calling him a racist and making revealing disclosures about the former president and his top aides. She also wrote a tell-all book, “Unhinged,” which chronicles her dealings with Trump as a contestant on “The Apprentice” and later as his most prominent African American White House aide.

In a new brief filed in federal court in Washington just before midnight Thursday, the Justice Department forcefully defended its position in the case, even tangling with Manigault Newman over the contentious circumstances of her dismissal by then-White House chief of staff John Kelly.

“She…made no attempt to file any Termination Report before September 2019, more than a year and a half after it was due and after this litigation was commenced,” DOJ lawyers wrote. “Then, following that submission—in which only half the required fields were even filled out—Defendant made no effort for over a year to correct her submission, despite being promptly advised of its deficiencies…She remains out of compliance with [the Ethics in Government Act] to this day.”

The suit asks U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon to impose a civil penalty of $61,585 on Manigault Newman for willfully refusing to file the financial disclosure. Such suits are rare. Disputes over financial disclosures are typically resolved by an employee updating the forms and, in some instances, incurring a small penalty.

Manigault Newman’s main defense in the case has been that — after her acrimonious departure from the White House — Trump aides refused to return her personal effects, including financial records she needed to complete the required exit report. She also asserts that she is a whistleblower on government wrongdoing and that the lawsuit amounts to illegal retaliation for that.

After her dismissal, Manigault Newman released audio recordings she secretly made of a tense conversation with Kelly held in the highly-secure White House Situation Room — as well as a recording of another conversation where Trump implausibly asserted he was unaware Kelly planned to fire her.

In the audio, Kelly encourages Manigault Newman to go quietly so she “can go on without any kind of difficulty relative to her reputation.” It later emerged that Kelly said Manigault Newman had abused the White House car service. She contends that was a pretext for firing her.

While the new Justice Department brief argues that statement by Kelly was not a threat and maintains that she was fired for “misuse of government resources,” government lawyers also contend those disputes are irrelevant to the ongoing suit.

“Notwithstanding Defendant’s unfounded references to ‘threats’ at the time of her termination, the merits of Defendant’s termination from the White House are not at issue in this case,” the attorneys wrote...

So here's the deal. It looks as though, certainly seems as though, this lawsuit should be thrown out, on its own merits, for starters. It seems clear this is vengeance from the previous President and his administration.

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, right?

But here's the thing. From what I've read, now-President Biden wants to make sure no one in his administration does anything remotely similar to him once he's out of office so he and his administration want the lawsuit to go forward.

Don't get me wrong. We knew what we were getting with Joe Biden, to be sure. And I/we don't think he is or ever was or was going to be perfect in this role as President---and he's a HUGE, huge improvement over the previous occupant of the White House, to state the necessary and obvious but...  Geez   Let's be a bit tougher, Joe and a bit more consistent.

Could you? Would you work on that?

Please?

More. Another, too, sadly.

'A Clear Back-Track': Rights Groups Warn New Biden Guidelines Not Enough to Curb ICE Abuses

Somebody Call Osawatamie On This Guy

He's still at it. He's still pushing for light rail. Here in Kansas City. From his home in Virginia.

And now this.

Clay Chastain sues Kansas City officials and his own attorney over light-rail failures

I'm sure Mr. Chastain's attorney guaranteed him a successful outcome, aren't you?

On Donald Trump and What and Who He Would Bring To Us All

The only things worse than Donald Trump and what he proposes and thinks and says are the people he surrounds himself with. Bill Maher brings to light. Caution: expletive.

Man Sues Kansas City, Missouri Police Department

Kansas Citians, guess how this is going to go.

Dash cam video shows Kansas City, Mo. police officer punching a suspect; man is now suing

Check out the video and see what you think:

Looks as though he's absolutely guilty of walking while black, at the very least.

And you know who's going to pay for it, right?

This, likely, is what the city needs to do.

Local man's lawsuit against David Glass and his Royals hits the interwebs

It's one thing for this story to once again hit the local Star, it's quite another to go out on Yahoo!:

Fan injured by hot dog suing Kan. City Royals

And here, too:

Why injured fan's lawsuit may stand a chance

The story:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- If it had been a foul ball or broken bat that struck John Coomer in the eye as he watched a Kansas City Royals game, the courts likely wouldn't force the team to pay for his surgeries and suffering.

But because it was a hot dog thrown by the team mascot - behind the back, no less - he just may have a case.

The Missouri Supreme Court is weighing whether the ''baseball rule'' - a legal standard that protects teams from being sued over fan injuries caused by events on the field, court or rink - should also apply to injuries caused by mascots or the other personnel that teams employ to engage fans. Because the case could set a legal precedent, it could change how teams in other cities and sports approach interacting with fans at their games.

Coomer, of Overland Park, Kan., says he was injured at a September 2009 Royals game when the team's lion mascot, Sluggerrr, threw a 4-ounce, foil-wrapped wiener into the stands that struck his eye. He had to have two surgeries - one to repair a detached retina and the other to remove a cataract that developed and implant an artificial lens. Coomer's vision is worse now than before he was hurt and he has paid roughly $4,800 in medical costs, said his attorney, Robert Tormohlen.

But the fact is, Sluggerr didn't "throw" the hot dog, folks.  At the time this happened, Sluggerr was shooting these things from a cannon, of sorts. Unfortunately for Mr. Coomer--and Sluggerr and the team, frankly--it hit him in eye.

The thing is, I know John Coomer. John Coomer is a friend of mine. And I happen to know he originally merely asked the team to pay for his surgery and medical bills.

Mr. Glass and the team said no, solidly.

It was only then that Mr. C. then had to file suit, merely to cover the costs of said medical bills.

I'd have thought--and most people would, I think--that the team and virtually any other company would merely pay the bills, likely out of their insurance coverage, do the right thing, mark it up to good PR and call it a day.

Not the skin flint that David Glass is, apparently, sadly.

So now, not only has it gone to court but it's now going to the Missouri State Supreme Court.

Pitiful.

It just doesn't seem as though a few thousand dollars, to cover some medical bills for a fan who was injured at the stadium, by the team mascot, would much to ask or expect, given the millions upon millions the team makes each and every year, from all the other fans.

Shameful.

It's bad enough they don't win enough baseball, enough years, down through time.

They also have to first injure and then punish their own fans in the stands.

Ewing Kauffman must surely be--once again--spinning in his grave.

2 bits of good local news

I was pleased to see both these articles today in the Star. First, this one:

Appeals court turns down Chastain light-rail plan

 

 As a local Kansas Citian who's seen and heard so much of, by and about this now long-time expatriot of the city--I refuse to mention his name or put his picture here--it was great to see this case thrown out by the courts.

I've written here before about this person and issue--he no longer lives here, he hasn't lived here before, I'm all for mass transit but I think we should do and get it ourselves. I think it's clear that this person merely likes and gets attention by going on like this, on this issue.

As the writers to the Star in the letters to the Editor so repeatedly say, please, for the love of God, Mr. Chastain, freaking go away.  Please.

The other good, maybe great local news I saw today is this:

Appeals court reinstates lawsuit over Royals' hot dog toss

A Kansas man injured by a flying hot dog at a 2009 Royals game will get another bite at the sausage, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

John Coomer allegedly suffered a detached retina and other injuries when a foil-wrapped hot dog flung by Royals mascot Sluggerrr smacked him in the left eye. A jury ruled in March 2011 for the Royals, finding that being struck by airborne groceries was an inherent risk that Coomer assumed by buying a ticket.

The Missouri Western District Court of Appeals disagreed, however.

Ignoring the fact that I know this person to whom this happened, I feel strongly that this should have gone completely differently in the first trial, for starters. This person was at the Royals Stadium, got hit by a flying hot dog, literally, thrown by the mascot, suffered a detached retina because of it and merely wants--no, needs--his medical expenses covered but the team said no.

Not only did the team say no, they allowed it to go to trial. They preferred paying attorney fees to fight it than pay his medical expenses.

Forget that they could deduct these medical expenses as business done.

Forget that it hurts their public relations.

For David Glass, it seems, clearly, time and again, it's only about the financial "bottom line." It was and is all about costs. It's about keeping costs down and profits high, first and last.

It's disgusting.

If it weren't for being for the team, in spite of the owner, and for enjoying the game and the stadium so much, I would have no good feeling or desire for the Royals to win, year after year, season after season.

I say again, would that the Hall family would only purchase our Royals baseball team.

Links:

No More Glass

JACK: Support No-More-Glass.com's efforts to get rid of David Glass

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/15/4011903/appeals-court-hotdog-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

Life imitating art; humor imitating life

An actual headline I ran across today:

Judge Throws Out Suit By Torture Victim on Grounds It Would Inconvenience Important People

I tell you, there are many times anymore where I have to look twice to see if it's an actual headline or something written by and for "The Onion".  This, obviously, is one of those.

Sometimes it's funny.

Too many times, it's sad.


Have a great weekend, y'all.

Just the latest Funkhouser lawsuit---and what it's going to the city

I just saw this over at TKC and his link to the Star's Primebuzz site:

Shawn Pierce case v. Funkhouser resolved

by Mike Mansur
A former aide to Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser has “agreed in principle” to settle a lawsuit against the mayor and the city.
Sources familiar with the settlement said the amount was about $125,000.
Shawn Pierce had alleged in a lawsuit filed in January that he was victim of retaliatory termination because he had sided with Ruth Bates.
Bates, of course, is the former mayoral aide who sued Funkhouser, his wife, Gloria Squitiro, and the city for alleged harassment and discrimination. The city ultimately settled that lawsuit for $550,000, while Squitiro’s insurance company settled Bates’ claim against Squitiro for $45,000.

Someone please do the homework--the Star?  Dave Helling?  Steve Kraske?--and total up all the lawsuits and their corresponding dollars and tell us, the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri, just exactly how much, to date, these two have cost us.  Will you?  Please?  I know one of them was for $550,000.00, as this post says. 
 
Wasn't there one or two more or was that it? 
 
The fact is, besides the fact that we have gotten virtually zero leadership from this terribly not-dynamic duo (the Funk and his Squirt), they will have also, now, cost us, the citizens of Kansas City, and besides our additional self-respect, a minimum of $675,000.00 and any progress we might have otherwise made in this city.  Progress that could have been in neighborhoods and/or in fighting the shootings and killings in the city and/or fixing the infrastructure, all because we might otherwise have had a mayor--wife or no wife--who DID work with others and cooperated and compromised for the progress of the city.
 
But no, we had to have the Funk for our mayor.

I don't ever, ever remember a mayor who cost his or her city money because they were sued and sued repeatedly.  Do you?
 
The last laugh?
 
He's running for mayor again, as we all know.
 
 
I'd only laugh but he does have an outside chance at it.
 
Yikes.

Here's a terrific idea for the new year:  Mark Funkhouser, Gloria Squitiro and Clay Chastain all have to do the same thing--that is, go away.  Just go away, you three, just please go away.

Here's hoping.
 
 
Try to have a great weekend, y'all.
 
Link:  http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/entries/shawn-pierce-case-v-funkhouser-resolved/

Word to Lt. Gov. Kinder on health care

The word? Don't do us any favors, Lt. Governor. You have a lot of nerve, pal, suing in federal court to keep health care reform, even this watered-down version, from taking place. We need health care reform. We needed more than this--far more. We need a "public option" so health insurance companies could and would be more competitive and fair and decent, instead of fleecing us the way they have been since the 1950's. Give us a break, sir. Withdraw your lawsuit. Sure, I know you won't but a) you should never have filed it and b) you really should withdraw it now. Government makes us get car insurance, right? Would you dare suggest the government can't require us to get health insurance? Would you dare suggest that the current health care system works? Because if you do or are, I'd be happy to show you statistics that prove you wrong. You're an obstacle to solutions here, Lt. Governor. Please get out of the way. Link to original story: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/07/2069501/missouri-lieutenant-governor-sues.html

On opening the paper today

The Star today, this morning, continues to impress. Just seeing the front page of the paper today cofnirms this. If you only saw the 3 front page articles today, you'd know it was good writing, research and reporting, with great local color. One was about on the new minority look and shape of Garden City, Kansas and what it means for the people there and that town and so, of course, for America at large. Terrific. The second good and important one was on the Kansas City University of Biosciences and Medicine and their problems with former University President Karen Pletz. Finally, even the weakest article, the one on DNA testing of track dogs and associated, illegal dogfights, was still good reading and writing. You can see that this continual empasis on local stories, area residents and towns and cities makes for a great paper and is, as I've said before, the thing that will save local newspapers (for as long as they will exist in the transition to the internet and wireless news). So good on you, Kansas City Star and thanks very much for revitalizing the paper.

To the Kansas City Star: Don't do us any favors

The headline on the front page of The Kansas City Star today is "When might Squitiro return?"

The Star shouldn't even pose the question.

The answer is, hopefully, bloody never.

I mean, really, if you're Mayor Mark Funkhouser or his wife, Gloria Squitiro, evntually common sense should hit and the conclusion should be that a) you've cost the city you're supposed to run enough money (one-half million dollars in settling the lawsuit against her and her big mouth, was just one example) and b) for pity's sake, you can give him advice from home all you want.

Give it up.

The follow-up section of the same, continued article, back on page A20 had the following headline for it, too: "Her advising of Funkhouser continues away from City Hall".

And that's as it should be.

Hopefully, we'll leave this little arrangement just as it is, for the benefit of the all involved, but most particularly, the city and citizens of Kansas City, Missouri.

Link: http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1599158.html

Important read in The New York Times today

There is a huge story in The New York Times today that might otherwise be overlooked, I think.

It's about the "Hillary" Documentary that came out during the last Presidential election.

This documentary was a savaging of Hillary Clinton and her reputation and it had been paid for by corporations.

From the article:

"The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates."

"At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates."

What's happening here that concerns me most is that corporations are pushing to be able to flood money into opinionated, one-sided, possibly and even quite likely out-and-out negative "documentaries" that can assassinate an opponent's political career.

With corporations on one side, they've been joined by some liberal organizations like the ACLU and others that absolutely don't want any censorship but most liberals and organizations are, for the most part, against this idea for the corporations.

This rehearing of this case is going to be a huge battle and the American public will be greatly affected by it and for years to come, one way or another.

I contend that, for the good and sake of the country, we are better-served by keeping this huge well of money--and possible ugly negativeness--out of our political system.

To know about this case, the participants and the possible recriminations, I strongly recommend you read the article.

Link to story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

It can't be

The Kansas City Star reports this morning that the Funk is hinting on running for Mayor again.

From the Star:

Funkhouser lists what he hopes to achieve for KC — and all but commits to seeking second term as mayor

Excerpts from the article:

"Among his proposals: Economic help for the inner city. Safer streets and more police. Better basic services in neighborhoods."

Really? So what has he done up to now, as Mayor, to see that this was happening? How did that 30 year old man and the child he was holding last week get shot in their front yard at that party, if he was working on that?

I'm not saying he could singlehandedly keep that from happening. My point is, I'm not aware of anything the Funk has done publicly to keep the streets--all the streets--of Kansas City any safer.

Here's the scary part of the article, to me:

"Funkhouser told The Star he had made mistakes but believes voters still share his vision — all but committing to running for a second term."

Yikes. This sounds like a really bad joke.

He cost us over one-half million dollars, because he has to have his wife in office and she has a big mouth, he's sued us, the citizens of Kansas City once and has threatened in the last week to do it again--and he still wants to be our Mayor?

And lead us?

Really?

Then, check this out:

"'You always wish you’d been smarter sooner,' he said. 'To me the voters are going to say, ‘Is he focused on the things that matter to me?’ ”

"To prove that focus, Funkhouser said, next month he’ll roll out details of implementing his New Tools initiative, a program to provide economic incentives for investment in lower-income neighborhoods."

Next month?

Are you freaking kidding me?

What's wrong with this month?

Shoot, for that matter, what's wrong with right now?

You're way overdue, Mayor. Better get it going.

Please.

Link to story:
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1374982.html

Addendum to original post:

Now that I think of it, though, there are two issues here. The first is that, while the Funk is Mayor, he should just be doing things for the City, period, of course. He should be doing all he can to make this a better place to live. Like we didn't know that, right?

Second, though, is the sheer entertainment of this guy running, again, for Mayor.

That'll be a hoot.

He'll go down in flames, this time 'round.

It starts to come out now

Now that W and the Dick are no longer able to keep the lid on all their shenanigans--and that of Halliburton and KBR--the information and truth starts slowly coming out.

It's being reported just now that the Army has officially declared that "An Army investigation calls the electrocution death of a U.S. soldier in Iraq 'negligent homicide' caused by military contractor KBR Inc. and two of its supervisors."

More: "the manner of death for Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, has been changed from accidental to negligent homicide because the contractor failed to ensure that 'qualified electricians and plumbers' worked on the barracks where Maseth died."

I'm thinking there was a high likelihood that there were orders from the White House or the Vice President's mansion or somewhere that said this kind of thing was to be referred to as "accidental", as long as the Bush Cabal was in power.

So this is how it starts.

I think there is going to be a great deal more information coming out about our government and what was--and was not--done and by and to whom in the next several months.

It's not going to be pretty for the clowns who were in power, either.

You might want to sell that Halliburton stock about now.


Link to original story online here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_contractors_electrocutions