Six months ago, a family in Texas was advised by a vet that their four year old dog was suffering from a degenerative spinal defect and needed to be put to sleep. Just last week, the family were contacted by a vet technician who told them she'd quit working at the clinic because animals were being abused, and that the family pet wasn't dead, but was being kept alive to be used as a blood donor for other dogs.
The Harrises whisked Sid away to another animal hospital, where he was said to be fine. But the vet there noticed something: Sid showed signs of blood transfusions.
Jim Eggleston, the Harrises attorney, tells the Telegram that Sid was used as a blood donor and to test experimental treatments. He has heard that it may have happened to other dogs and some cats, too.
The vet has been arrested and other animals rescued from his facility.
Read more: http://blog.triblive.com/thisjustin/2014/04/30/family-says-dead-dog-alive-used-as-blood-donor/#ixzz30RGbteJi
Authorities raided a popular veterinary clinic Tuesday morning after a familys shocking discovery that their pet that they thought was euthanized was kept alive.
The family alleges that a veterinarian at the Camp Bowie Animal Clinic kept their dog, Sid, alive for six months. Sids owner, Marian Harris said she gave Dr. Lou Tierce permission to put the four-year-old Leonberger down last October due to health problems. But eight days ago, Harris received a disturbing phone call from a former employee of the animal clinic. The employee told her that Sid was still alive, imprisoned in a cage.
The betrayal is so incredibly intense that nothing you have prepares you for the emotions. Theres anger, theres joy that you have your dog back, theres betrayal of this intense trust. And so its just really hard to camp on one particular emotion, said Harris.
Harris and her husband said they marched into the clinic and found Sid living inside a cage in a back room. He was able to walk and jump in the back of my minivan so it was an excitement to be reunited, said Harris.
Seriously, and I say this as someone who is now retired but, over the course of my professional career was first a trial lawyer, then a law professor and finally a government attorney - this is an outrageously stupid and futile position for Obama and his Justice Department to take, and an egregious waste of taxpayer money - witness the fact that the justices across the political spectrum from Roberts to Sotomeyer have excoriated the Justice Dept. in oral argument.
And please, no more puffery about Obama being a constitutional law scholar.
He was NEVER a SCHOLAR on ANY legal topic, let alone Constitutional Law - i.e., he never published a scholarly paper, let alone book; never participated as a panel member at scholarly conferences; was known for NOT engaging in scholarly discussions/debate with fellow faculty members; wasn't even on tenure track. He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors -
- at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:
At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3) RACISM AND LAW.
Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.
Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.
He was a part-time, adjunct instructor - NEVER a professor at any level (assistant, associate or full), but merely given the courtesy title of "professor" by students addressing him.
His publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort, much less any academic writings on constitutional law. Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of affirmative action in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.
She's been building up an enemies list of everyone who crossed her, according to her close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clintons three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was tough and mean enough.
On top of that, the Clintons are stalling on releasing tens of thousands of additional documents/records from the Clinton presidency.
What is Hillary hiding? I doubt that records of decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege. Who knows what fresh hell will be brought to light concerning either or both of the Clintons, should she be the nominee. I have no doubt the GOP's own opposition research is saving a few bombshells to release in the event she is the nominee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP
And that level of rage and vengeance was BEFORE she suffered international humiliation with the whole Ken Starr/Lewinsky/impeachment nightmare.
and would constitute an end run around the 22nd amendment. The Clintons said it in Bill's campaign - you get two for the price of one, i.e, Hillary was the co-president. And in fact, she was heavily involved in all policy matters and decisions.
Hillary's reign would definitely be Bill Clinton redux, only nastier, given her thirst for revenge and her enemies' list, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by her close friend and confidant, Diane Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clintons three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was tough and mean enough.
Yet more records are still being held back, according to Politico: "The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clintons office. What is Hillary hiding? I doubt decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP
Twenty-second Amendment, amendment (1951) to the Constitution of the United States effectively limiting to two the number of terms a president of the United States may serve. It was one of 273 recommendations to the U.S. Congress by the Hoover Commission, created by Pres. Harry S. Truman, to reorganize and reform the federal government. It was formally proposed by the U.S. Congress on March 24, 1947, and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
Nation of Change/David Sirota has a scathing article about how Rahm Emanuel has embraced old-style Chicago corruption by diverting property taxes each year into a half billion dollars a year slush fund which he as mayor controls absolutely.
Immediately after taking office, he doled out a $7 million subsidy to benefit a grocery chain, the CEO of which gave Emanuel's campaign $25,000. That's a 280% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".
Another $29 million subsidy went to support a new skyscraper development plan, i.e., "a very expensive corporate plaza" for the building. I know you join in me in being shocked, I say, shocked to learn that the building will house the new Chicago headquarters of a law firm whose employees have "given" Emanuel's campaign $125,000. That's a 232% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".
The final example is Emanuel's $55 million subsidy for a new hotel near Chicago's convention center. The investment company which owns a major stake in the construction firm gave Emanuel's campaign $31,500.
That, fellow DUers is an unbelievable 1,745% -ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE PERCENT- RETURN ON INVESTMENT/BRIBE/"CAMPAIGN DONATION"
Yet, Emanuel is refusing to use the cash from that slush fund to shore up the pensions. Instead, his new pension "reform" proposal cuts pension benefits, requires higher contributions from public employees, raises property taxes but also quietly increases his slush fund.
Why, you ask, would Emanuel refuse to relinquish some of the half-billion dollars a year that is going into his slush fund? Perhaps because he has been using it to enrich Chicago's corporate class, including some of his biggest campaign donors.
Not to sound like a broken record, but again: This same thing occurs in states and cities across the country. The wealthy corporate interests who bankroll politicians have for years convinced those politicians to not make required pension payments and to instead spend the cash on taxpayer subsidies the kind that happen to go to those politicians' donors. Now that the bill for such irresponsibility is coming due, those bankrolled politicians are trying to protect the subsidies their donors so cherish by trying to balance budgets primarily through punitive measures against taxpayers and public employees.
This expose of Congressional candidate Marjorie Margolies (in a crowded primary field of Dems for a congressional seat) has a tremendous amount of disturbing detail - my conclusion after reading the entire article(which I urge all to do) is that she and her ex-husband, ex-con, ex-Congressman, Ed Mezvinsky were two birds of a feather. No surprise that their son makes his millions from hedge funds. Both parents were very slick at scamming the system. She wouldn't stand a prayer of getting elected if she weren't now a Clinton in-law. There are several other candidates much more deserving of both respect and votes. But in such a crowded primary, sometimes the good guys divide the votes, and the least deserving ends up winning.
The Huffington Post earlier reported that over the past several years, Margolies was paid an unusually large salary given the size of her charity, Women's Campaign International, whose revenue in recent years was in the very low millions. In defending that salary in December, WCI noted that the charity's board of directors determines compensation -- not Margolies, who still runs the charity.
That explanation, however, elided one critical detail: For the first three years of WCI's existence, and at a crucial board meeting at which the decision about her salary was made, Margolies was herself the chairman of the board.
On Dec. 9, 2001, Margolies, as chairman, convened a meeting of WCI's board to discuss salary. Previous minutes date her chairmanship to Dec. 7, 1998, the charity's first meeting -- one month after she lost a bid to become Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor. For WCI's first three years, its only board members were Margolies, Fredrica Friedman and her husband, Stephen Friedman. Nonprofit watchdogs consistently warn charities that a husband and wife should not both serve on a board, that they certainly should not make up two-thirds of it, and that the head of the charity should not also be the board's chairman.
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 15,480
- 2016 (77)
- 2015 (254)
- 2014 (125)
- 2013 (72)
- 2012 (12)