Thursday, March 19, 2009


Maryland #2 Praises Defeat of Women's
Right Under Amendment #2

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown was "very pleased" to learn that victims of domestic violence would be unable to qualify for concealed carry permits. These State Police-issued permits would have given special preference to women who had protective orders against their abusers to carry a concealed firearm for their protection.

Once again, a Democrat has placed politics ahead of public safety, and the health and welfare of women and children across the state of Maryland. And what a peculiar comment from the Lt. Governor's office... he is "very pleased?" What an insensitive way to respond to a serious (but entirely expected) defeat for victims of domestic violence. I guess he is "very pleased" that we will continue to have a society where only the abusers and violent thugs have unlimited access to firearms.

It's outrageous.

Fortunately, "help is on the way."

My domestic violence proposal will give every woman the right to carry a concealed firearm for protection from domestic abusers and violent criminals.

Why not turn the page on the past, and join me in the future where we will offer a proactive agenda to knock out domestic violence in our county and state.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Here is an article from USA Today about the Chris Brown-Rihanna domestic violence controversy.

When I warned a few weeks ago that young people would receive a message through the outcome of this case, I referred to the criminal justice system and the media.

The shocking part is that the horrible message and example were given not by those entities, but by the victim herself, when she chose to go back to her abuser in the most public fashion. It also appears that career considerations are being placed above mental, emotional, and physical health concerns. And that should never be the case, whether one is rich and famous or living in poverty.

This is a sad but textbook case of the destructive cycle of violence in many abusive relationships.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


"County Sources" Leak Confidential
Personnel and Medical
Record Details of Disabled Police Officers to
Washington Post Reporters

A Exclusive!

Yesterday's Washington Post featured another slanted article on our elected officials' attempt to deny retirement benefits to disabled Montgomery County police officers.

One breakthrough has vindicated the position of those of us who support our county police officers:

According to the Post itself:

"The Post's review of county and state documents and interviews with current and retired officers did not uncover deception."

So what is the problem? As we all know, the problem is really that our elected officials want to make disabled police officers scapegoats for their fiscal mismanagement.

And that the Washington Post and those officials would like the money currently going to disabled officers to be redirected to developers and the special interests that control the decisions made in Rockville.

But the real breaking news in the Post was not even recognized by the Post! So you'll have to turn here to get the real story.

First, read this quote from the article:

"County officials declined to disclose the names of officers on disability, saying such information is private."

No kidding!

But wait a minute... Further ahead in the article, you find this:

"Kevin Strange, 38, also was awarded disability payments, according to county sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the program."

The "county sources" go on to reveal confidential details of Officer Strange's disability status and medical history.

How did the Post not recognize this unethical release of private information?

Saturday, March 07, 2009


Montgomery Executive Tools Around
Town in Chauffered 2008 Suburban

How do you follow up the construction of a $77,000 Luxury Master Bath Suite in your office, at taxpayer expense?

If you're Ike Leggett, you trade up to a 2008 Chevrolet Suburban SUV with chauffer, again at taxpayer expense.

While the Washington Post is giving its dear friend Leggett a free pass on his recent misuse of taxpayer-funded County Cable Montgomery for partisan campaign activity, its reporters and columnists also have declined to point out the executive's sheer environmental hypocrisy.

Now, let me be clear. I have said many times that - while we have gravely serious issues regarding pollution, carcinogens, and toxic waste here and around the world - the idea of "global warming caused by human activity" is the greatest hoax of our time.

And, therefore, I have no issue with someone driving a Chevy Suburban. In fact, I would recommend such a vehicle highly.

But I'm not Ike Leggett. And Mr. Leggett has joined his Democratic allies in preaching the gospel of global warming and touting the high-cost corporate "solutions" that will drain all of our wallets if enacted.

Therefore, if you believe global warming is real - and you believe Mr. Leggett practices what he preaches - then you will be shocked, horrified, stunned, and in utter stupefied disbelief to find that he is being driven around the county in one of the largest SUVs available today.

The same kind of SUVs always being criticized by Mr. Leggett and his allies.

Do as I say, not as I do. Indeed.

And about the chauffer...

If Sarah Palin - a governor - can drive herself around Alaska, why can't Mr. Leggett drive his personal vehicle himself? How much did/is this plush ride cost/costing the taxpayer, during what is becoming a veritable depression?

There are too many questions. And with a free pass from The Washington Post, don't expect any answers.

Friday, March 06, 2009


A Exclusive!

Despite my making Washington Post reporters aware of County Executive Ike Leggett's improper use of taxpayer-funded County Cable Montgomery to engage in partisan campaign activity (read previous entry below), the Post has yet to print a word about it.

There is no accountability for our elected officials when the local press actively protects the interests of Democratic politicians.

Thursday, March 05, 2009


Post Co. Director Buffett Owns Over
7.5 Million Shares of Nike Stock,
Valued at $448 Million; Son Peter
Operates Nike Charitable Foundation


Holy conflict of interest, Batman! You might have seen the "expose" hit piece on Maryland athletic apparel company UnderArmour in the Washington Post Sports section recently.

In this piece of "journalism," the reporter tried to create the impression that UnderArmour was engaged in inappropriate recruiting activity on behalf of the University of Maryland. And failed to make a strong case to verify that accusation. It also included a vulgar quote suggesting that the UnderArmour shoe in question was low in quality.

At the same time, it presented one of the warmest, most favorable impressions of sweatshop giant Nike that I have ever read. It stated, for example, that Nike would never engage in this sort of activity. And that Nike would never allow a high school athlete to tour its Oregon factory.

There's just one problem.

Washington Post Company Director Warren Buffett just happens to own massive amounts of Nike stock. Furthermore, he has pledged $1 billion in Berkshire Hathaway Stock to a Nike charitable foundation that just happens to be operated by his son, Peter.

Most importantly, the Post article failed to disclose this incredible conflict of interest.

And what a conflict of interest it is, ladies and gentlemen! Any athletic apparel analyst knows that UnderArmour is one of the fastest growing companies in the field. It is now moving into the shoe market, currently dominated by... Nike. So this article, potentially directed by Buffett himself(?), cast a shadow on the integrity of upstart UnderArmour. It cast an extremely favorable light on Nike. And it went so far as to - conveniently - trash a shoe line that is a potential threat to Nike.

It's outrageous.

Of course, we know that failure to disclose conflicts of interest is simply operating procedure at The Washington Post. But once again, the Post has embarrassed itself and made clear that it operates under the lowest of journalistic standards.

When it comes to using the Post as a weapon for his business interests, Warren Buffett has one message for his newsroom:

Just do it.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009


Leggett Attacks District 4 Special Election
Candidate Robin Ficker on Taxpayer-funded
Cable Program

A Exclusive!!

Last evening, County Executive Ike Leggett used his taxpayer-funded program, "One on One," to attack and mock Republican County Council candidate Robin Ficker. Host Holly Woerner stated that Ficker had moved from Damascus (wrong - he lived in Boyds) to Silver Spring so he could run for the District 4 special election. Woerner asked Leggett what his reaction was to that.

Leggett replied that Ficker would now show he can lose in every part of the county. Just one problem - under county and state campaign finance and ethics regulations, Mr. Leggett is not allowed to make that type of partisan campaign remark on County Cable Montgomery.

Readers of this blog well remember how I exposed a previous incident of partisan use of County Cable Montgomery. CCM was airing promotional segments on Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony Brown. In essence, our taxpayer-funded channel was being used to promote statewide candidates on behalf of the Maryland Democratic Party.

That was wrong, and so was last night's broadcast. The offending statements should be removed from any rebroadcast of "One on One," and the county owes the taxpayers an explanation for this partisan electioneering on behalf of Democratic council candidates.