« Hezbollah Fires Iranian Made Missiles Into Israel | Main | What's This? Cynthia McKinney is Down 25 Points in the Polls? »

Cindy Up to More Sheehanigans: She Lied to Buy Crawford Property

Bryan at Hot Air received an email today which said that radio talkshow host Mike Gallagher discussed Cindy's newest purchase on his show and revealed that Cindy didn't actually buy the land herself but had another anti-war activist posing as a Katrina victim buy it for her:

The Mike Gallagher Show had Sheehan's story about the land as his subject today. The news has an interview of the lady who owned the land. She said another person actually bought the land for Sheehan. This fella led the land owner to believe he was a Katrina victim and was (I theorize) trying to start a new beginning or some sob story. Cindy knew that nobody would sell her the land so she used some Anti-war activist to buy it and he lied about who he was! End justifies the means.

The Waco Tribune-Herald provides more detail about Cindy's and her friend's Sheehanigans:

Longtime Crawford resident Bobby D. Ramsey sold a little more than five acres to Gerald T. Fonseca, a New Orleans native who said he was displaced by Hurricane Katrina last fall. Fonseca was in Crawford along with hundreds of other war protesters when the hurricane destroyed his home Aug. 29.


Fonseca, who identifies himself as a Vietnam veteran and a member of Veterans for Peace, had been living more recently in Eagle Rock, Mo., with relatives. He has been in Crawford the past four weeks, staying at the Crawford Peace House.

[snip]

While Fonseca's name is on the deed as the land's new owner, Sheehan's protest group will use the property for this year's Camp Casey, the peace camp named for Sheehan's son, Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Fort Hood soldier killed in Iraq in 2004.

In September, Fonseca said, ownership of the land will be transferred to Sheehan.

Ramsey, who soon may find unexpected neighbors when protesters move into a huge tent on the property he sold, said he was unaware before the sale that it would be used by Sheehan to host Camp Casey in August.

"(Fonseca) said he was going to build a home and, one day, a shop (on the land)," Ramsey said Thursday, speaking from his adjacent property in Crawford. "He told me that Katrina wiped him out.. . . . It didn't even occur to me that he could use it for this."

Fonseca confirmed he never indicated to his new neighbors that the land would be transferred to Sheehan, but he said that was always the plan. He said the $52,500 used to pay for the property -- a spread of rustic, wooded prairie with no houses -- came from Sheehan and her Gold Star Families for Peace.

Fonseca said he acted as "an agent" for Sheehan, negotiating the purchase and closing the deal with Ramsey.

What lying slimeballs.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cindy Up to More Sheehanigans: She Lied to Buy Crawford Property:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Cindy Sheehan Now Bush's Neighbor

» MOOREWATCH linked with Casey Sheehan's mother is a liar

» Gulf Coast Pundit linked with Sheelob The Sheebag Caught Lying

» Iowa Voice linked with Speaking Of Shrill Women...

» The Right Angle @ Human Events linked with Cindy's 'Sheehanigans': Lying Her Way Into Crawford

» Cindy Crawford linked with Cindy Crawford

Comments (48)

Whats a liberal to do??... (Below threshold)
914:

Whats a liberal to do??

Hmmm.I wonder if t... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

I wonder if they're plans will violate the zoning ordinances for that specific parcel.

The reason I'm wondering is that some areas will identify any structure built that is intended to house more than a handful of non-related people as a boarding house. To build one of those you generally need a special permit as it's a commercial structure intended to house people. And because boarding houses are often sources of illegal behavior and 911 calls.

Be amusing if it turns out they cannot build what they intend due to zoning restrictions.

In two years and a bit Cind... (Below threshold)
Retread:

In two years and a bit Cindy will be sitting on five acres of nothing of importance. Buying this land through a strawman is the most amusing thing she's done. Let me enjoy the absurdity of it.

And they use the Katrina di... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

And they use the Katrina disaster for their own cause. Guess its no different than using her own son though.

At least She has not physic... (Below threshold)
914:

At least She has not physically assaulted anyone? unlike Her new friend.

Can she go to jail for this... (Below threshold)

Can she go to jail for this scam? Someone please say yes.

"In two years and a bit Cin... (Below threshold)

"In two years and a bit Cindy will be sitting on five acres of nothing of importance."

Well, less than that...since she assures us that she will keep up her 'hunger strike' until, I dunno, Bush kills himself or resigns or something, which isn't going to happen, that means Cindy won't be doing much of anything by, say, the end of August. Is 5 acres a big enough burial plot for her ego?

Is 5 acres a big enough ... (Below threshold)

Is 5 acres a big enough burial plot for her ego?

No.

Perhaps the neighboring pro... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Perhaps the neighboring properties will take the opportunity to fertilize their land with an abundance of chicken litter during August.

- MikeB

MikeB,If the neigh... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

MikeB,

If the neighbors do that, the camp Casey Commies will just think its more burned out hippy war protestors arriving to join them.

Mama Moonbat is going to fi... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Mama Moonbat is going to find out that owning property has a lot more responsibilities to local government that most existing homeowners have found out.

There are zoning laws, health regulations, and a whole slew of laws that the average Texas citizen has to abide by. What she does on the property might be in conflict with the Texas Department of Agriculture (it is farming/cattle country), the Texas EPA, the local water reclaimation district, the Texas Departments of Commerce and Treasury (if she wants to engage in any business activities), and that's just state and local laws.

Let's be fair here. Just as... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Let's be fair here. Just as Disney used agents to buy swamp and orange groves around Orlando, the use of a third party name to keep the seller from jacking up the price is a common practice. In this case, it is more likely the seller would decide not to sell given the desire not to have a circus neighboring their land.

The ~$11,000 per acre may or may not be going rate, though it seems a bit high to me (indicating the seller felt they could make a quick profit on the land).

Much of Texas does not have zonning limitations (see Houston as a prime example). I would be amazed if this 5 acres of undeveloped scrub land has any. However, there is likely to be county standards on construction, sanitation, nuisannce, etc. The question is if the local officials will want to go to the trouble of enforcing these regulations. Can you say "Pro bono high power city slicker lawyers for Cindy"? I thought that you could.

Whos walking down the stree... (Below threshold)
914:

Whos walking down the streets of old Crawford, smiling at every camera She meets. Whos penning a tell all attack on King George? Everyone knows its Cindy..


The Association

Hmmm...I am not su... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Hmmm...

I am not sure what Texas law would be on this matter.

Would Fonseca acting as an "agent" for Sheehan for the purchase be acting as a real estate agent without a license?

Would Fonseca recieving 52K (personal income?) from Sheehan's foundation be subject to taxation by the state and feds?

Can transfeering money from Gols-Star families to a third party to purchase property for the second party, be considered Monay Laundering?

Maybe somebody in Texas should look into this.

SheehanigansI love... (Below threshold)
forrest:

Sheehanigans

I love it! Now when my lefty friends spew their BDS, I'll just call Sheehanigans.

Thanks a lot 914, now I can... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Thanks a lot 914, now I can't get the damned Slinky song out of my head.

Matt, I'm kind of wondering... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Matt, I'm kind of wondering the same things. Yes, it's perfectly legal to use agents to buy property. However, this sort of thing has to be done carefully when transferring all of the money and titles around. From what I've read, it looks like GSFFP transferred the money to Fonseca's personal accounts for him to buy the property. Having done so, he now intends to sign the title over to Sheehan personally. Which comes out looking like Sheehan has tapped the organization for $52K for her personal use. Smells like tax evasion to me.

Another thought occurred to... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Another thought occurred to me right after I posted that. Several of the Southern states have passed special tax exemptions or deferrals for Katrina victims. Has Texas done so? Since Fonseca was misrepresenting himself as a Katrina victim, did he take advantage of any such?

There is a bright side for ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

There is a bright side for Ramsey. He'll make quite a profit off of this sale as the land will probably be back up for sale in two years at a depressed price. Not only that, but he'll be able to make interest off of the money until he can buy the land back.

$52,000 - from sale of land
+~$1,500 - interest for 2 years
-$40,000 - repurchase of land
------------
=~$13,500 - profit

Only Hillary! could find a better "investment" opportunity.

Since Fonseca was misrep... (Below threshold)

Since Fonseca was misrepresenting himself as a Katrina victim, did he take advantage of any such?

Actually, he really is a Katrina victim. The question now is if Sheehan will be benefitting from his benefits in the land transfer. I'm no legal expert - far from it - but that would most definitely be illegal.

If the whacko's are operati... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

If the whacko's are operating under tax exempt status (Fed 501), they have just comitted a major federal crime with the transfer of the 'tax exempt' money unless the deed is in the organizations name, been there, done that. Someone with a law degree start filing charges, they will stick or become so expensive the entire whacko organization will collapse.

Reagan conservative lashes ... (Below threshold)
Atrios:

Reagan conservative lashes out at 'hijackers of the conservative movement'
[aka Culture of Corruption]
SLIMEBALLS
John Byrne
Published: Friday July 28, 2006
He says national security decisions are too often made for political gain. And he maintains that Tom DeLay used "legal plunder" for the "immoral purpose of holding onto power."
[Slimeball Fake Christian]
A Democrat? No - His name is Richard Viguerie, a conservative icon and key architect of Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. Known to many as the godfather of direct-mail campaign fundraising, his four-decade career has succored scores of conservative candidates and grassroots causes.

A balding grandfather with a wry Texan's smile, Viguerie is a seasoned conservative who confidently brushes aside accusations that his criticism of Republicans is intended for personal gain. On Monday, he sat down to talk about his new book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
[SlimeBALLS]
Modeling himself after Barry Goldwater, a 1960s conservative iconoclast whose reactionary stances later positioned Ronald Reagan for victory in 1980, Viguerie says the worst day of his political life was when Lyndon Johnson defeated Goldwater for president in 1964. Viguerie, who aided Reagan's election but later became critical of some of his policies, today sees a landscape where Republicans run using a mantle of traditional values but carry the banner of conservatism [Fake Christian Slimeballs] only as far as it takes them to get elected.
Viguerie begins his book with two quotes. "The first is from Ronald Reagan and it says something along the lines of: 'I tell my people that when we begin to refer to the federal government as us, we've been here too long.' And then I recount a story of [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay (R-TX), late one night after dinner, he wants to light up a cigar and the manager says I'm sorry, Mr. DeLay... it's against the law to smoke in a federal building. And DeLay says, 'I am the federal government.'"
[What a Slimeball]
Tom DeLay is singlehandedly the primary person responsible for the most expansion of the government[Conservative? Hardly] since Lyndon Johnson, and that's the prescription drug benefit. He's the one who kept the vote open in the House of Representatives... to make sure that he had enough votes... and twisted arms, and passed onto our children billions of dollars of debt.
While you paycheck pundits are worried about, "theories" and Cindy Sheehan you have taken your eyes off of your Slimeball Sudo 'CHristians'

I don't know if you guys are just stupid and corrupt, or just stupid.

-Atrios

Yeh I just love it when my ... (Below threshold)
Atrios:

Yeh I just love it when my righty friends are so corrupt! The Delaynannigans!

Are you guys gonna elect these neo-liberals again ad stick your kids with billions of dollars in debt just so you can say later, with a sad digusted face. "Yes, Kids, I sm truly sorry, they fooled us, they stole from me and indebted you"
-Atrios

Ah, Atrios. That bastion o... (Below threshold)

Ah, Atrios. That bastion of righteous indignation and self-importance. How nice. That "direct-mail campaign fundraising" thing - is that anything like the fancy envelope I recieved from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. this morning promising me a sexy new canvas tote bag if I only contribute $10 to the Democrats to squash George Bush's "staggering", "sweeping onslaught" to cripple the environment?

And by the way, it's not "sudo". It's pseudo, slimeball.

Actually, I don't know so much about the "laws" on what they can to with the property. I'm wondering what all those poor saps who give their money to Gold Star Families are thinking about that money being spent on a transfer of real property to one person who hasn't done a damn thing for their cause but act the fool and shoot off her mouth causing more people everyday to say, "WTF?".

And by the way, it's not "s... (Below threshold)
Atrios:

And by the way, it's not "sudo". It'

nope it's SUDO look it up, maybe you will learn 'something' other than what you 'don't know' about politics.

Wait, maybe you were spelli... (Below threshold)

Wait, maybe you were spelling "sumo"?

Yeah, that's it! Sumo Christians. I like it!

Looked it up <a h... (Below threshold)

Looked it up

Dictionary.com

Did you mean sudor?
Suggestions:
sudor
scudo
udo
sudd
suds
budo
judo
kudo
ludo
sumo
sudor

I also looked up "Atrios".

It appears there is no such thing.

I love the outrageously hyp... (Below threshold)
aja10024:

I love the outrageously hypocritical and self-serving positions you hold on this issue, especially regarding:

1) Taxes - all you right wing types who just hate paying taxes, and who think that paying taxes to some evil "big"government who will then use "your money" for some silly social program that might help somebody else is tantamount to stealing from you, are now in support of the very system you despise -- taxes -- and hope they will be used to hurt or penalize someone you disagree with.

2) Zoning Laws and other Government regulations - you also love to complain about having to comply with so many darn rules that all these "socialist" sounding government agencies put into place to try to maintain community cohesion and efficient use of the local infrastructure, and yet now you are fully supporting zoning laws and other regulations -- that you would in most other instances consider to be an unacceptable infringement on your personal rights, or your property rights -- just so that those laws and regulations can hurt or penalize someone you disagree with.

3) Free Market/Capitalism - you all love to rant and rave about how everyone should be free to spend their money however they darn well please, and "nobody can tell me what to do on MY land that I bought with MY money." And yet, when Gerald Fonseca decides to buy a piece of land, and then decides to give it or sell it to someone else, a day, or a month, or a year later, for a dollar, or for a small or even huge profit, why can't he do that?
Since when does a buyer of a house have to tell the seller where he got the money from, or if he plans to sell (or even give) the property away in a day a year, and who he will sell it to?
Of course, if he stole the money, or if he doesn't report receiving that $52 K as a gift -- which would be considered as taxable income for 2006 -- or if Sheehan used money that was not hers (i.e. she misappropriated funds from the donations of the GoldStar Family organization), then any or all of those potentially illegal activities would have to be answered to, and possible fines, or more severe penalties, even jail time, paid, according to tax regulations or other laws on or before April 15, 2007.
But in the meantime, it's amazing that the good old-fashioned red-blooded American "Don't tread on Me" approach that is mirrored in the "Don't mess with Texas" sentiment that you would typically defend to the death -- when it refers to something that YOU are doing -- gets thrown completely out the window when someone that you disagree (Fonseca) with has the audacity to do what he wants (e.g. buy some property) and then later do something else with that property (e.g. let his friends stay there, or sell it to someone in the future).

And now I can't wait for slings and arrows of the "you are a tin-hat crazy" or the litany of other mean-spirited and highly personal attacks that will undoubtedly be thrown at me for having the nerve to present an argument that points out what seem to be obviously hypocritical positions/arguments many of you are taking on this issue.
Of course, you might also decide to take another approach, and offer some kind of logical, reasonable or objective arguments that show that you really DO believe that:
a) paying income and property taxes is a good thing, and as such, Cindy Sheehan should have to pay here fair share (which, as a moonbat liberal, or whatever other school-yard names you call her, I'll bet she gladly pays, since most liberals do see the value in that crazy idea of "everybody chipping in a little of what they have for the betterment of the whole community"), or
b) zoning laws and other gov't regulations (that typically limit what the individual can do, in order to be a participating member of the larger community) are a good thing, and that enforcement of them -- even with the limitations they bring -- are valued, and should be directed evenly, and fairly (no more or less than would be directed at anyone else in Crawford), regarding the Fonseca and/or Sheehan property, or
c) people should be allowed to buy the property they want, and then sell it to someone else later, without having to divulge what all their thoughts and intentions are to the seller in advance, and get his blessing before closing the transaction.

Who knows, maybe you will make some or all of those arguments/take those positions... and if you do, then you may actually have a lot more in common with this liberal democrat then you could have ever imagined. Or maybe not. I wonder which approach you'll take.... :-)

Hmmm.1. @ atrios</... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

1. @ atrios

It's frigging "pseudo" you moronic twit.

"sudo" isn't even a fucking word.

2.

And yet, when Gerald Fonseca decides to buy a piece of land, and then decides to give it or sell it to someone else, a day, or a month, or a year later, for a dollar, or for a small or even huge profit, why can't he do that?

Because it wasn't his fucking money you utter imbecile.

Plus ...

There are a multitude of laws, depending on the state, concerning transactions involving non-profits and property/assets. I frankly wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that these idiots made some serious mis-steps in all this and will end up paying penalties.

All I saw above was people ... (Below threshold)

All I saw above was people saying that applicable laws should be enforced in this case, whether they are zoning and occupancy regulations at the local level or federal tax laws.

Odd that simply calling for the proper administration of justice gets the moonbats all riled up, isn't it?

Or, is it?

::-)

too bad losers... (Below threshold)
suzyq:

too bad losers

Atrios:1. It is PS... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Atrios:

1. It is PSEUDO, moron
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861736207/pseudo-.html

2. Don't you have your own blog to pollute?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/

3. Love those open threads of yours...too lazy or idiotic to actually write something there?

Ahhh, thanks, Ed... you pro... (Below threshold)
aja10024:

Ahhh, thanks, Ed... you proved my point so quickly, and completely!

Thank you for being a shining example of the kinds of rational, reasonable person that represents the conservative views typically expressed here, and the attempt to respond to one person's argument with an equally compelling counter-argument, rather than relying on crude, vulgar language and sophomoric personal attacks when you retorted with your erudite reply:

"Because it wasn't his fucking money you utter imbecile"

How does that explain why someone can't buy something with money that was given to him? Didn't anyone ever just "give" you money Ed? And if they ever did, when you decided to spend it, did you tell the clerk or salesmen when you were making your purchase with that money, just where the money came from? And did you feel obligated to tell the clerk what you were going to DO with that purchase?

And I was very impressed that your answer to me was preceded in the same post by your equally intelligent, objective reply to Atrios about the spelling of a word in question, when you offered this very compelling retort:

"It's frigging "pseudo" you moronic twit. 'sudo' isn't even a fucking word."

Wow, those kind of intellectually compelling arguments and wise choice of language must have made you the captain of your debating team at Harvard. It's inspiring to see how you lay out your argument in a succinct, convincing and wonderfully fact-filled manner, rather than stooping to the illogical and invalid Argumentum ad hominem approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to presenting an argument/position.

Your fellow right-wingers must be proud to have you speak for them on this blog.

SUDOsudo allows a pe... (Below threshold)
Atrios:

SUDO
sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or another user


Get it dithshiths?
You allowed the asswipe delay to screw America in your name.

Adjoran writes: "All I saw ... (Below threshold)
aja10024:

Adjoran writes: "All I saw above was people saying that applicable laws should be enforced in this case, whether they are zoning and occupancy regulations at the local level or federal tax laws. Odd that simply calling for the proper administration of justice gets the moonbats all riled up, isn't it? Or, is it?"

On the contrary, I wasn't "all riled up" at all (although I think "riled up" would be a mild description of the emotionally outraged state of mind that Ed seems to be in, judging by the tone and choice of words in his reply above). No, rather than being "riled" I thought my post indicated my sincere attempt to point out what looked like very hypocritical statements being made by so many folks here, which sounded to me like they were saying, in effect:

"I don't like it when the gov't does it to me (i.e. forcing me to pay high taxes, or submit to zoning or other community-interest laws etc.), and I wish they wouldn't do it anyone BUT I definitely AM in favor of it when the gov't does that same thing, in large doses, to someone who I disagree with."

And so far, the only two replies I've gotten to prove that my observation was incorrect were:

1) a crude, vulgar, personal attack from Ed, with no substantiating argument, facts or theories to counter my argument/obsevation, and

2) your slightly less caustic personal attack(although you couldn't resist the "moonbat" comment, could you?) I don't see how you offered any argument that proved that the standard "anti-tax, anti-big-gov't-rules & regulations" views that are typically posted here were not being completely flip-flopped into a "we actually DO like taxes and gov't rules, as long as they are being enforced against someone we disagree with" view -- and the obvious hypocicy that would be associated with taking that approach -- which was the point I was trying to make, sans any school-yard name-calling.

Rather than respond to that, you used what seems to be a very common response on this blog: lump the person you disagree with (me) into a huge group of people who you can make sweeping judgemental generalizations about, i.e. they are all "moonbats."

Maybe someone else would posit something here that rises above the ranks of "your mother wears Army boots" or some other similarly crude and unsubstantial reply. Or maybe not. ;-)

ATRIOS:"SU... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

ATRIOS:

"SUDO
sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or another user"

Which has nothing to do with your original "thought"...

"While you paycheck pundits are worried about, "theories" and Cindy Sheehan you have taken your eyes off of your Slimeball Sudo 'CHristians'"

So, tell me, do you have to work at being this stupid, or does it come to you naturally?

The problem with your argue... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

The problem with your arguement is that most of us believe the law must be followed even if we do not agree with the law. We may complain about the laws, but that doesn't mean that we don't expect them to be enforced when someone breaks them. There is nothing hypocritic about that.

Hey Gianni... very good rep... (Below threshold)
aja10024:

Hey Gianni... very good reply. That's the first level-headed, intelligent post that doesn't resort to name-calling that I've seen on here in a while. Thanks.

It's too bad that James' comment immediately above seems compelled to follow the much more typical type of reply found by the fans/supporters of this blog... ;-(

aja10024,I suppose... (Below threshold)

aja10024,

I suppose you consider the tone of your 500 word essay was the eptome of brotherly love and constructive criticism. What was your plan? Treat everyone like recalcitrant children and hope they snap back at you so you can further criticize? I noticed you had no such brickbats to unload on our visitor, Atrios, who was by far the most vitriolic by the time you piped in.

And if Atrios wants to apply arcane computer speak laced with name calling to his political screed that the layman won't understand just so he can pretend to lord over everyone else, then by all means he should remain difficult to understand.

I'll say no more about the matter because both of you have succeeded in doing nothing more than peeing in the corner.

Oyster, I'm sorry that I di... (Below threshold)
aja10024:

Oyster, I'm sorry that I didn't keep my answer to a five-word sound bite, like so many popular advertising slogans and political campaign themes tend to be. I assumed that intelligent discourse might involve more than a few words or thought fragments, but you're probably right, too may words may be a bad thing in attempting to discuss an idea... not unlike the way some people would much prefer to read a 10-page a comic book than a full-length novel. And it does seem that most people do keep things rather short here, and limit their posts to few simple but very nasty swear words.

And yes, you're right, Atrios did do some nasty name-calling, but it was mainly directed at Tom Delay, who was referenced in the article by John Byrne that he was quoting. The only other name-calling he engaged in which was directed personally to others who replied here was rather tame, I thought, and consisted of only:

"maybe you will learn 'something' other than what you 'don't know' about politics" and
"I don't know if you guys are just stupid and corrupt, or just stupid" and
"Get it dithshiths?" (is that even a swear word -- or any kind of a word -- that could be considered vitriolic?)

I don't know how you could consider those remarks to be "by far the most vitriolic" when the salvos directed back at him included these choice gems:

"It's frigging 'pseudo' you moronic twit. 'sudo' isn't even a fucking word" and
"It is PSEUDO, moron" and
"are you too lazy or idiotic to actually write something there?" and
"So, tell me, do you have to work at being this stupid, or does it come to you naturally?"

I don't know if these are the kind of words that you might find in a children's story like "My Pet Goat" but they seemed a lot more vitriolic than anything Atrios offered up.

Anyway, I guess you won't be replying, although I wish you would, or could, but it seems that you have chosen to have your say, and make your accusations, and then will "say no more about the matter." I guess you figure you can throw your own brickbats (the peeing in the corner metaphor was very cute) and then, by having the last word, you can feel like you've won the argument. Seems a bit cowardly, but that's your option.

I find it quite amusing tha... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

I find it quite amusing that Atrios (if it is the Duncan Black brand) has to come here to defend St. Cindy of the Fattening Fast, by ranting about Tom DeLay. Way to try to hijack a discussion thread, guy. Too bad you didn't actually talk about the issue at hand.

Last I checked, DeLay has resigned from his position as Speaker, and he is not running for re-election in November. Yet to you, he's some kind of eeeeeevillll genius. Sigh.

As for St. Cindy the Rotund, the whole point of this post is to flesh out (pardon the pun) the Sheehanigans that surrounded the property deal. Ok, sure, someone can buy something in someone else's name, or act as an agent on someone else's behalf. No problem there. However, IF Ms. SlimFast Sheehan acquired the property by way of someone allowing Fonesca to "borrow" funds that belonged to a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, that little funds diddling exercise will likely catch the eyes of someone at the IRS.

Personally, I think it's funny. Cindy was nothing until someone pulled strings and convinced her that she needed to hound GWB about her poor dead son. Never mind that a) GWB met with her the year before, and at that meeting, St. Cindy had nothing but good things to say about GWB; and b) Casey had just recently re-upped in the Army for another enlistment, as I recall. To hear her spew, little Casey was a baby who couldn't make any decisions on his own.

Cindy and her CodePINK post-menopausal rag gang hope and pray every night that someone from the center to right wing gets elected in 2008, or else they are nothing.

And never mind that the very people Cindy claims to support would slit her throat for speaking out in the first place, if they had the chance.

Cindy, meet life under Sharia.

Bye, Cindy.

[email protected] atrios... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ atrios

SUDO sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or another user

That has to be the lamest, stupidest and most all round idiotic thing anybody has ever posted on WizBang. And with some of the liberals we've got around here, that's is really fricking saying something.

Why not just use something even more obscure. You know. Use a phrase in cuniform for Christ's sake. Or how about a poetic allusion borrowed from 11th century Mongolian.

You utter dumbass.

[email protected] aja10024 <... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ aja10024

How does that explain why someone can't buy something with money that was given to him? Didn't anyone ever just "give" you money Ed?

When you're talking $50, that's one thing. $52,000 to purchase property while acting as an unlicensed agent, well that's a different thing. Haven't you ever heard of the IRS? There's a $5,000 trigger in banking systems where anything of that amount or greater gets reported to the IRS. On top of that there are many laws that govern what a non-profit can and cannot do with money and/or assets. And just handing it over to someone to buy property isn't how it works. You have a paper trail that has to be maintained in case of review by the IRS of your non-profit status.

Then there's the whole acting-as-an-agent thing. I don't know if Texas requires a license, but I believe NJ does. If Texas does require a license, then this guy is in a various amount of trouble.

Frankly I could give a rat's ass what these idiots do with the donations they've gotten. Personally I think they're the most unwholesome bunch around and utterly ineffective. I've taken the effort to ask many people about their opinions of Sheehan and her crowd. Most responses are split between "who?" and "what an asshole.".

Cindy is a "lying slimeball... (Below threshold)
Ken Hoop:

Cindy is a "lying slimeball?" What does that make
WMD liar Bush?

Hmmmm.Cin... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Cindy is a "lying slimeball?" What does that make WMD liar Bush?

I'd debate the facts and the truth with you, but that's a waste of time. Y

If you have any questions, search the archives. This has been dealt with conclusively a multitude of times and it's not worth the effort to go over it yet again.

Cindy lied. Crawford cried... (Below threshold)

Cindy lied. Crawford cried.

Now, moonbats posting here don't want to deal with the fact that Cindy was deliberately deceiving, and so they make off-topic posts.

Either that, or when it comes to supporting Cindy's agenda, the moonbats believe that the end justifies the means.

Even if you agree with Cindy about Iraq, you don't have to approve of Cindy's lying.

How does Mother Sheehan sup... (Below threshold)

How does Mother Sheehan support herself. I know she doesn't eat, but she seems to have lots of travel money.

Looks like Cindy outsmarted... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Looks like Cindy outsmarted the Crawford power brokers again.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy