I wrote about the Boston Globe being saved from the clutches of those nasty conservatives a few days ago. Red Mass Group expands on why John Henry of the Boston Red Sox is the perfect buyer for the paper:

John Henry on the other hand is a long time Democratic donor and activist. According to his donation records Henry has donated over $1.1M to Democrats and special interest groups, while $1000 went to a lone Republican.

$1,000 Republican
$1,003,250 Democrat
$101,500 special interest
total: $1,105,750

Seemingly the New York Times Corporation may have not fulfilled it’s fiduciary responsibility to get the most money for an asset it was selling. Furthermore, it seems to be based on the politics of the bidders.

The previous high bidder is not taking this sitting down:

“We bid significantly more than Henry,” said John Lynch, the CEO of U-T San Diego, one of the Globe finalists. “At the end of the day, I’m certain our bid was higher and could have been a lot more higher if they had just asked. I’m just stunned. I thought this was a public company that had a fiduciary duty to get the most by its stockholders. … From the beginning, I don’t think they wanted to sell to us.”

Lynch said the Times laid out three qualifiers for the deal: price, capability to close quickly and ability to finance.

“We had the money in the bank, we had the highest price and we rolled over (Friday) and accepted all their terms,” said Lynch.

As recently as 3 p.m. EDT Friday, Lynch said, U-T San Diego had an army of lawyers working to iron out a deal with the Times, and didn’t officially learn it had lost until they received an email at 3:30 a.m. EDT — some two hours after the Globe announced the $70 million deal on Twitter.

Hey what’s elementary economics when there is a neighborhood to protect?

A final thought. The New York Times is the leading proponent of social and economic Liberalism in general and Barack Obama and his economic policies in particular.

If you wonder why democrats in congress and on the White House have been so willing to put their party before the actual economic good of the country then you simply don’t understand liberalism.


4:52 PM Just heard the Washington Post has been purchased by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com

In Theory Amazon hasn’t purchased it but in terms of advertising he will basically be paying himself. If he integrates the business and we know Bezos is skilled at this, then again will conservative book buyers decide to spend their money elsewhere if Bezos becomes the liberal angel.

I must admit I have no idea how this will turn out but it’s interesting to note that both the Post and the Globe buyers are successful businessmen who have plenty of money to lose if they wish.

The question becomes are they businessman’s trying to expand to succeed in a new business or Angels who have plenty of money to lose in pushing a viewpoint?

That’s the $64,000 questions or should I say the $250 Million dollar question

where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Matthew 6:21

This weekend the NY Post found and wrote about Tawana Brawley and the settlement she is finally paying to Steven Pagones part of the settlement that he was awarded years ago over the accusations against him.

Last week, 10 checks totaling $3,764.61 were delivered to ex-prosecutor Steven Pagones — the first payments Brawley has made since a court determined in 1998 that she defamed him with her vicious hoax.

A Virginia court this year ordered the money garnisheed from six months of Brawley’s wages as a nurse there.

She still owes Pagones $431,000 in damages. And she remains defiantly unapologetic.

Despite the price he has paid over the year Pagones has said that all Brawley has to do is admit the truth as the grand jury saw it and those payments will disappear, but that’s not the real story here.

The story is Brawley was not the only person ordered to pay damages 15 years ago. Al Sharpton who became nationally known thanks to that case was ordered to pay $66,000 but had that money payed for him by:

…celebrity lawyer Johnnie Cochran and other benefactors.

Hold on a second!

Does anyone else not find it interesting that progressive lions decided that a celebrity like Al Sharpton was more worthy of their financial support than Ms. Brawley?

Think about it: Let’s say that you don’t believe, like me, that she was a foolish teenager whose story was used by hustlers like Al Sharpton, C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox et/al for their own purposes. What if you are a person believes that the New York grand jury and all those 180 witnesses was just a sham and Tawana Brawley was kidnapped and raped 33 times by a gang of white men as she claimed.

If you believe that aren’t you upset that after bravely managing to put it this trauma behind her, becoming a LPN, a worthwhile, honorable and difficult job, and supporting a daughter with it that she is still on the hook while the big names are not.

Aren’t you outraged that every week hours of her labor is going to a settlement that she will be paying for the rest of her life while Al Sharpton’s judgement was paid by high rollers and admirers like OJ Simpson?

Where are the celebrates rushing forward to allow Ms. Brawley to devote her funds to her daughter’s future? Where are the online campaigns to retire that debt? Why isn’t Sharpton himself whose promos are played daily all over a major cable network (well MSNBC) doing something about it? Why isn’t he talking to Spike Lee, to Rachel Maddow, and all their friends on MSNBC to convince them to hold a fund raiser to retire this debt?

How it this not a priority for the progressive community for the black community?

If I didn’t know better and understand the deep concern  of the progressive left and their allies in the racial justice movement for the poor, particularly single black mothers working hard to raise a daughter, I  might think that once young Ms. Brawley was no longer of use the grievance community, they decided to cut her off and let her pay for her decision to work with them for the rest of her life.

But that’s just me.


My friend Chip Jones has a bombshell today:

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration on the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

Jones’ story reports that relief was available not waiting in Europe for the call but on the tarmac of Tripoli:

Had the C-130 Spooky been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

Now even though those assets were in Tripoli they are restricted in their use by “Cross Border Authority”

To initiate offensive military operations in a foreign country, law requires a Presidential order commonly referred to a Cross Border Authority or CBA. In the absence of cross border authority being granted directly by the President, no military operation could be initiated, including the commitment of troops to secure or rescue personnel from Special Mission Benghazi.

President Obama’s failure to issue Cross Border Authority allowing our men to die is bad but if it wasn’t him making the decision it’s worse

the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect to give such authority to, nor did Congress even have confirmation power over.

The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

Combine this with the latest from CNN

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

and the whole “Phony scandal” Meme continues to melt away.

Update: Mike Rogers reminds us of some history

Turns out that Valerie Jarrett is so cautious about letting Little Barry get into hot water, that she alone vetoed the raid in January, February, and March, with the result that Obama’s indecision coupled with Jarrett’s caution drove Panetta and the military planners underground to work out the details without all the second-guessing – here’s an excerpt:

When the president consulted with the CIA director or the secretary of defense, he often seemed to be “playing for time”, canceling meetings with senior officials that would require him to make decisions or abruptly walking out midway through conferences with his senior advisors, cabinet secretaries and military officers.
When Obama walked out, he would wander the White House in search of Jarrett. If she had been in the meeting with him, he would signal for her to join him. Her advice and reassurance was critical, as always.

This suggests the actions in Benghazi are consistent with previous behavior.

Update: The Author of this base article will be my guest on DaTechGuy on daRadio Saturday Noon till 2 on FTR RAdio and the Money Matters Radio Network WPLM Plymouth, WESO Southbridge & WBNW AM Concord. You can call toll Free 888-9-FEDORA.


Olimometer 2.52

Monday is here and while last week’s paycheck was short a new work week means a new chance to get that elusive $305 weekly paycheck.

If 14 of you can kick in $20 with yesterday’s take a full paycheck can be made and the quest for a paid up mortgage can continue successfully.

Care to help, hit DaTipJar Below.