Alderman Moore has done something very stupid again. But here's a twist, Alderman Moore and David Orr fundraising for possible prison bound Robert Creamer. Foie gras is not listed on the menu, but asking for big bucks is. What in the world is going on here? I will just let this document speak for itself.
This is sickening that any of these politicians would help Creamer. Some serious explaining is in order. Is this what we want our public officials to do, raise money for a soon to be jailbird? With our country struggling to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, our Alderman is choosing to help raise funds for a convicted criminal. $10,000 dollar co-chairs? Give me a chair at his sentencing.
12 comments:
I think what they are trying to do is rally support for him at this difficult time. I think you are wrong about Robert Creamer. I think he made mistakes but it was with the higher purpose in mind of doing good work for the public, which is what his organization was about.
By "higher purpose" I meant that he wasn't trying to get rich or line his pockets. Yes, he played too fast and loose with money but he was doing it to fund the non-profit grass roots organization Illinois Public Action.
quote from Creamer in Trib:
Creamer said his mistakes were caused by "my burning desire to create an organization that empowered ordinary people" and that no banks lost money because of his actions.
Prosecutor quote:
Creamer's consumer-advocacy mission "brought him to a place where the ends came to justify the means, without regard to the fact that the means were violations of law," Ferguson said.
Now what he did was wrong, but he was more misguided than trying to rob taxpayers in my estimation.
Yes Angry Jolietan, Aunt Jan complains alot.
But... you don't see her name on this invitation, do you?
Creamer engaged in check kiting which, regardless of the reason, is illegal (EF Hutton no longer exists as an institution for that very reason). He did this repeatedly. He agreed to tax evasion charges for failure to pay withholding on approx. $1800 which the Feds accepted though he was originally charged with evading substantially more in taxes (no doubt the Federal prosecutors have left it to the IRS to sort out the rest). His groups and funds were the recipient of an interest free loan that no bank would have ever given (and that you and I won't ever get) which is the functional equivalent of theft. His organizations were enriched by the crime (an ordinary business that to such liberties to get an interest free loan would be lambasted by the same people who are pardoning and excusing Creamer). Do we exempt non-profits from following the laws and rules the rest of society has to follow?. If so, then anti-abortion groups can do same to fund themselves, for starters. Further, theft is a crime on society because everyone pays for theft in higher fees. RP Neigbor calls check kiting and tax evation "misguided." Let's be fair, then, and call the guy who broke into my home "misguided" for stealing my television. Why is it when white guys who work for liberal do-good organizations commit crimes they are "misguided" but when a young black man snatches a purse or breaks into a home he's a felon and deserves to go to jail? That black kid who stole my tv didn't hurt me and I could afford the "loss." Further, he needed the goods to trade for cash to get the drugs to which he was addicted. He didn't mean to enrich himself at my expense; rather, he was just feeding a monkey over which he had no control, over which he was a victim due to his socio-economic status.
I'm sorry but excusing do-gooder white dudes and not giving lower class, black dudes the same benefit of the doubt is racist and elitist. And, how dare Scharkowsky put her husband's crime on the opposing party. That is just so lame and, dare I say, unethical. They are adults, her husband committed a crime, and regardless of how or who prosecuted him, only he (repeatedly) committed the crime.
Of course it's a crime, but come on- there's a difference between stealing for a drug habit in your example and what Robert Creamer did. I didn't say he shouldn't be punished. I just meant that he wasn't an evil bad person- just flawed. I don't agree with what he did either. Craig called him a "crook" and I just thought that was an oversimplification.
The so-called "thugs" on our streets have sob stories too and I wouldn't discount them or be unsympathetic either. If you are saying that I am excusing a "do-gooder white dude" then you are mistaken. If you are calling me "racist and elistist" I also would say you are mistaken and that is also not a very nice thing to say being that you don't even know me.
I believe people should be punished for crimes no matter who they are. But I'd venture to say that Bob Creamer did alot more good in his organization than someone who burglarizes people's homes or snatches purses etc...usually does.
And please, no name calling. People are way too quick to get nasty on these blogs I swear!
RPneighbor -- did not mean to call you names but to express the opinion that excusing some crimes and/or people and not others is racist and elitist, in my view. At the risk of being called a conservative for taking a black/white view of things -- a crime is a crime is a crime. Lower income minorities might be more inclined to commit certain kinds of crimes and upper income non-minorities might be more inclined to commit other kinds of crimes. By excusing the one kind of crime (because it tends to be non-violent and physically threatening) as a society we are saying that we have different rules for different people. Creamer is a "crook" in that he has been convicted of a crime just like the burglar who breaks into a residence. Creamer pleaded guilty to a felony which makes him a felon which makes him a criminal/crook. He may be a nice guy, he may have done the crime for altruistic reasons, but he still did the crime -- and not just once but repeatedly. Further, I'm not so sure the reasons were entirely altruistic if by keeping his groups alive with no-interest loans, he was also keeping his salary going then he did have a financial interest in the action.
I think you are making some good points. I think I am going to cease and desist defending the cad! :)
>Didn't Jan complain that Bob was the vicitim of the Bush Justice Dept. because of her opposition to the war in Iraq?
Excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:
U.S. indicts Rep. Schakowsky's husband
March 12, 2004
In the TV interview in Washington, Schakowsky referred to herself as one of the major critics of President Bush and Ashcroft and said: "I do think the timing is somewhat curious."
Higher Purpose
> ... he was doing it to fund the non-profit grass roots organization Illinois Public Action.
... a non-profit organization that as part of its tax-exempt mission just happened to endorse a few select political candiidates like Schakowski and Moore.
Rogers Park residents know all about non-profits.
I was going through your older postings when I saw this notice of this "fundraiser."
I am not going to take a guess as to whether this event was a proper fundraiser or an attempte to buy Creamer's silence (and stay quiet in prison, even if he is handed a maximum sentence on December 21). I will let others debate that matter.
If anyone wishes to discuss the situation further, feel free to E-mail me.
RANDALL SHERMAN
Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government
shermanrandall@hotmail.com
It is clear to see that Schakowsky was being punished by this lawsuit. The timing came as she was leveling harsh criticisms at John Ashcroft. Our prisons should be filled with people who do evil to other people, not people who overstep the law while trying to do good for other people.
People don't realize what a vendetta-based administration ours is until they are personally hit.
Creamer would have fought the charges in court had he not just suffered the loss of his daughter in law to cancer, according to Schakowsky. These are good people, people who try to help others, who are going through hell.
Post a Comment