Kirk Fordham is giving gays a bad name. Gay people should not protect other gays just because they are gay.

The list I have of House and Senate gay staff is outdated but still useful. A lot of these gays are still around.

Senior Senate Staffers

Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum (PA)
Jonathan Tolman, James Inhofe (OK)
Kirk Fordham, Mel Martinez (FL)
Dirk Smith, Trent Lott (MS)
John Reid, George Allen (VA)
Paul Unger, George Allen (VA)
Linus Catignani, Bill Frist (TN)

Senior House Staffers

Jim Conzelman, Rep. Mike Oxley (OH)
Lee Cohen, Rep. Melissa Hart (OH)
Robert O'Conner, Rep. Peter King (NY)
Pete Meachum, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (FL)

See, the right wingers are happy to have gays do their dirty work. They just don't want them to be gay in public or get married or have any other rights that heterosexual people have.

Those gay Republican staffers must be highly compensated.

I know I would have to be paid an awful lot of money to sell my soul.

Oh, I don't know - Maybe "whores" is the more appropriate description here.

JohnW1141

So Kirk Fordham tried to bribe ABCs Brian Ross; ouch, poor timing Kirk. ABC just ran that anti Clinton Docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" and they got pounded for it. If Ross took Fordham's deal and word leaked out.......

October is "Cyber Security Month"!

That bit of cheery news came from i-Safe Inc. I wrote about i-Safe and Duke Cunningham back in July. The Dukester got a $500k earmark for I-Safe to "to partner with parents, schools, local law enforcement officers, and the business community to teach kids how to act responsibly and safely online".

I became curious about I-Safe and read its 990s. The I-Safe folks spent $156k on Micorosft productsand $750k on "consulting" fees among other questionable expenses.

I visited the I-Safe website and even signed up for its teen chatroom which seemed pretty strange. When I entered, everyone there shut up and the I-Safe chatroom was NOT being monitored.

LOL -I actually have no idea about how to use a chatroom so I can't say for sure what is really going on in the i-Safe chatroom.

What I want to know is what kind of organization concerned about children in cyberspace doesn't provide all of the names of its board of directors and officers. No names, no bios, no qualifications.

I had to get the names and addresses of the directors (but no bios) from i-Safe's 990s:

JAMES GREENLEAF
P .O . BOX 6718
SCARBOROUGH, MA 04070
Director (20/year)

MARINA CHARLES
18630 RELIANT DRIVE
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20879
Director (20/year)

MARY ELLEN WITHROW
8208 MOORLAND LANE
BETHESDA, MD 20817
Director (20/year)

ROBERT DAVI
10044 CALVIN AVENUE
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324
Director (20/year)

RUTH RICH
31898 9TH AVENUE
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
Director (20/year)

TERRY FOX
496 NORTH 200 WEST
AMERICAN FORK, UT 84003
Director (20/month)

SHERIFF RICHARD RANDALL
1102 CORNELL LANE
YORKVILLE, IL 60560
Director (20/year)

CHIEF JOHN WELTER, ANAHEIM POLICE DEP
425 S . HARBOR BLVD
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
Director (20/year)

TERI SCHROEDER
3356 IRONWOOD PLACE
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
Director & Chief Executive Officer (40/week)
Salary: $112,957

DENNIS SHAW
1629 MESA VERDE
VISTA, CA 92084
Chief Operating Officer (40/week)
Salary: $98,731

Why the Dukester felt compelled to get a $500k earmark for i-Safe is puzzling since, according to the i-Safe website:

"This project is supported by Grant No. 2005-MC-CX-K119 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice."

i-Safe's 2004 revenue:

Direct public support - $37k (Fundraising expense was $17K)
Government contributions - $3.8 million
Program service revenue including government fees and contracts - $965k

i-Safe's 2003 revenue:

Direct public support - $196k (no fundraising expense recorded)
Government contributions - $3.3 million

i-Safe's 2002 revenue:

Direct public support - $5k
Government contributions - $1.5 million

I-Safe tends to hyperbole when touting the benefits of its program. In 2003, I-Safe claimed to have reached 60,500 students. By 2004, that number was 376,911.

I-Safe reported holding 421 media and press conferences during 2004. That's a pretty busy schedule, if you ask me.

Typical Republican approach. Create a pork barrel project with a fancy name but don't actually do anything worthwhile.

I would speculate that Foley somehow got to the two Florida newspapers in Miami and St. Pete as well and was successful in suppressing the story...

It's a lot worse than that. Reynolds is in charge of the National Republican Congressional Committee - responsible for getting Republicans re-elected.

Want to guess what GOP organization is refusing to hand back the money that Foley has given them?

Oh yeah...

the NRCC - $100,000 this year, $500,000 since 1996. And you wondered why GOP leadership protected Foley?
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=160555

flavius, I'm not a mindreader and either are you.

You never asked me why I am posting about Ken Mehlman in my own thread or this one and I never told you.

Can you take a couple of minutes and tell me what, exactly, you disapprove of and why you are so sorry about my two posts here?

I don't even know if you read my comments in my thread about Ken Mehlman. Maybe you did and you are offended that I referred to a "Gay-Jewish Mafia" in the Republican Party.

Ken Mehlman is or was very close to Jack Abramoff, according to emails posted at the website of the Minority Office of the House Committee on Government Affairs. He even went to a Jewish holdiay dinner at the home of the Abramoffs.

Abramoff lauds Mehlman in several other emails that I intend to post in my Mehlman thread. A reference from Jack Abramoff is the same as hanging a sign around your neck that reads "I Am A Crook".

I also found a questionable non-profit corporation registered to Ira Mehlman, Ken's brother in November 2003, before the start of the 2004 campaign.

The RNC treasurer, Jay Banning, is openly gay. Are you offended that I asked if Banning is Jewish?

If you are not interested in how the gay network operates in Washington DC, that is your business but I have no idea why you are sorry that I am interested in it.

Do you expect me to pretend that there is no gay culture?

Not long ago, I read that the Houston and Dallas chambers of commerce are trying to sell their cities as vaction destinations for gays.

I thought the foks who run the Dallas and Houston chambers of commerce had brass balls, given that the people of Texas went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to outlaw consensual homosexual sex.

If I were gay, no way in hell would I spend my hard-earned money vacationing in Texas. No way would I spend my hard-earned money in Texas in any case but that is beside the point.

My point is that there is a "gay" market and there is a gay culture. Gay people don't deny it and I don't think most of them mind being identified as being part of a group.

I didn't read about any complaints from the gay community when the HBO show, "Entourage" portrayed the press agent's assistant as a member of a gay network in Hollywood.

I am not trying to slander anyone. No one in this country can be slandered anymore because he or she is identified as a homosexual.

That is something that changed dramatically during my lifetime and I consider that change to be a terrific example of social progress in this country.

I disagree with the way that Josh Marshall et al
here are portraying the Mark Foley story and said so in a comment in a post about Foley. But I don't know what Josh Marshall apparently knows.

Me, I'm skeptical that not one Democrat in the House was aware of Foley's inappropiate conduct over the years. I would think that the House is a hotbed of gossip and Foley's passes at pages did not go unnoticed or unremarked on by Democrats.

Of course, I am speculating here about the Dems and Foley but it seems to me that we never hear about the personal affairs of members of the House and Senate until they become "scandalous".

If some people in this country believe that homosexual sex is an abomination and an act against God, that is their business. I am not trying to change their beliefs.

What I want them to know is that their so-called conservative leaders have a different and far more tolerant view of homosexual sex when they are in Washington DC than when they are in their home districts soliciting campaign funds and votes.

Ken Mehlman often represents the Republican Party on "Meet the Press" and in other public forums. If Ken Mehlman is gay, he either knowingly goes against the word of God every time he has sex or he thinks the Republican anti-gay platform is a bunch of a bullshit.

I don't know about you but I expect my leaders to personally ascribe to the values they espouse for me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I am on the trail of a property sale registered to Ed Gillespie and Jay Banning. I don't know who Ed Gillespie is but the name sounds familiar so I am going to look him up.

I look forward to your reply.

I disapprove of corrupt practices . Some gays are corrupt and I disapprove of them when they are . Some gays are completely admirable. Ditto for straights.

Surely you also have admirable gay friends .

I also had at least one gay friend who I'm pretty sure had pederast inclinations altho he never acknowledged them to me.. I didn't hold those inclinations against him . But when he took a job as a high school teacher I did hold that against him . I suspected another friend of those inclinatons . He recently retired after an unblemished career in a position in which he had top security clearances (not however one requiring him to have extensive contacts with adolescents.)Whatever his inclinations it seems pretty clear that he wasn't trying to pick up any pages .

I disagree with your singling out various congressmen who have gay staffers because I don't think there is  any evidence  that gay staffers are more apt to be corrupt than straight staffers.