Who Started WWII? Russia Denies Culpability

Cross-posted over at PoliticalVindication.com

European leaders are meeting tomorrow to reflect on the beginning of the second World War, happening seventy years ago on September first. Tensions have risen as the question of who started WWII are asked:

Ultimately, however, the row which threatens to eclipse a gathering on Tuesday of European leaders in Gdansk is not about history or the past. It is all about the present, specifically Russia's claim of having "privileged interests" in its post-Soviet neighbours. Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, made his own explosive contribution to the debate, saying it was a "flat-out lie" to suggest that Stalin bore any responsibility for starting the second world war, which he described as "the 20th century's greatest catastrophe". According to Medvedev, it was Stalin who in fact "ultimately saved Europe".

Anyone who has studied the issue at all recognizes the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed in August of 1939, whereby Stalin teamed up with Hitler to cut up Europe. The news shocked the world, and damn near guaranteed world war. Very soon after they attacked Poland on opposite borders, crushing her. The reward? The USSR was supposed to get Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, a whole lot of Romania and two-thirds of Poland in exchange for supporting the Third Reich. Why the normally suspicious Stalin trusted Hitler is a mystery that may never be answered, but it was known that the Soviet mass murder saw in Adolph much to admire. The military victory was not long celebrated.

On June 22, 1941 Germany invaded Russia; tens of thousands of smiling Russians were slaughtered waving in welcome to their German allies. Stalin executed informants bringing news that Germany was invading, he refused to believe it. When proof finally convinced him, he was so shocked by the betrayal that he shut himself up in a room and saw no one for a week, they say he was in a drunken stupor, no doubt now regretting his paranoid purge of the Russian officer corp. The nation was reeling as German troops stormed toward Moscow without opposition, massacring civilians without remorse. The only thing that would save the young communist nation was the Russian winter.

But Hitler's deceit doesn't forgive Stalin's evil designs. The pact was a deal among demons. In moral terms, there was no difference between the two men. Today Hitler is irredeemable but Russia still works to reframe Joseph Stalin:

The Kremlin now argues that Stalin had no choice but to forge the pact with Hitler in August 1939. It says Britain and France made war inevitable by signing the Munich agreement. And it puts the boot firmly into Poland; the Kremlin says the country was a willing Nazi ally and accomplice to Hitler's partition of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

Historians are unimpressed. "This is a very stupid argument," Vladimir Ryzhkov, a historian and former Russian opposition MP said. "You are saying that Poland was bad for allowing the division of Czechoslovakia, but that Stalin was good when he agreed to divide eastern Europe with Hitler."

It's obvious that the new Russia has many of the same aspirations as the old Russia. The first thing they must do is re-write history. Fortunately for them we have a president who is eager to re-learn...

The Politicization of Ted Kennedy's Death

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Politics right to the grave's edge



As my regular readers know, I have refrained from criticizing the late Senator Ted Kennedy out of respect for his passing. I am also reluctant to take shots at those of his colleagues and followers who are mourning his death. Something, must be said, however, about the crass politicization of his death for partisan purposes. Generally, the funeral was done well. His wife, Victoria, especially, was a picture of grace and class. Unfortunately, political necessities-urgent necessities for the Democrats- have put a damper on what was otherwise a good send-off for Senator Kennedy.

In the final weeks and days of Kennedy's life, we began to hear calls for a change in Massachusetts state law that would allow the governor, Deval Patrick, to appoint a successor to fill Kennedy's seat. The senator himself asked for such a change. As things now stand, the state of Massachusetts must wait a period of some 5 months, then have a special election. Of course, a few years ago, the law was different. It called for the governor to appoint a successor to a senator whose term was cut short. In 2004, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was running for president. With the prospect of his election, Democrats in Massachusetts feared that the then- governor, Mitt Romney (a Republican)would appoint a Republican to fill Kerry's position. As a result, the Democrats,with Kennedy's help, changed the law. Of course, with Kerry's defeat, it became a moot point, but the law was changed. Now the Democrats want to change it back to ensure a Democrat fills Kennedy's seat. Pure politics.

Secondly, as Kennedy's death approached, many Democrats, like former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, for example, publicly called for the pending government health bill to be named after Ted Kennedy. Reason? To inspire increased public support. "Do it for Teddy", if you will.

Even during the funeral, the health care issue was brought to the fore. I would like to know which adult gave that prayer to Kennedy's young grandchild to read in the Boston mass, something along the lines of, "that universal health care........"

"Lord, hear our prayer."

Then, at the gravesite, a letter was read that Kennedy had written to the Pope. It was touching enough until the reader got to the part where Kennedy was describing his attempts to get universal health care passed.

I'm sorry, folks. It was crass politicization of an event that even Kennedy's enemies were treating with respect. It was reminiscent of the Paul Wellstone funeral, when Trent Lott was booed as he came to pay his respects and Wellstone's son gave a tub-thumping political speech that would have embarrassed his father.

Now, finally, the Democrats, realizing that they are lacking a crucial vote needed to stop a Republican filibuster, are trying to find a way to ram this bill through on a majority vote. The partisan New York Times has even pointed this out in an editorial telling the Democrats they need to get this thing done by whatever means necessary (see below link). This last point also points out another reason why Democrats want that Massachusetts law changed back to the way it used to be. Crass politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1

So whether you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, for or against the government health care plan, I hope you will all pay attention to how this plays out and specifically how the Democrats use Kennedy's death to advance their political agenda. So far, it lacks any class, whatsoever.

Mark Lloyd-Architect of the Fairness Doctrine?

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Mark Lloyd-FCC Diversity Chief



That old bugaboo, the Fairness Doctrine, is still waiting in the wings. With Obama and the Democrats in power, only public vigilance is standing between us and the shutdown of conservative talk radio. Oh, the Henry Waxmans of the world will assure us that nothing is in the works...until, BAM! It's a done deal. Of course, they won't say that it's all about restoring balance to political talk radio. They have a more subtle way to get it done. It's called things like "localization" and "diversity". They are going to control licensing and who owns radio stations. They are going to hit private talk radio stations with so many regulations, they will all throw in the towel and switch to country music instead of talk shows. Enter Mark Lloyd, President Obama's new head of Diversity for the FCC.

Mark Lloyd comes right out of the Marxist playbook. He doesn't care a whit about freedom of speech. What Mr Lloyd cares about is the government controlling the dissemination of political thought over the airwaves.


Here is a clip (from the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News) showing Lloyd speaking at a conference in 2008, in which he sings the praises of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media in Venezuela:

Did you catch the references to those evil property-owners in Venezuela and the US trying to oust Chavez? Does that give you some clues about Mr Lloyd's agenda?

Want more? Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Prior to joining the White House, Lloyd was a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, established by Clinton Administration henchman, John Podesta. According to Wikipedia, here is what that outfit thinks about talk radio:

"The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[15] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting."

That is exactly what Mr Lloyd wants. He wants private outlets to pay to support that insipid, liberal, and publicly financed National Public Radio.

But you liberals, of course, have nothing to worry about. You will continue to have your MSNBC, AIR America, CNN and all your liberal newspapers. Those of you whose view of life has been shaped by David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher will be just fine. But if I recall correctly, I used to hear liberals scream about freedom of speech not so many years ago. Do you really care about freedom of speech? Or only your speech? For those of you liberals who truly care about freedom of speech-for all-then you too should be concerned about what's coming down the pike. As for us conservatives, we need to stand up and scream just as loudly about this as we do about government health care.

Things are moving fast, folks.

In the Tank-Our News Media

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Having lived in Thailand in the late 1970s, when the military was essentially in charge, I saw first-hand how it works when the news media is controlled by the government. The newspaper we read was the Bangkok Post, one of three English-language dailies in Bangkok. Sufice to say, the did not put out much, if any, criticism of whoever was in power. In one year, there was a brief coup, and the Post, now taken over by the "new government" descfribed the coup as the salvation of the nation. The only problem was that the counter-coup took back the government within 48 hours if memory serves me correctly. Of course, the Post, like all the other papers, greeted the counter-coup as the salvation of the nation and had to explain why they wrote what they had written a couple of days earlier. very messy, indeed.

Now it seems we are living in a nation under dictatorial rule, at least if you read and listen to the slobbering stuff coming out of the media (Fox News and talk radio excepted). You would almost think that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC (especially)and CNN were all arms of the government. Of course, you know they weren't under Bush, so that means they are in ideological agreement with Obama and the Democrats. Such is the case with the health care debate. This week, we have continued to witness more glaring examples of how the media is in lockstep with the current administration and the Demoocrats in general. A few examples.

The other night, I watched an hour-long special on the life of Ted Kennedy on MSNBC hosted by Lester Holt. I won't go into the fact that it was a positve portrayal of Kennedy (of course, they had to cover Chappaquiddick) out of respect for the now-deceased Senator. Let's leave that aside. What really caught my attention was the portrayal of Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy Sr. Not only was it a positive portrayal of a man who by most accounts was a scoundrel, but it left out virtually every negative fact known about him. In discussing Joe Kennedy Sr. It said nothing about his years as a bootlegger during prohibition. It said nothing about his womanizing. While mentioning in a few words that he dabbled in movie producing in Hollywood, it left out his messy affair with actress Gloria Swanson. The only negative note was the fact that as ambassador to London in the years leading up to World War II, it was stated that Kennedy had to resign because "he opposed America's entry into World War II". I'll say he did. What Mr Holt failed to say was that Joseph Kennedy (the Ambassador to London) was a fervent admirer and supporter of Nazi Germany. That was why he opposed our entry into the war on the side of the country he was serving in. For that reason, Roosevelt eventually had to get him out of London. So what was the general theme about Joseph Kennedy that Holt's special attempted to give the viewer? Joesph Kennedy wanted one of his sons to become president because "he had instilled in them the spirit of public service."

But enough said about that farce. We are talking about MSNBC, you know.

Then there was the town hall meeting held in Redding, California this week by some Republican congressman named Wally Herger. One 67-year-old gentleman named Bert Stead stood and made a sarcastic reference to himself as a "proud, right-wing terrorist". The audience understood the context of the comment and applauded. Herger also understood and called the man, "a great American." You can watch it below:


But the "journalists" at MSNBC didn't get it. They were appalled. In fact, they were horrified. First, the sycophantic Chris Matthews attacked the statement and Herger for not denouncing it.

MATTHEWS: "Next up, here's one from Republican Congressman Wally Herger of California. At his town hall meeting some guy yelled out, bragging that he was quote, "A proud right wing terrorist." To which the Congressman responded, "Amen. God bless ya! Now there's a great American." A great American. A guy who thinks it's okay, in this day and age, to call himself a right wing terrorist. This is the dangerous edge, in which these people, including some elected officials are now dancing. We've been here before. Words lead to actions, words create the national mood, the mood creates a license. People take that license and use it. I'm not spelling it out any further because I don't want to."


Then Keith Olbermann took over, naming Herger one of the "Worst Persons in the World", (along with nightly winner Bill O'Reilly, of course). Here's the tape from Countdown. It's 3:17 seconds long, and if you can't take the full video, the part about Herger starts at 2:30. (We should use old "Countdown" videos as our next harsh interrogation method against terrorists.)




Just as they have attacked and demonized other common citizens like Joe the Plumber and Katy Abram, now they have discovered a "real right-wing terrorist in California", a 67-year-old guy in California, who Olbermann labeled as an "idiot" and a "buffoon".

Finally, there was the town hall meeting in Oklahoma this week held by Tom Coburn (R-OK). In this event, one attendee was a tearful lady whose husband is seriously ill, the insurance company isn't helping, and the family desperately needs assistance. Coburn's reply was to ask the lady to give her name and particulars to an aide and that he and his staff would try to organize some help, calling on the local community. He did, however, reiterate his belief that the government is not always the solution to our problems (I am paraphrasing). Since the event, he and his staff and the local community have joined together to try and render assistance to the family.


But to the media, Coburn was cold and cruel to the lady "lecturing" her about not coming to the government. CNN's Rick Sanchez, a total partisan, reported it this way:


(The above video was conveniently cut off before Coburn asked the lady to give her name and information to one of the aides.)


This week, Coburn was interviewed by a CNN reporter, who tried to nail him on the issue. Once Coburn went through explaining what he and others are trying to do for the woman, the reporter asked him if he could do the same for the millions of others in similar straits. So the media spin is this: Coburn "blew the poor lady off", "lectured" her on not bothering the government, then when he tries to explain what he and his staff are doing to help, he is asked if he can do the same for millions of other needy Americans.

If you are a liberal and agree with what the media is putting out, you should ask yourself; is this really the kind of media we want in America? If we want a watch dog media that is skeptical of our leaders, fine, but it should work both ways. Instead, what we are treated to is a nightly spectacle of one network attacking another, and one announcer attacking another from another network. To make matters worse, we have media announcers attacking everyday people who happen to find themselves and their words on the news. Is that the kind of media we can be proud of? Hardly. What is needed is a cold, hard look at our media and how it has degenerated into the shambles that it is. It is not a pretty sight.

Shame on Holder; Shame on Obama

Eric Holder
Posturing


Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has "made his decision" to go ahead and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA "harsh interrogations" for possible criminal charges, I for one would like to explain why I think this is an outrage.

First of all, I view this as a political decision to go after person(s) and actions done in the Bush Administration. I do not view Eric Holder as a man of principle who is going against even the wishes of his boss, the President (more about that later). Holder is the same man who, as a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, rammed through two of the most questionable pardons in US history; the Marc Rich pardon, of a man who was a top ten fugitive when pardoned and with all kinds of questions of money given in return to the Clinton Library; and the pardon of the Puerto Rican FALN bombers, who had not even asked for a pardon. Now comes Holder as the law enforcement crusader, the independent who seeks justice for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds of this world.

The other thing that irks me about this process is the public posturing of President Obama and his spokespersons who loudly proclaim that the President wants to "look forward, not backward". That is meant to leave the impression that Obama is personally opposed to a prosecution of CIA interrogators and anyone else involved, but that he will not interfere with the independence of his Attorney General.

Nonsense.

President Obama could have stopped this whole process months ago with one phone call or one word to Holder. The fact is that being the ideologue that he really is behind that moderate mask, he wants this to go forward. He wants to demoralize and emasculate the CIA. He just doesn't want to take the political heat for it. He wants to "remain above the fray". I don't see how that can work.

So where are we going with this and what will be the result? The immediate result is that many CIA interrogators, their supervisors, former Justice Department lawyers, who drew up the legal guidelines like John Woo and probably even Dick Cheney are going to go through a lot of worry in the next year or so. There will be lawyer expenses. Many CIA employees will decide it just isn't worth it to put your life and career on the line for a government that when administrations change will not stick up for you. They will retire or simply quit.

Let's review how this came about.

In the horrific aftermath of 9-11 as we began to capture al-Qaida members, Justice Department lawyers studied the question of what and what not was permissible as to incarceration and interrogation. Rightfully or wrongfully, they decided on certain procedures they thought could be performed legally. They ran it by the White House and the CIA was so advised. Those interrogators assumed they were acting within the law and according to strict guidelines.

Let's also discuss their motives. They were not acting out of motives that drove the Hitlers, Saddam Husseins and Stalins of this world-merely a desire to eliminate political enemies and stay in power, nor were they simply trying to extract confessions from criminals; they were acting to stop more 9-11s and save thousands of innocent lives.

And what were those methods? Water boarding was apparently the worst, by which they gave the prisoner the sensation of drowning. Some prisoners were slapped. Some were told their families would be killed or raped in front of them. There were apparently a couple of mock executions and sleep deprivation was also utilized. Nobody was broken on the wheel, had his fingernails pulled out or anything that resulted in serious injury. (I understand one person was beaten and later died and that the interrogator was prosecuted, but I have no further details.)

Let me interject here to reiterrate, as I have before, that as a DEA agent (who interrogated hundreds of prisoners) I would never resort to these methods. They could never be justified in normal law enforcement procedure.

The point I am coming to is that the CIA interrogators must be assumed to be honorable and patriotic persons who were under the impression they were operating within legally established guidelines and at a time of national emergency when we had no idea when the next horrific attack was coming. And it appears that those harsh interrogation methods did, in fact, thwart attacks and save lives.

So why are we going forward? Is it real politik, a gesture toward the Muslim world? It can't be a gesture toward Al-Qaida. They don't care how we treat our prisoners, good, bad or indifferent. They are going to slaughter and behead our people when they capture them no matter what. More importantly, this can only serve to emasculate and demoralize an already demoralized CIA-at a time when we need a strong and aggressive CIA. Now we see the establishment of some multi-agency task force under the supervision of and located at the FBI and reporting to the White House that will oversee terrorist interrogations. Great. As if we haven't had enough inter-agency turf wars between the CIA and FBI.

CIA Director Leon Panetta is reportedly furious and engaged in a profanity-laced argument with a White House aide at a recent White House meeting regarding this issue. I hope so. Panetta has told his employees he will fight for them. I hope so. I think Panetta is an honrable man, so I expect him to keep his word and do the right thing even if he can't influence Obama and/or Holder. As a last resort, I think a very public resignation would be in order.

This is another issue that the American people need to speak up on-just as we have on taxes and health care. We need to stand up for the people who were tasked with protecting us. If we stand silently by and allow this administration to sacrifice our intelligence operatives without a loud protest, shame on us as a people.

Byrd “Bud” Billings Murders: Mark Turner – Circle of Auto Dealers

By Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Along side the murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings in Pensacola, roils a web of deception that is close to unbelievable. All the answers are not yet known, but details are slowly becoming known – and some pertinent details may date back to December 2007. I will be following and posting on the murders, and the Pensacola auto and used-auto industry and try to make some sense out of it. For now, it may be just Pensacola, but in the future it could be Cincinnati, or Ft. Worth or…just pick a town anywhere. Is it possible greedy and corrupt prosecutors can ruin lives, steal and destroy documents, ignore evidence, and jail innocents? I’m on the trail to see if this is happening in the Pensacola area. If you need background, please visit some of the 26 posts now available about the Billings at Maggie’s Notebook. If you have comments or information, please leave them in the comment section or send an email. (maggiesnotebookatblogspotdotcom.)

Here are my first ideas in a possible tie to the Billings’ murders and the attempted “hit” on another Pensacola dealer, Mark Turner:

The murders of Byrd “Bud” Billings and his wife Melanie have tentacles reaching deep into Pensacola, Florida, surrounding communities and the massive web of the auto industry. Enter another name, Mark Turner, who was also in the auto industry, in the Pensacola area and knew Bud Billings.

Mark Turner knew Bud Billings, had done business with him in the auto industry, and the two may have one more thing in common: the Billings’ accused killer, Leonard Patrick Poff Gonzalez, Jr. Turner believes Gonzalez tried to kill him in 2007, and he believes it was intended to be a hit directed withing the auto industry. Here’s the story:

On December 16, 2007, Turner said someone tried to break into his Gulf Breeze home. His wife and children were home at the time. Mrs. Turner heard the garage door open and thought someone was in the garage. Mark, armed with a glass bottle, greeted the intruder at the door leading from his house into his garage. As Turner jerked the door open, the intruder was standing directly in front of him and his wife. He was startled and ran for his car – which was pointed out of the driveway, still running and had the driver’s door standing wide open. The truck was a blue Ford Explorer.

Turner chased the man to the truck and as the intruder ran, he was yelling “wrong house!” Turner hit the truck window with the bottle, but the bottle broke, not the truck window. The intruder got away. He said he got a good look at the man – for two or three minutes. He knew he would never forget the face.

Turner filed a police report but had no idea “who this clean cut white man was,” until Leonard Patrick Poff Gonzalez, Jr.’s photo flashed on the television in connection with the Billings murders.

That is the first part of this story. There is nothing to prove that Gonzalez is the same man that tried to break into Turner’s home, but Mr. and Mrs. Turner both believe it is definitely the same man, and he believes that Gonzalez was there to kill him.

Here’s more of the story:

Mark Turner is a former car wholesaler. He said Bud Billings was a “jolly fellow” and was “fun to run into in the business.” The two met at Pete Moore Chevrolet.

According to Turner, this is the hierarchy of their local auto conglomerate: there is Pete Moore, the owner; under Moore is Rick Hamilton, the General Manager. Hamilton works for Moore. Both Mark Turner and Bud Billings worked for Pete Moore, but worked through Rick Hamilton. According to Turner, Hamilton’s job is to make certain that Pete Moore makes money distributing cars.

Another player is Henry Cab Tice, known as Cab. Cab is currently under arrest for Grand Theft in a civil suit between Bud Billing and Cab Tice. Tice owned Billings money and the lawsuit was working its way through the courts when Billings died.

Tice worked for Billings. Turner assumes that Cab Tice “sold the cars in Mexico.” Billings evidently had not received money for the cars Tice sold – thus the lawsuit. There is more coming on the relationship between Billings and Tice.

Pete Moore’s “comptroller,” Roxanne,” told Pete that “Cabs cars have not been paid for.” Moore goes to Rick Hamilton, Rick Hamilton goes to Bud Billings because Billings “backs” or guarantees payment for the cars Tice gets from Moore.

Billings tells Hamilton that Cab sold the cars in Mexico but Billings has not been able to get the money out of Cab. Hamilton says he can’t wait any longer. He has to get the money to Pete Moore, so Hamilton gives Billings a loan and Billings pays Pete Moore to close the debt. This leaves Cab Tice owing Billings, and Billings owing Hamilton.

Mark Turner says there is a long history of similar transactions within the industry:

Through the years, anytime we got into a tight [situation] in paying Moore, we could get the money from Rick [Hamilton]. Rick [Hamilton] charged me 12% annually. There was no paperwork, our deal was a handshake.

Turner gives this example of how Billings might have run his business and how he might have interacted with Rick Hamilton:

If a car cost $10,000 and BB [Bud Billings] had 5 car lots with 50 cars on them each, then that would be $2.5 Million. So if a dealer wanted to borrow $100,000 from WorldCo/[Bud Billings' loan company] but Billings’ cash flow was down, he would just borrow it from Rick [Hamilton].

Turner addresses rumors that Billings owned money to Moore and Hamilton and may have been murdered for that reason, which some think might have been a contract murder…and maybe ordered by someone in the industry:

Now to the fact of the money in the safe. I was told $160,000 wouldn’t make a dent in what was owed to Rick and Moore at the time of the Billings Killings.

Billings became partners with the dealers or have them borrow from his finance companies/car lots. Cab would take them to Alabama to order duplicate titles and take the cars into Mexico.

Remember, clearly I am not telling you this is what happened with the business between BB, Cab, Rick and Moore. I am telling you that this is what I was told happened.

I am not saying who killed who. I am telling you that Bud Billings and I [Mark Turner] had a relationship with more than one of the same lenders. We were in the same business, distributing cars for a profit. There are $36 Million reasons why those involved would want me dead. I don’t know how many reasons those involved had against Bud Billings.

Summarizing Mark Turner’s position in this part of the story, Mr. Turner filed a lawsuit against Pete Moore for $36 million. Turner accuses Moore of stealing an internet car sales business which Turner developed. Turner says he is fighting for his life:

In the early 1980’s, my job was to dispose of unwanted franchise car dealer inventory, which means trade-ins and over-age cars.

In the late 1990’s, I developed a system using the internet, which grew to a multi-million dollar business by the following decade. This system was stolen from me by people I had a 20 year relationship with.

I sued them and when I refused their settlement offer, they had me arrested. When I refused to take a plea they had my wife arrested. I am now facing 90 years in prison.

I have picked up the rest of the story here, with video.

Update 8-22-09:
“Cab” Tice reportedly told authorities that Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. was like a son to him, and then clarified that it was “like the wayward child that you always want to try to be a good influence on his life.” Patrick Gonzalez told authorities that Cab Tice asked him to “whack” Bud Billings. It gets more appalling every day.

Tice said that his Hispanic American Auto Sales business was failing and he borrowed $20,000 from an employee, who in returned borrowed money to give to Tice from the Mexican Mafia. Tice claims he was unaware the funds came from the Mafia source. Tice owned Bud Billings thousands of dollars, borrowed through Billings’ WorldCo Financial. It seems Tice wrote “worthless” checks to Billings totaling more than $10,000 to Billings.

When Hispanic American closed, Tice said the man inferred he had gotten the money from cousins in Atlanta in the Mexican restaurant business who were “members of the Mexican mafia.”

Tice said the man told him that the mafia members “won’t kill you, but they’ll kill your family and we’ve got to get them this money.”

Also, Tice said, the employee told Byrd Billings and Tice’s ex-wife that Tice was in debt to the Mexican mafia in an effort to get those people to reinforce to Tice that he needed to pay back the money.

“Bud said, you know, ‘I can’t believe you got in such a bind you borrowed money from the Mexican mafia and you know how dangerous these people are and you know what they’ll do,’ ” Tice said.

Tice said he still owes the “employee” $1500 and he has missed two payments this month. Byrd Billings’ civil lawsuit against Tice is still pending.

Related Reading:

Mark Turner Pete Moore Lawsuit: Bud Billings Pete Moore Connection

Sheriff Morgan, Patrick Gonzalez Contract Murders: Local Business Rivals Implicated?

Happy Birthday Gilad Shalit!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Friday is Gilad Shalit's 23rd birthday. He should be spending it with friends and family, instead he is imprisoned by barbarians who flaunt the rule of International Law in Gaza.

It is time that Gilad is returned to Israel safe, unharmed and alive!

It is time that the International Red Cross fulfill their mandate given to them under the Geneva Conventions of War and demand that they get immediate access to him!

And I ask you to get involved. I ask you to sign the petition to the International Red Cross to do the job they are suppose to do. You can find the petition here.

If you Tweet, I ask you to Tweet for Gilad on this his 23rd Birthday!

From The Jewish Internet Defense Force:

The goal is simple: On the Wednesday before Gilad Shalit's birthday (Friday, August 28th), we hope to have thousands of Twitter users sign on and tweet Gilad Shalit's name (using the #GiladShalit hashtag) as often as possible, so that he becomes a top ten 'Trending topic on the popular networking site.

If you blog, please spread this message to others.

If enough people scream out, the Main Stream Media will have to take notice.

Free Gilad Shalit please!



View at YouTube.

Let us make this the last birthday Gilad spends in captivity!