From An Ex-Con's View:
As most of you are aware, I am an ex-con, having been convicted of several minor felonies over the years (mostly for bad checks) and a batch of major felonies relating to my being a con-artist and military impostor (not convicted of that but admitted).
I am very opinionated about what ex-cons should and shouldn’t be allowed to do in relation to politicians and political activity, especially in the area of fund-raising and PAC’s.Ex-cons should be allowed to:
- Contribute their own money to political campaigns, PAC’s and other fund-raising entities.
- Voice their opinions on political issues in the public square (all forms of speech).
- To be a member of the press (however it is defined) and enjoy the protections of the 1st Amendment.
- To be a part of any political campaign organization that will have them (except as noted below in the prohibitions).
- To be a consultant to a campaign or PAC as regards strategy to acquire votes for a campaign.
- Operate, create, be a Director or Treasurer of any political fund-raising organization, PAC or politically oriented non-profit.
- Have any dealings with funds in any political campaign, PAC or politically oriented non-profit.
- Register voters or have any connection with the collection, processing or submission of voter registrations.
- Be involved in any way with fund-raising, disbursement or accounting of funds or any other financial activities for any political campaign organization or PAC.
- To be a consultant to any political campaign organization, PAC or politically oriented non-profit in the area of fund-raising or any other effort that is designed to produce revenue for said organization from any source.
This is a very narrow doorway but one designed to keep ex-cons honest, prevent fraud and con games. This also helps politicians, PAC’s and campaigns prevent “gotcha’s” down the line.
While you may “set a thief to catch a thief” one shouldn’t set a thief to oversee the treasury.UPDATED WITH COMMENTARY FROM THE IMPOLITE CANADIAN:
There’s no shortage of redeemed ex-cons out there from both sides of the border willing to get involved in the political debate. Being one myself, I know from experience that my past life has helped me uncover many fakes and frauds.
Ex-cons should be welcomed by the right, as long as they have proved themselves to be upstanding citizens. And even then, they should NOT be in charge of collecting or distributing funds; you don’t let an EX pedophile babysit your children or put a fox in charge of the hen-house.
But we can offer insight on how the criminal mind works, because, well, we used to think like that. Why is it that police is always a step behind criminals? Because they think like POLICE, and not as criminals. When you played Hide and Seek in your youth, you had a big advantage when you were the ‘’seekee’’ compared to the ‘’seeker’’. There’s a thousand places to hide, but only one ‘’seeker’’.
But what blows my mind is that a guy who LIED about his past even when outed with paperwork from the county, who has been attacking fellow conservatives, who has taken expensive trips and ate expensive foods, on the dime of generous but credulous Americans, is being PROTECTED by the same people who tried to EXCLUDE us ex cons from reporting on matters that involved ALL the conservative movement based on our FULLY DISCLOSED PAST.
Some of the ‘’defenders’’ should take a long, hard look at themselves….Ali Akbar is not the savior you made him out to be. He’s NOTHING but a criminal, an unredeemed one at that.
Others who are involved in this should stop and think of their credibilities. ‘’But what about YOUR credibility’’ one may ask…I don’t have a credibility. I’m a fouled-mouthed, in your face ex criminal. I know that. But I also know a con when I see one. People with HUGE credibilities are defending Ali Akbar. People with EVERYTHING TO LOSE FROM ASSOCIATING WITH A CRIMINAL: Michelle Malkin (member of the NBC board), Robert Stacy McCain, who I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST PERSONALLY, other than telling us to shut up, witch will NOT be happening, Lee Stranahan, who makes a living conning people and as a pornographer, using Breitbart’s image unauthorized, using material from other bloggers to gain pull on a story, then threatening lawfare (ALA Kimberlin) when called on it.
These people and many more may have some s’plainin’ to do when the whole NBC fraud comes crashing down just like the A.L.A. came crashing down. What’s gonna happen to their hard-earned credibilities?
If in the end I AM WRONG, I will put out a post telling the world I was wrong, and sorry. Will they do the same? Will they still claim we have barked up the wrong tree? Only time will tell. Or actually, only OFFICIAL IRS FILINGS will tell.
The Impolite Canadian