Xavier Allowing Hate Group to Hold Fundraiser on Campus

A big question for current Xavier students, Alumni, and staff: Why is Xavier University allowing a hate group to hold a fundraiser on its campus a week from tomorrow, April 23, 2013?

If you don't know about CCV and Phil Burress, then I suggest you do some reading. Try Here and Here and Here and Here and for a history lesson try Here.

CCV is an anti-gay/lesbian hate group. They seek to oppress LGBT people and force everyone to be subject to their religious rule.

The Enquirer Whitewashes Cranley's Ethics Investigation

So then City Council member John Cranley resigns from office in 2009 as a means to halt the State of Ohio ethics violation investigation. If you have done nothing wrong, why resign?

That is a very legitimate question that should have been asked by the local news media to Cranley and then asked repeatedly until he answers it fully. The Enquirer instead decides to publish a whitewash article that portrays itself as an in-depth explanation that spins the story to make Cranley look like a good developer.

Why not ask another question to Cranley: If Cranley didn't violate any ethics rules in 2009 when he invested in the project, why would he need or even want to divest himself of the property if he is elected Mayor?

While they are at it, why doesn't someone ask Cranley if he did violate ethics rules over this project?

So, if a news outlet can't ask the bottom line questions, why cover the story at all? It wouldn't be bias towards Cranley, would it?

John Cranley is Lying About His 'Plan'

I am not shocking anyone when I call mayoral candidate John Cranley a liar. When I say John Cranley is lying about his budget 'plan' I think anyone knowledgeable about Cranley's shady city financial management past would be chiding me stating the obvious.

Yesterday I think he crossed into charlatan territory with what he billed as a 'Structurally Balanced Budget.'

There is nothing Structurally balanced about his budget and anyone saying there is lying.

His plan takes money from other city budgets to plug holes, something that is not valid and got us into the trouble we are in now when he did the same thing when Charlie Luken was mayor.

His plan uses money from the Casino that is uncertain, at best.  Why not just use a rosy project that tax revenue will rise and call that structural?

He takes already dedicated Parking revenue and yanks it from another city budget to plug a hole in another (The good Catholic boy knows how to Rob Peter to pay Paul).

He then just cuts most everyone else by 10%.  Well, not everyone.  He doesn't touch the Police and Fire budgets.  The biggest parts of the budget.  Yep, that's a world class act of pandering.  He also carries the tool of fear along and drives it through the West Side.

He also doesn't say what gets cut in those departments with that 10 %.  Is he just mimicking Charlie Winburn's salary cut plan? Does he want a 10% staff cut in everyone else?  What other programs will he gut?  Where's his courage to name what he would reduce?  Is he willing to layoff other works but not cops or fire fighters because that means it would cost him votes?

So, Cranley creates the most insane budget plan I've ever read (actually worse than Winburn's). No one in the media will likely question much about it, least not at the Enquirer.  He and his surrogates will run around lying about this plan and few will call them out on their lies.

Well, I'm here to ask you to call them out.  Ask John Cranley why he is lying about his budget plan.  Ask him to explain how his plan will not destroy the city.

While you are at it, ask him to explain how his plan differs ideologically from the budget plan of the House Republicans? I mean they want to cut everything in the Federal budget, except for Defense.  The comparison to Cranley is either eerie or intentional.

Ask Cranley if he plans on getting the Republican endorsement?  He so far is running the same campaign Brad Wenstrup ran 4 years ago.  Brad was suburbanite Republican.  Does that make Cranley a suburbanite Republican?  I'm going to say yes, yes it does.

Blogging Isn't Cool: Cranley On the Issues 'Bad to Bizzare'

Quimbob sums up the core of Mayoral Candidate and former Councilman John Cranly's horrid stances on public safety issues as 'Bad to Bizzare.'

Simply put: Quimbob is correct.

Some Funny Hyperbole...Hehe...Can't Hurt!

Quimbob may be on to something for the secessionist residents of Westwood. We're talking about a dozen people, maybe, so after Melva Gweyn and Mary Kuhl finally seek asylum in Cheviot, we'd really would not be talking about that many people.  All it all, it would take maybe 10 minutes.  What judge can spare the time to administer the oath?

Smitherman Lies to NAACP Membership

The Enquirer's political blog documents the lie sent to local NAACP by their local chapter President and member of City Council Chris Smitherman. His lie was simple and blatant:

“Our right to vote is the issue,” Smitherman said in an email to members and others.

No, the effort to defeat the Parking Plan is all about Republicans trying to defeat Democrats, because they only have two solid votes on Council and want more.  They see the Parking Plan, which really would normally be welcomed ideologically by businesses focused Republicans, as a way to get to the uninformed voter and exploiting their ignorance.  How better to get people mad than by making them think the price for something is going up.  It works if you use donuts  beer, McDonald's, or even guns.

Smitherman is supporting the Republicans.  I would not be surprised if he is courting the GOP for an endorsement and trying to factor in how many votes that would cost him in Bond Hill and Roselawn.

John Cranely is doing the same thing, but seems to be backing off the spotlight.  He knows the GOP endorsement would kill his chances to win the Mayor's race, but he'll walk the line even more blatantly than Smitherman, one of his supporters.  Dishonesty in being two faced is not either politician shys away from.

Who is Running For City Council?

As of now there is a growing cast of characters running for city council. The incumbents running are:

Laure Quinlivan (D)
Wendell Young (D)
Chris Seelbach (D)
Yvette Simpson (D/C)
P.G. Sittenfeld (D)
Charlie Winburn (R)
Chris Smitherman (I) (All I could find was a Facebook page. Seriously?)


Those either announced or close to it:
Amy Murray (R)
Greg Landsman (D)
Michelle Dillingham (D)
Kevin Johnson (?D)
Mike Moroski (?D)
Pam Thomas (D)
Vanessa White (D)

Other maybes or less solid indications of a yes:
Kevin Flynn (C)
David Mann (D)
Sam Malone (R)
Janaya Trotter (D)
Catherine Smith Mills (R) (She still has a website up so ?)

The question that arise from three sides are who will get the Party Endorsements?  There are two many running for the Democratic Party.  I list 13 possible Dems as running and I've heard there are 14, but don't know who else is running.  I don't know if it is possible for the GOP to field even fewer candidates than last year, but they might, with only 2 candidates announced.  Charter also is thin, as the group as there may be only one non-cross endorsed candidate from the third 'party.'

If anyone knows of anyone else running, or has more information on websites for the above listed possible candidates, please pass it along.

For More check out WVXU from a few weeks ago.