George Allen in stock disclosure controversy.
By on Oct 8th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
George Allen in stock disclosure controversy.
“For the past five years, Sen. George Allen, has failed to tell Congress about stock options he got for his work as a director of a high-tech company,” an AP analysis shows. “Congressional rules require senators to disclose to the Senate all deferred compensation, such as stock options.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s a tough call as to who’s more in disgrace right now; Foley or Allen. Maybe we’ll see Allen slink off to “rehab” soon too.
October 8th, 2006 at 3:54 pmEthics committe please….Oh they are too busy. Mr Allen the IRS is on the phone. Mr Allen………Mr. Allen…………
October 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pmI can see why they want to keep the giant Hasert Scab in place. Once that baby comes off, the puss is going to flow endlessly. Baron ( as in Dune) anyone?
October 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pmGiven the soundite age we live in let me be the first to summarize the two merging scandals of Foley (F) and Allen to represent the entire GOP
(F)allen!
October 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pmEnough has finally arrived!
October 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pm- I bet he was another one molested by a priest.
- But a dem did this in 87.
- Stay the course.
- I am the decider.
October 8th, 2006 at 4:05 pmA rascist bigot with no ethical foundation might also commit criminal acts? You’re kidding? That’s why he’s a republican to begin with for Cri’sake.
October 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pmEthically challenged? Maybe it’s a prerequisite for entry into the Republican Legislative circle jerk?
October 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmAllen is toast. I hope that Webb doesn’t torn into another Lieberman !
October 8th, 2006 at 4:22 pm$8: I hope that Webb doesn’t [turn] into another Lieberman!
That would still be better than turning into another George Allen.
October 8th, 2006 at 4:52 pmLeft Wing Ninnies!
In your zeal to beat George Allen, you’ll elect Jim Webb, who is a decent, thoughtful patriot, which immediately puts him on the Dem fringe.
You will be disappointed… and the Republic will survive.
You buncha macacas…..didn’t you read the Terms of Use agreement:
You agree not to:
• Post any messages or provide links to any messages that endorse or oppose a particular political party or candidate for office.
I’m afriggin’ American! Say it! REPEAT! I’m afriggin’ American.
October 8th, 2006 at 6:01 pmAnother corrupt Republican. Not only is he a racist, a smug and sanctimonious bully, but he doesn’t think ethics laws apply to him either. That’s how it must be when all your friends are corrupt and you all belong to the same club where you swear to defend one another, cover for one another and everyone does as he pleases.
October 8th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIt’s like a secret fraternity of Republiscum.
You agree not to:
• Post any messages or provide links to any messages that endorse or oppose a particular political party or candidate for office.
Comment by Afriggin American — October 8, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
Then we all might as well knit and spit. However, do you think it is o.k to call most rethugs corrupt, perverts, and morons?
October 8th, 2006 at 7:45 pmRules, or laws are not made for “republican members”. Ask hte decider.
October 8th, 2006 at 7:49 pmPlease vote Allen out of the Senate this November election!
October 8th, 2006 at 9:23 pmAnd this went on for five years because….?
October 8th, 2006 at 10:59 pmLUMBROSO FACTOR
The Declaration of Independence appealed to “consanguinity” or likeness of
blood as grounds for Americans and Englishmen to stand together against
royalty. Winston Churchill popularized the phrase, “Blood is Thicker than Water.”
But, when George Allen was exposed as a Jew, secret, sinister and subversive
forces suddenly became in disarray. Allen, whose mother was discovered to be
an African-born, Tunisian Jewess by the name of Henrietta Lumbroso, had been
the number-three supporter, next only to Dick Cheney, of the Bush Administration’s
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, at the behest of the Israeli Lobby. But, unlike
Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the ill-fated atrocities, which introduced torture,
war-criminality and inhumanity into White House policy and formulated abolition
of habeas corpus, speedy-trials and protections against warrantless searches
and seizures, Allen had not been known or seen as a Jew. In fact, Allen had
promoted the likeness of his father, who had been an Anglo-Saxon football-coach.
But, as he began to squirm, Allen sunk deeper into duplicity and inconsistency.
It had seemed odd for a man, who held himself out to be Anglo-Saxon, to be so
slavishly loyal to Israel. If blood is, indeed, thicker than water, why would
someone such as Allen not cleave to the lineage of George Washington, who
warned against “foreign entanglements,” instead of David Ben Gurion, who
slaughtered the British, and Menachem Begin, who brutalized the Palestinians?
In short, with no “blood ties” to the Middle-East, what possible reason would any
“Anglo-Saxon” have to be in the region? The answer was that Allen’s blood-ties
were with his own kind, who sought not only to gormandize the Middle-East, but
to monopolize America. Sometimes, they have been open in their aggrandizing
of power, such as Henry Kissinger and Alan Greenspan. Or, they may claim to
have “discovered,” belatedly, that they were Jews, such as Madeleine Albright
and John Kerry. When confronted, Allen, at first, tried to deflect the revelation by
insisting that “religion” should not be mentioned. He, then, “embraced” his
Jewishness and said that he was “proud” of it and, even, supported “diversity.”
The element of deception soon became evident, as Allen professed that he
never knew that he was a Jew. Then, he insisted that he had known, but that his
mother had made him promise never to reveal it. Allen, who had billed himself
as a “Christian” and “conservative,” plummeted, as he inexorably lined up
with the descendants of Karl Marx, Abe Fortas and Dylan Klebold. Talk-show
host Michael Savage, who exudes from the same blood as Allen, “commended”
his kinsman, insisting that Americans support Allen “because” he is a Jew, not
in spite of it. According to Savage, Columbus was a Jew and Spain collapsed
because it had expelled the Jews in 1492. He omitted that Spain, actually, ushered
in its greatest Golden Age of discovery, following the expulsion. Meanwhile,
Allen “apologized” for the Confederate flag, he once had claimed to support, and
drew closer to the Israeli Lobby, oil-barons and corporate-big-wigs. When
Anglo-Saxons demanded an apology for his “apology,” he remained cool and
aloof, comfortable with his “newfound” “roots” among the Ginsburgs and Feinsteins.
Jews have frequently changed their names, in order to conceal their bloodline.
Hollywood is replete with the “Kirk Douglases” and “Gregory Pecks,” who have
tried to “soften” the image of their ancestry, while remaining loyal to their own ilk.
Comedian Chevy Chase immediately launched a campaign to depict Jews as a
“religion,” despite Savage’s acknowledgment of Allen’s ethnicity, and to characterize
opponents of the Israeli Lobby as “bigots.” The ploy had been anticipated by
Benjamin Franklin, who had called for a constitutional-amendment banning Jews,
lest they gobble up the economy and subvert the political-system. The question is
begged that if blood is thicker than water, how can an Allen, Breyer or Lieberman
ever “represent” the “interests” of a people, with which they are at odds? One
working for a company, while clandestinely serving another, would be said to have
a “conflict-of-interest.” One allegiant to a foreign country, while selling out the
interests of another, would be denominated a traitor. The Lumbroso factor has
exposed the “blood” factor to be not only “bad-blood,” but a dastardly curse.
http://www.nationalist.org/docs/cartoons/2006/101001.html
October 8th, 2006 at 11:04 pm© 2006 The Nationalist Movement
#11: I think most “left-wing ninnies” know exactly who Jim Webb is and what his positions are on the issues. I’ll speak for myself and say that that’s why I’m supporting him. It’s actually a very easy choice, when the other option is a racist, corrupt buffoon like George Allen.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:40 pmi guess this calls for a nice little indictment, no?
October 9th, 2006 at 3:09 amIs George Allen gay, too?
October 9th, 2006 at 9:09 amHe and his staff have openly admitted it. Now I guess it’s a question of whether they can weasel out of it like Cheney. I hope the press has learned enough about stock options that they can do more than quote technical descriptions this time around.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:39 amIs Afriggin American a joke? Well, yes, he must be, because I am laughing. Be proud, AA…of being a thoroughly mediocre troll.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:19 pm