Exposing the Weintraubs' Lies

| | Comments (73) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: Read my accompanying letter at the Loudoun Times-Mirror Web site here. Read David Weintraub's "assuming readers have a very short memory" response here. Compare the facts in the latter column, printed Sept 24, with the article below.

The recent behavior of David and Jonathan Weintraub, prominent Democratic activists from Lovettsville, illustrates how clinging tenaciously to a position you know is wrong can get you a little unhinged. (They are also bloggers.)

The Weintraubs are liberal, pro-illegal alien advocates .... a formulation which, I sincerely believe, most Americans are soon going to recognize as a contradiction in terms. "Construction company owner" pro-illegal alien advocates, or "poultry processing magnate" pro-illegal alien advocates each make perfectly good sense. But "liberals" advocating to redirect funds from disadvantaged Americans and reduce wages for American workers makes absolutely no sense.

Staggering under the burden of this predicament, David Weintraub lashed out in a letter to the Loudoun Times-Mirror, and Jonathan chimed in with a comment, with plucky, yet ultimately feeble, attempts to shift public attention from their plight.

Bizarrely, both Weintraubs denounced certain local people by stating outright lies about things these people allegedly said or did at recent events - without even bothering to check whether there was a reviewable record of what actually occurred. As it turns out, there is. And while it will bring me great pain to lay out all of these facts and corrections, I feel compelled to do so as a service to the Weintraubs, in order to help them take the first difficult steps back toward intellectual coherence.

A Shameful Start

David got the ball rolling with the letter, modestly titled "Shame on Mr. Budzinski".

First of all, shame on Mr. Joseph Budzinski, spokesman for Help Save Loudoun, for trying to claim that La Voz is engaging in improper political activity. Mr. Budzinski knowingly made this misrepresentation.

Now, this is a direct assertion that I said a specific thing, made even more unambiguous by the second sentence, that I did so "knowingly." Presuming to know what I know, David probably should have gone the extra yard and hazard a guess about what I might do, which is to fact-check him.

David is referring to a public statement I made about two weeks earlier about Laura Valle and the organization for which she serves as executive director, La Voz of Loudoun. Ms. Valle had been featured in several recent media reports about opposition to the Loudoun Board of Supervisors' July 17 resolution on immigration enforcement.

Two of the reports linked Ms. Valle with Mukit Hossain, executive director of the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee, with the Post article stating the two of them would be "rallying" people to attend the Board's next meeting.

My statement was made during an interview with reporter Jason Jacks in a front page story of the August 24 edition of ... the Loudoun-Times Mirror. Since it is the same newspaper, it's not a stretch to think someone might go back and read it. But apparently David's zeal overcame his reason, and he left himself a tad exposed. Because it has an online edition, we can see exactly what was in Mr. Jacks' August 24 report:

What's more, Joseph Budzinski, spokesman for Help Save Loudoun, a group that thinks local governments should enforce immigration laws, said he questioned the public money because La Voz's interim executive director, Laura Valle, has been acting like a political "activist" of late rather than the head of a nonprofit.

"It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]," he said. "I think there are some questions to be answered about this. ... It came as a surprise to me to learn how much money they get from Loudoun..."

Note the word "activist" is in quotes, indicating something I said, but the word "political" is not. I have requested the editors of the Times-Mirror ask Mr. Jacks to check his record of our conversation, because I am pretty sure I did not use the word "political." My primary reason for questioning La Voz' funding was because I thought Ms. Valle seemed to be providing services for and advocating for illegal aliens, and against the citizens of Loudoun County - which is fine for her to do, but not with public funding.

But let's assume Mr. Jacks used the word "political" in his question and I responded without a correction, or let's even assume I used the word somewhere in my reply: What I said is that because of how Ms. Valle has been "acting" and what "appears" to be going on, I thought the question needed to be asked whether La Voz should be receiving public funding - asking this question was the action by Board member Eugene Delgaudio that I was being asked to comment on. Affirming there is a "question" is not the same as to "knowingly" "claim that La Voz is engaging in improper political activity." This is a deliberate misrepresentation.

But wait, there's more. Shortly afterward, Mr. Jacks quotes Ms. Valle:

With respect to political activism, she said La Voz "is pretty light" compared to other immigrant groups ...
Ms. Valle here admits that La Voz does engage in political activism. So in the article David Weintraub used as evidence for my "misrepresentation" - the only person who makes a "claim" that La Voz engages in political activity is ... the executive director of La Voz.

David Weintraub apparently lives in a world where people can say all sorts of crazy nonsense and no one ever asks for citations or bothers to check the record. It is my mission to deliver David from that world.

A Note About Laura Valle

In case you are wondering why anyone would give a rat's patoutie about public funding for this nonprofit organization called La Voz, some background:

Though I had met Ms. Valle once, briefly, after television interviews in Leesburg, my first extended introduction to her occurred when I read a provocative July 23 column on the Times-Mirror Web site (which I encourage everyone to read), in which she compared "so called anti-illegal immigrant activists around the country" to Adolph Hitler. The only "ranting and raving" party named by Ms. Valle in the column was Help Save Loudoun, the local citizens' group for which I am a spokesman. Help Save Loudoun is the only such group mentioned by name in Ms. Valle's column.

Ms. Valle wrote that Help Save Loudoun's members

....will preface their outrageous statements by saying that this 'is a nation of immigrants' or that 'my Grandmother came from Italy', etc. They say these things to counter the accusations that they are bigoted, discriminatory, or anti-immigrant.

After labeling Help Save Loudoun as "anti-immigrant" and putting the above phrases into our mouths, Ms. Valle proceeded to launch into a breathtaking display of obfuscation, invoking further caricatures to say that people who are concerned about overcrowded houses are "making an assumption about a person based on the color of their skin or the language they speak."

Then, from her sheltered aerie out in Lucketts (in western Loudoun County), Ms. Valle delivered a tidy slap in the face to the residents of Sterling and those of our neighboring state:

Do these people not realize that if every undocumented person in this county were deported they would still have overcrowded houses with unregistered cars parked in the drives, they would still see people peeing outside (on a side note - I most recently observed that behavior on a private golf course when a golfer had had too much to drink, apparently could not make it to the restroom in time, and instead used a tree). When all the illegals are gone and their neighborhood has still not returned to what it once was, well, what issue will they hide behind then? And if overcrowded, run down houses with cars parked on the lawns are an indication of an 'infestation of illegals' then I am afraid we might have to check the papers of a significant percentage of West Virginia's residents!

The above paragraph perfectly represents the sanctimonious perspective of the elite illegal alien advocates. It is no surprise that the Weintraubs, hailing from Lovettsville, display a natural kinship with Ms. Valle's sneering appraisal of the citizens of eastern Loudoun County who simply want the rules in their neighborhoods enforced. How unsurprising to learn Ms. Valle deems her experience at the golf course in any way proportional to what so many residents of Sterling have to deal with from the house next door.

Memo to the Weintraubs and Ms. Valle: The reason the tide has turned in America is because millions of us who live in regular neighborhoods now have firsthand experience with the negative effects of the influx of illegal aliens into our communities. We do not have the benefit of a ten mile cushion of farmland between our homes and the new suburban reality. Many of us do not even play golf.

After reading her column, a number of people had the distinct impression that Ms. Valle was unfairly targeting Help Save Loudoun, which had prided itself on NEVER ranting and raving nor making broad statements about illegal immigrants. Our primary focus of action, in fact, was on illegal employers. Many of our members took exception to her broadside, which seemed disingenuous, and were surprised to learn she was taxpayer funded.

Shortly after this column appeared and she was featured as spearheading the rallies against the Board, it came to light that Ms. Valle's organization receives over $25,000 in annual funding from Loudoun County taxpayers.

On August 15, La Voz held a public meeting in Leesburg to discuss illegal immigration. Ms. Valle stated the following in response to the question: Does La Voz use taxpayer money to provide services to illegal aliens?

How do you deny somebody the opportunity to learn English, or to help their children that are in the schools - we don't have the capacity, I don't think we have the will, and I don't think it's in anyone's interests to do so.

In other words: Yes.

The final exhibit in our discussion of La Voz is an extremely revealing letter by Ms. Valle printed in the September 4 edition of the Times-Mirror.

Ms. Valle takes a moment to explain how her organization got its name:

The name La Voz (The Voice) was chosen in 2002 by a group of concerned citizens during a community meeting. We have always hoped that it would communicate the message that we are an organization that cares for immigrants.

Why would she bother to spell this out? She had to because she got called on it.

The name La Voz' leaders decided on matches that of another organization which was already prominent in 2002 and, along with the Mexica Movement, is one of the most notorious ideological entities engaged in the illegal migration debate: La Voz de Aztlan.

La Voz de Aztlan exemplifies everything that the most shrill, apocalyptic and paranoid anti-illegal advocates might warn you about, and then some. La Voz (de Aztlan) celebrates anchor babies and unabashedly promotes the reconquista of the southwest U.S., proclaiming Los Angeles the "Capital of Aztlan."

This La Voz also gleefully promotes the agendas of America's enemies. The death of NFL player-turned-soldier Pat Tillman draws snide remarks; the beheading of journalist Nick Berg is portrayed as taking place in Abu Ghraib prison; Osama bin Laden is viewed as the modern Pancho Villa; and, in case there was any doubt about La Voz' sympathies, their Web site even reprints the infamous blood libel against the Jews, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

La Voz (de Aztlan) takes a benign view of Nazi Germany:

This acceptance of the jew history of Germany would be laughable when one studies the true dogma of the Third Reich. Consequences of internalizing jew lies and acting on them, as we Aztecas, like others, have had led to a misinformed and erroneous view of Nazi Germany. If the jewish depiction of Nazi Germany was true, Hitler would not have supported Francisco Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy or have aligned himself with Emporer Hirohito's Dai Nippon (Great Japan). Himmler's Waffen SS was the most perfectly multinational combat organization in the war. Arab civilians prospered more under the Axis than British/jewish occupation. We must be careful not to accept as fact the lies which are published and broadcast about Nazi Germany. We must remember at all times that the jew media censors what gets aired and printed and what most people read, see or hear has been censored to assure it conforms to the zionist agenda.

In sum, La Voz de Aztlan is the type of odious organization that any reasonable American would run away from as fast as our feet could carry us. To the contrary, La Voz of Loudoun adopted their name. This would be akin to the founders of Help Save Loudoun deciding to name our organization the "Ku Klux Kaptains."

Ms. Valle's letter goes on to note

... a bull’s-eye painted squarely on our backs. For what? For helping people. It has been a challenge to navigate through the minefield that is this issue, all the while trying to keep my own opinions and emotions at a healthy distance. It has been a tremendous learning experience, and though I have stumbled along the way, I am proud of my work and the work of the Board of La Voz of Loudoun....

The Board of Directors, volunteer members, and paid staff of La Voz of Loudoun wants it known that we will continue to stay on the high ground. We hope that others will join us there.

Let's all be clear about this: La Voz (of Loudoun) only got a "bulls eye" on their back because they compared Loudoun citizens asking for better law enforcement to Nazis. Claiming "the high ground" in the debate is a pitiful attempt to deflect attention from what Ms. Valle has actually said and done. She admits her "stumble." Good. But this is misdirection, plain and simple, unartfully employed and completely transparent.

The reasons some people might have questions about public funding for La Voz (of Loudoun) have nothing to do with alleged improper "political" activity, but with the organization's aiding and abetting of illegal migration and working against the interests of Loudoun County's citizens.

Crazy Over Greg Ahlemann

The Weintraubs' unstable ground gets even shakier when they discuss Greg Ahlemann, the Republican candidate for Loudoun County Sheriff. Democrats and turncoat Republicans Independents are noticeably freaked out by the Greg Ahlemann candidacy. Ahlemann is such an excellent public speaker and exemplary individual, and has such a compelling vision for the Sheriff's Office that the other two candidates pale in comparison. This has supporters of the trailing candidates very, very scared. Their only resort is to disinformation.

Unfortunately, that pesky public record stands in their way.

David Weintraub's letter continues:

He was present at the Sterling informational forum that Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio refused to attend, and he knows that the only person there who had to be reprimanded for political campaigning of any kind was Greg Ahlemann, candidate for Loudoun sheriff.

And Jonathan said this in the comments:

Joe Budzinski lied about my community on his Nova Town Hall blog and collaborated with the local anti-gay industry.

Now we see the most transparent political stunts, like sheriff candidate Greg Ahlemann politicizing a La Voz forum and then testifying to the BoS that their funding should be cut because their forum was politicized.

[As to the first sentence, I would say simply: Prove it, Jonathan. My statements about your "community" and my collaboration with said "industry" should be easy enough to cite if such evidence exists. Of course, the way you've framed it, just about any statement could be presented as about a "community" or "industry."]

Let's turn first to the newspaper report:

During questions and answers, Republican Loudoun sheriff candidate Greg Ahlemann, a former Loudoun deputy, said police can detain someone for something as simple as "running a red light" if they are not carrying identification.

He also recounted an incident of an illegal immigrant from Sterling who last year hit and killed a Herndon man with his car. The driver, Jose Santos Sibrian Espinoza, had been cited by police at least a dozen times for traffic violations before the incident.

"I support the 287(g) program," Ahlemann said.

After Ahlemann's comments, Christ the Redeemer's Father C. Donald Howard reminded Ahlemann that the meeting was not a political forum and asked him not to speak again.

This confirms that Mr. Ahlemann was reprimanded, although the evidence of his "campaigning" or "politicizing" is quite absent.

As luck would have it, I have audio recordings of everything Mr. Ahlemann said after he introduced himself.

After one of the panelists had talked about the 287(g) Immigration and Customs Enforcement training program for local law enforcement, during the questions and answer session, Mr. Ahlemann raised his hand and was handed the microphone. He said "My name is Greg Ahlemann and I am running for Loudoun County sheriff" and he proceeded to provide the following information about 287(g). The first recording begins with the interpreter translating Mr. Ahlemann's first words which were before I got out my recorder:

Shortly thereafter, an audience member was called on, and had a question for Mr. Ahlemann, which he answered as follows:

At this point the priest stood up and said Mr. Ahlemann was no longer allowed to talk. They went back to Q & A, and the next question was for Mr. Ahlemann. When the interpreter explained that Mr. Ahlemann was no longer allowed to answer questions, three or four other hands that had been raised went down and there was an audible sigh of disappointment from the audience.

When the event was over, Mr. Ahlemann was surrounded by a crowd of at least 10 audience members, and he spent 15 solid minutes speaking with them.

After listening to the recordings, which are raw audio captures of the event, you will see that Mr. Ahlemann did not do ANY campaigning. The only reason he was "reprimanded" is the priest did not want him speaking - despite the fact that the audience clearly wanted him to talk more. Mr. Ahlemann had direct knowledge of things the people wanted to know. School board member Warren Guerin - who is also a candidate for office - was allowed to speak without reprimand.

But hey, maybe I doctored the audio. Anyone who was at the August 26 event can listen to the recordings and, if truthful, will tell you that is exactly what was said. But maybe it's a conspiracy. Well, we do have another test.

Jonathan Weintraub claims Ahlemann testified about La Voz "that their funding should be cut because their forum was politicized" to the Loudoun County Supervisors on September 4.

WHOOPS! Wouldn't you know it, but there also happens to be a very public record, which is totally incontrovertible, of exactly what Mr. Ahlemann said in that forum. It turns out the Loudoun government has this newfangled thing called a "webcast" on the Internet.

Go to the Loudoun County video archive on this page. Scroll down to the "Board of Supervisors' Business Meeting" of Sep 4, 2007, and click on "Watch."

On the right side of the page, scroll down till you can see item #III, "Public Comment" and click on the link This will skip you ahead in the recording. Then grab the little bar under the video window on the left side of the page and move it as close as you can to 54:38. There you will get to hear and watch Greg Ahlemann's speech verbatim.

For your convenience, in case you cannot watch it, I have transcribed Mr. Ahlemann's September 4 speech below:

My name is Greg Ahlemann. I reside in Leesburg. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to speak. I will say that some politicians and power players within politics don't care for me very much, because I'm very outspoken about what I believe. I also believe that's what elections are for. That's one of the reasons why I'm here today.

I'm quite concerned with the fact that we can use county tax dollars to provide services for illegal immigrants, who are in this country illegally, and reward contracts and donations to groups like La Voz who provide services for illegal immigrants when we can't afford to pay our deputies and our teachers enough to live in this community.

I look at the deputies at the back of the room, the deputies in the lobby that are here today. I venture to say that many of the new deputies that come to work for the Sheriff's Office don't live in Loudoun County. Some of them don't even live in the state of Virginia. We can't afford to get them shift differential.

But for people that are in this country illegally we can take our tax dollars and provide services for them. While we neglect the people whose very lives our deputies are paid to protect. It seems like a problem to me.

Our deputies are not members of our communities, many of them. Their kids don't go to our schools. Their not part of our neighborhoods because they can't afford to live here, all while we're sending tax dollars to fund illegal immigrants. Is this really what we think is best for our county and for our communities?

I've spoke to you before about contracts. And I've read just briefly what the attorney had to say about the contracts here. I can tell you, car washes and things like that, we're going to have studies and these things are going to go on long past the election. We could have studies on this for years.

I could tell you, personally, if elected sheriff, I'm not gonna need a study to tell me that our deputies can wash their own vehicles until the Board of Supervisors can decide whether or not we will pay for illegal immigrants if they're working there and send our tax dollars there. I will take a stand on that.

Unfortunately, since January of 2004, when the Department of Homeland Security contacted the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office to invite them to participate in the ICE program, nothing's been done about it. It took until May 1 of this year when I sat in this room and listened as the Sheriff's Office talked about how they were gonna look into the ICE program. During that time, there have been accidents, there have been people killed, like the gentleman that was in Herndon who was killed by someone that the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office had in their custody.

How long do we need to have studies to enforce the law? These things are no brainers. And I also wonder how sincere are our elected officials about really doing something about this. The programs that you guys will decide, and our elected officials will decide on, will only be as effective as the sincerity of those enforcing it.

Thank you

There is, to put it mildly, substantial evidence against the Weintraubs. Without putting too fine a point on it: Their claims are blatant deceits.

Greg Ahlemann did not say a single word about cutting funding for La Voz "because their forum was politicized."

The Weintraubs are lying. The evidence proves it.


Pro-illegal migration "liberals" are in an untenable situation because they have pitted themselves against lower- and middle-class Americans who should be their natural constituency. For a number of years they have employed terms like "compassion" and "civil rights" to justify illegal employment practices without any thought to the other people who might be deserving of compassion, namely their fellow citizens, nor the historical population of citizens who truly have been victims of civil rights abuses, such as African Americans.

The common definition of a progressive activist does not include "facilitator of corporate corruption," but we are living in an unusual time, an ellipsis in American political history. Major social and economic structural changes have occurred during the past two decades, and the political end result is still a long way off. At the moment, we live in an environment of contradictions.

Country club Republicans and self-proclaimed "liberal" elites, who do not live in the communities most affected by illegal migration, are lined up with bad-citizen business owners to encourage the influx of unskilled workers from other countries.

This corrupt elite has a definite constituency among profiteers and illegal migrants, but is solidly opposed to the best interests of most of the legal residents. What is happening in American today is, the citizens have begun to push back.

When illegal migration was only a trickle, the impact was minimal and localized. Today, the effects are broad-based. The local situation serves as an instructive example.

Over the past few years, legal residents of Sterling could be excused for becoming cynical after assuming the county government would take action on businesses hiring under the table, commercial vehicles on their streets, businesses run from homes, single-family houses turned into multi-family residences, drivers without operators licenses or proper insurance, and an assortment of other infractions for which citizens felt they would be held liable but for which illegal migrants seemed to enjoy a lower level of scrutiny and enforcement.

To protect the illegal employment establishment, government agencies seemed to have a policy of looking the other way on infractions by illegal aliens. The general approach has appeared to be: The feds won't take them, and we do not know what to do with them, so we will just let them go.

Now that so many communities have been affected by the influx, legal residents are demanding a different approach. When the problems were largely confined within Sterling Park, the rest of Loudoun County's residents had the luxury of viewing illegal immigration as a theoretical matter. Today, the problem is recognized almost everywhere east of Rt. 15.

For many of us in this county and this country, the problem is right next door. Citizens have seen their livelihoods impacted by corrupt employers who game the system, their local governments' budgets strained by increased demand for social services, and their neighborhoods blighted by unenforced local regulations because authorities are inclined to look the other way.

This is where Help Save Loudoun comes in. We are the advocates for legal immigrants and legal residents. We believe the illegal migration problem is directly rooted in corrupt business practices, and the only way we are going to turn the corner on this problem is by enforcing the law on employers who hire illegal aliens.

We believe that solving this problem must begin at the local level. Just as local police are permitted to catch bank robbers for the federal crime of robbing banks, local governments can take specific steps toward enforcing immigration laws. We also believe that our local and state governments can end the don't ask/don't tell policy toward crimes committed by illegal aliens.

We believe our local government officials have wide discretion to ensure the safety and security of our communities, and they need to exercise it.

If our local, state and federal governments would simply do what they are supposed to do, the majority of illegal aliens would leave - self-deport - and companies would be forced to become good citizens and do what it takes to hire and house legal workers (hey, guys, check out the eastern regions of North Carolina - bet you could find some laborers there), and people like the Weintraubs would have an unambiguous calling to work for the betterment of our least fortunate citizens, remember how to tell the truth, and go back to being classical liberals again.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Exposing the Weintraubs' Lies.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1356


Speaking as a top executive in the "local anti-gay industry", I shouldn't, but can't resist, sharing the secret of our industry's success -- the Weintraubs themselves!

I was getting a quiet coffee at a local outlet mall, with another local industry exec, when "yoo hooooo" one of them dropped in and made himself at home.

I'm a live and let live sort of guy, and so in the past was willing to strike up a conversation with these ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/ac4lt/20091523/in/set-470079/ ) gentlemen, that is, until they perpetrated this despicable act,


against my own daughter.

So I demanded, but was refused, an apology from the Weintraub standing just behind the other one, in the photo.

Joe, I'm sorry they are stooping so low in their attacks against you and other decent folks in Sterling, but as you can see it's par for the course.

jacob said:

The last part of the article is as good an overview of the illegal immigrant issue as I have seen. Kudos sir.

The point by point dismantling of the Weintraubian diatribe, along with the 'la-voz de aztaln' history overview, coupled with my coffee, was a wonderful way to start my Monday.

David said:

Wow, Joe. You sure spent a lot of time on this. I told you that there was no need to take my letter personally. Carrying water for Eugene Delgaudio involves the risk that you will get called out in public. You should know that.

I did get a kick out of your friends congratulating you on that other thread for being "big enough" to merit being "smeared" by me.

There is certainly a lot of interesting material here. Thanks.

Oh, sheesh, David, your welcome.

Dan said:

Very nice... we finally hear fact and intellect in this Weintraub-Budzinski exchange.

From all that I have read in blog and print, seems the Weintraubs have little more than a Fatal Attraction for Eugene. David's post above clearly reenforces this.

I too fail to see the rationale in the liberals pitching their tents in the pro-business camp of this illegal hiring debate. Amazing what a facade of false compassion can accomplish.

Greg Ahlemann said:

Excellent post. Too bad the media has failed to provide the citizens and voters the actual statements I made at both venues.

Jack said:

"I too fail to see the rationale in the liberals..."

Whatever follows is irrelevant. You cannot see what is not there.

David said:


As I've pointed out many times, the objection to your speech at the La Voz forum was simply that you introduced yourself as a candidate. That was the thing that the church didn't want anyone to do, because of their tax status as a church. It didn't have anything to do with the rest of your remarks, and I'm sure many participants would have liked to hear more of what you had to say.

As for Warren Geurin's remarks, he was not speaking as a candidate but as the sitting school board member from Sterling. He was invited to speak in that capacity. It might seem like an arbitrary distinction, but it's not, not in terms of 501(c)(3) restrictions. This is a topic about which Joe seems to have, at best, shaky knowledge. In fact, a 501(c)(3) *can* advocate for or against legislation that is germane to its mission, just not endorse or oppose candidates. I think that Laura has been exceedingly conservative in this regard, which is understandable because her organization has such a good working relationship with the county.

One more thing, Joe: In your haste to label me in a way favorable to your argument, you've made some factual mistakes that could have been cleared up with a quick phone call. I do not excuse the exploitation of any workers by corrupt employers. In fact, I think I've been pretty clear that this is the source of the problem. What do you suppose has attracted such a large population of migrant labor to this area in the first place? It would have been nice (and much less suspect) for this problem to have been addressed before the election season began and before the housing market flattened - but then who would have built all those houses and kept the profit margin obscenely high for all those developers who contribute to the campaigns of Mr. Delgaudio and his friends?

You are right about one thing, this is very much about working for the betterment of our least fortunate residents, whether citizens or not, and not playing divide-and-conquer games with their lives for political gain.

Dan said:

David, If you feel so strongly about unlawful hiring practices, are you, or are you not in favor of the initiatives outlined by Help Save Loudoun in their press release of Sept. 4 ?

Press release :

David, sorry to have to correct you yet again, but the way things played out at the Church is not as you describe. Ahlemann never mentioned again that he was running for office, that was only mentioned when he introduced himself and it made sense because people might have wondered how he would have any expertise in the topic being discussed.

If the problem we that he was not supposed to introduce himself, how come he was then allowed to talk for a few minutes, then sit down, then talk again, at the conclusion of which he was told to stop talking. He was clearly only providing information, not adding to his self description. He did absolutely nothing wrong.

And, as it happens, I know quite a bit about what a 501(c)3 can do because I have worked in the non-profit world for 18 years. As I made extremely clear above - though obviously not clear enough for David - my issue with La Voz has nothing to do with their perceived political activism. It has to do with determining the extent of their advocacy for, abetting of and services to illegal aliens - two of which are against the law.

If I recall correctly, this is also the gist of Eugene Delgaudio's inquiry, and was also the central point made by Greg Ahlemann. The whole question of "political activism" is a straw man, and not a very effective one, to distract attention from the fact that people are asking whether La Voz is channeling taxpayer funds to illegal aliens.

I have no problem with anyone who decides this is what they want to do with their life and this is where their conscience leads them - I just do not think it should be taxpayer funded. If Ms. Valle feels so strongly about this, why doesn't she donate her time as so many others do.

But thanks for the suggestion of giving someone a heads up before writing anything critical about them. You can bet I will take that important lesson to heart.

Greg Ahlemann said:


I appreciate your thoughtful response. As you are probably aware, I have considerable knowledge about churches and their 501(c)3 status. I have done much research on this subject. Churches can and have allowed thousands of candidates to speak at their services without one losing their tax exempt status. If Christ The Redeemer had said "we endorse Ahlemann" that would have been an IRS violation. Having a candidate speak does not and has NEVER cost a church their tax exempt status.

The truth of the matter is, one of the attorneys brought there by La Voz had given incorrect legal information to the people there. I corrected that when I spoke and afterwards continued to answer as many legal questions as I could. I'm quite sure my answering their questions did help me get any votes. However, it did show the type of relationship I want the Sheriff's Office to have with the community. One that cares.

Also, David, you may or may not be aware that I do not walk lock step with every one in the Republican Party. I'm proud to be the nominee, but if I disagree with the powers to be, I am not afraid to say so. I would think this is the type of Sheriff people from all political backgrounds would desire. A Sheriff not controlled by political power players.

Greg Ahlemann said:

Sorry .... "did NOT help me get any votes"

David said:

Greg A,

I agree with you that Christ the Redeemer and La Voz were being overly cautious about even the appearance of anything remotely "political." The irony is that it was Eugene Delgaudio's attempted intimidation of the church through the Arlington Diocese - from his own statements because he projected that there would be negative campaigning against him - that probably led to this state of affairs. I doubt that the church would have been so touchy about your introduction as a candidate otherwise. As you said, your other remarks probably didn't win you any votes there, so it doesn't make sense to argue that you were cut off because of the content of your remarks, as Joe seems to think.

By "politicizing" the event, I meant, from the perspective of the church, violating the ground rules that they had established as the host. I thought that was clear, but evidently it is not clear to Joe. The confusion is somewhat understandable in that the issue of what constitutes "politics," and what activities are and are not allowed by non-profits has been muddied, largely because of irresponsible comments by Mr. Delgaudio (sorry Joe, but he happens to be the one who constantly shoots his mouth off about these things).

Yes, Greg, I do have an inkling of the disagreements within the Republican Party. I also appreciate your gracious response, and your willingness to engage the community in the blogosphere.

Joe claims to have been misquoted by the LTM - fine. Even if that is true, his arguments amount to hair-splitting. The implication of his quote was beyond the shadow of a doubt that La Voz is engaging in improper activities, when they are not. As I said in my letter, if you want to require La Voz to check the legal residency of the clients it serves, you will have to require the same of Good Shepherd Alliance, Birthright, and every other charitable organization that receives public funding. That seems like a bad idea for a number of reasons, but other commenters here have said that this is exactly their intention.

Some of them have even stated their intention to go after the Catholic Church itself. I just can't help wondering how these ideas will be reconciled with Mr. Delgaudio's support for these organizations. It seems like an interesting quandary.

Linda B said:

He may not have been winning any votes, but I'm guessing the content of Greg's remarks were exactly the reason he was cut off. Some people just don't want to hear (or don't want others to hear) the truth.

David, who here exactly is advocating anything at all for these other organizations you mention? Not me. I am in 100% agreement they should all be treated the same. Taxpayers should not have to pay for services for illegal aliens and it is against the law to abet or induce illegal aliens coming into the country, which I would suggest is what providing taxpayer funded service effectively does. This is the function I think needs to be investigated in La Voz' case.

Or rather, this is the function that could be investigated, but frankly I'm not losing any sleep over it. If you had not used her as a stick to beat me over the head in the LTM with I'm sure we would not still be talking about Laura Valle's organization.

But I'm happy to keep the topic alive.

Read the first 7 or 8 paragraphs of this document:


Sanity said:

Well, assuming you're right (which you're not), then call the FBI and let them deal with it.

The pittance of Loudoun County money that could be demonstrated to have been paid to illegal immigrants would be far outweighed by (a) the cost of figuring out who's illegal and who's not, and (b) the cost of enforcement.

Sorry that reality is so harsh.

David said:


Regarding the code, are you reading "aids and abets" to be the same thing as failing to check the residency status of a person who shops at the Salvation Army store, picks up groceries at the food bank, takes an English class, or seeks a pregnancy test or shelter from an abusive spouse?

If you agree that all charitable organizations must be treated the same, why do you keep singling out La Voz for such "investigation"? It's almost as if you don't understand that all of these organizations serve immigrant populations, not just La Voz.

Correction: La Voz singled themselves out by being out in front as apparent advocates for illegal aliens as detailed above.

I think the larger question of government funded benefits for illegal aliens is precisely what the Board is considering. You are correct, the county cannot simply turn away everyone who is not here legally from every type of government service. One of the questions the staff and Board are working on are which if any can be restricted.

David said:

"Correction: La Voz singled themselves out.."

No, that is incorrect. They have simply been doing their job and responding to events. What organization would you have sought out for a perspective on this issue if you were a reporter?

You seem to have a way of selectively presenting information. It does take a certain amount of chutzpah, though, to provide documentation that shows my statements to have been accurate, and then claim that you have demonstrated just the opposite.

I shall raise a glass in your honor this evening, just for that.

Jack said:

"They have simply been doing their job...."

They CREATED the organization, David. There are many other worthwhile charitable activities. This is the one they CHOSE.

Read the rest of the La Voz section, David. I realize there is a lot there so maybe you can take a few days and absorb it in small portions.

G.Stone said:

Too quote a Guinness commercial ; Brilliant !
A perfect example of dynamic analysis in action. Mr. Budzinski has taken the subject matter and through honest analysis provided a flawless illustration as too how we got here, who got us here, and what we as citizens can do to reverse course.
Americans now realize real solutions are needed before our communities crack under the economic strain of the status quo.

Americans have had enough and are beginning to push back. We are taking an active role in the formulation of public policy.Politicans and Local officials no longer have the luxury of blaming the entirety of this mess on the federal government. There are local solutions available to us. It is our job to force those in positions of power to use them.

It is our love of our comunities and nation as a whole that provides the motivation for us to act. Anyone suggesting motivations other than that are doing so after having just lost the battle of ideas.

Attacking anothers motivations in lieu of attcking the problem at hand is usually the first sign that intellectual desperation has set in.


Sanity said:

Has anyone actually done a reasonable analysis to see if our communities are about to "crack under the economic strain of the status quo?"

Or do we just have the Delgaudio/Staton "pull numbers out of thin air" approach?

ACTivist said:

Who's "we"? Have you or anyone done a "reasonable" (how I hate that cop-out political term) analysis to the contrary?

ACTivist said:

I find it very disturbing as to what is going on here. Joe has shown that the inuendos and lies that have been directed his way have no merit and are then countered with the facts. These aren't "his" facts but documented in other places and by more than one medium.

This thread is no different then many others. I believe Joes' intent for the Blog was to present issues and ideas for "rational" discussion and debate. Someone makes a point with a fact and another person does in kind. Why do we have these bloggers coming at the issues with falsehoods and half-truths? When confronted with them, those same bloggers continue to push their "ideals" ( that is what is truly the substance here) to prove their point. What point? Facts are facts and you have to learn that denying them doesn't change them from being the facts.

This seems to me to be the same smear of others to get your agenda noticed and pushed. This is also the reasons that politics is in the state as they exist today. When the facts are presented, that's it. Don't continue losing any credibility you have pursuing a follie. You may not like that fact be you have to accept it on its own merits. It IS the fact.

The best thing to do is be mature, admit when you are wrong and move on (not the organization!).

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

"I'm a live and let live sort of guy..."

John/Tom, did you come to that realization when you were videotaping people at the voting booth? Real "live and let live" guy you are.

Sanity said:


Without some sort of analysis backing up G. Stone's hypothesis, what can we conclude other than the motivation is nefarious?

Otherwise, all speculation is valid until someone proves otherwise?

"We should raise taxes by 100% until we pay off the national debt." (Just my love of the nation is my motivation.)

"We should jail all speeders for 30 days to teach them to drive safely." (Just thinking of the kids.)

As these two positions are much less extreme than many right-wing positions on this blog, I would expect that you would take them seriously until you can PROVE that they are not in the best interests of the country.

Otherwise, you're saying that it's ok for you to spew nonsense and we have to assume that you're right? I DON'T THINK SO.

David said:

How are you feeling today, Joe? We missed you at the board meeting.
I've come to the conclusion that this post, and your long, long letter, were written to get out some degree of frustration. I won't go into detail about the parts that have nothing to do with my letter of last week, but I will point out that your claim to have shown that my statements in that letter were "entirely false" is at best mystifying. The documentation you have provided shows just the opposite.

My points in that letter were:

1) You claimed to the Loudoun Times-Mirror (in concert with your pal Eugene Delgaudio) that La Voz is engaging in improper political activities, when in fact they are not. You were quoted as follows:

"What's more, Joseph Budzinski ... said he questioned the public money because La Voz's interim executive director, Laura Valle, has been acting like a political "activist" of late rather than the head of a nonprofit.

"It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]," he said. "I think there are some questions to be answered about this. ... It came as a surprise to me to learn how much money they get from Loudoun..."

If you feel that you were misquoted or misinterpreted, you should take it up with the reporter, but what appeared in the paper sure sounds to me like a deliberate misrepresentation about the activities of La Voz (and are part of a pattern of demonizing La Voz that continues in this very post). Laura Valle corrected some of those misrepresentations this morning on the record.

2) Despite the apoplectic predictions of your no-show pal Eugene Delgaudio about some unnamed persons "campaigning against him," the only individual at the Christ the Redeemer forum to violate the ground rules forbidding any mention of a political campaign was Greg Ahlemann. The recording of the forum that you have so thoughtfully provided demonstrates this. Whether or not this rule was warranted is beside the point. It's what the church required as a condition for hosting the event.

3) Any move to require one charitable organization to ascertain residency status of clients as a condition for receiving public funding will have to apply to all such organizations. We all seem to be in agreement on this point. For the record, Good Shepherd Alliance receives approximately twice the county funding that La Voz receives. Would you also be surprised at "how much money they get from Loudoun," and that their volunteers don't check residency status?

I agree with you (from the end of your letter) that this is a crazy situation, and the people who most need to be held to account are those immorally profiting from the exploitation of human need. With that as a starting point, we should be able to get along famously. The suggestion was made this morning in public comment to convene a roundtable of residents from different points on the political spectrum, with the objective of everyone being heard and making some progress toward reunifying our community. While I may have no tolerance for racism, I do have compassion (not false compassion, either) for those in Sterling Park and other neighborhoods that have been bearing the brunt of a large population of people in search of affordable housing that just doesn't exist.

Is there an echo in here? Man, I'm having a deja vu.

David, your patronizing tone is quite clever, and I guess repeating yourself is all you have left, but anyone who reads the documents - which are now easily available - will see that you and Jonathan are both liars.

Liars, pure and simple.

Please don't get upset or take this personally, but at the same time, please don't think for one second that coming back and denying you lied, and repeating your original assertion, is going to hold any water at all. The evidence is there.

Your only hope, which you seem to put quite a bit of faith in (and which got you into this embarrassing predicament in the first place) is that no one will read the evidence.

Obviously, that does not work everywhere, including here. I am certain all of our readers who have any interest are going to actually read what I spelled out above.

You've been exposed making false claims. Deal with it.

Regarding the length of the letter: It was only to ensure we had plenty to talk about because I do so enjoy your company.

G.Stone said:

The costs associated with illegal migration are everywhere. One would have too have been living in a cave two boulders down from Osama not too have been exposed to a daily barrage of facts, projections and figures as to these costs.

When a jurisdiction such as Loudoun spends in excess of 10,000 per child per year for public education is does nor take very long to rack up millions being spent on the children of people who are not even entitled to be here. Schools alone are millions of dollars.

Too suggest that minus an exact figure we should sit on our hands is just silly.

Doing nothing is easy, that is why there are so many people doing it.

Brains are for thinking, hearts are for pumping blood.

Sanity said:

Yes, well, have you added the property taxes and sales taxes they generate? How about the increased cash in our pockets because many of the services are cheaper?

When you've added up all the pluses as well as the minuses, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, you're just bitchin', and you got nothin'.

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Sanity, you speak as someone who's safely employed by another.
I am self-employed, and I compete with illegals for work in an ongoing basis at my job.
Carpentry is a craft, and good honest contractors are hard to find.
I'm constantly underbid by thousands of dollars, because they stack themselves in dump housing, do not carry the required insurance, Worker's Comp. or business licenses.
But people just love to save money, so they have them undercut reputable companies who do it the right way.
I often remind those customers that it's much easier to do it right the first time than to have to take it apart and put it back together the right way, as well as "you get what you pay for".

Jack said:

Sanity, we have, by definition, that unlawful aliens are criminals. They are taking what is not there to take -- and others who are trying to come here legally have to wait years because of them.

David said:


Please calm yourself. It is evident from the material you have posted here that the statements in my letter are perfectly accurate. Which points do you not understand?

You are correct in that the evidence is readily available. Let's go over it again.

The Loudoun Times-Mirror quoted you as criticizing La Voz for alleged improper activity as a 501(c)(3). That means political activity, regardless of what you may have meant. We have to go by what was printed in the newspaper (not the thoughts in your head, since we can't see those). Again, what was printed in the newspaper was the following:

"What's more, Joseph Budzinski ... said he questioned the public money because La Voz's interim executive director, Laura Valle, has been acting like a political "activist" of late rather than the head of a nonprofit.

"It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]," he said. "I think there are some questions to be answered about this. ... It came as a surprise to me to learn how much money they get from Loudoun..."

The clip from the forum records Mr. Ahlemann introducing himself as a candidate for Sheriff. That was a violation of Christ the Redeemer's ground rules.

That's all. There's no more to it than that.

Do you still deny either of these very simple facts?

Greg Ahlemann said:

I don't mean to disturb this debate, but wanted all to be aware of the Sheriff's candidates debate. This will be Tues. Sept 25th at Ida Lee. Since at least 2 of the 4 papers that are covering this event are anti-Ahlemann (You can guess which ones), I would encourage all the informed bloggers to come out to record it and report on it yourselves.

We'll all be there, Greg!

David, I would say to read my article above - but I guess everyday is Groundhog Day with you, huh? By the way you should meet our friend Zimzo, you guys could keep a conversation going for decades.

zimzo said:

So predictable, Joe. When you lose an argument you imply that your opponent is crazy--or worse, somehow connected to me--and you change the subject.

By the way, I love how you connected La Voz to the Aztlan stuff solely on the basis that they both use a common word in Spanish. I'm working on an essay about how the name of "NovaTownhall" is actually derived from the words "Novus Ordo Seclorum," the "New World Order" and your connection to the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission. It should be ready just as soon as I finish reading Pat Robertson's book "New World Order" and various articles I downloaded from your favorite site World Net Daily and consult a numerologist about the significance of the DNS number of your site.

Zimzo, I apologize but I thought you weren't still around. David keeps repeating a point from his original letter which I addressed in my original post here. Even you would have more imagination than that if I had caught you in a lie - I think.

And I'm sorry you are the last to know, but we ARE connected to the Illuminati. I thought that was abundantly clear.

stay puft said:

hey not bad Joe. (The original Aztecs were kind of fascists themselves)

still, most of the Hispanic immigration activists I know are more concerned with things like their parents could get deported...

Had Enough said:

stay puft "most of the Hispanic immigration activists I know are more concerned with things like their parents could get deported...:

If that is the case, they should leave before they are deported.

I'm sick of hearing that the illegals are scared, upset and looking over their shoulders all of the time. That is how all criminals live.

No taxpayer should be paying for illegals or illegal activity through any group no matter what their status is. The government and others give them funds fully knowing that they are using the money to aid illegals.

Basically, the so called free clinic that "the voice" has a hand in does nothing but cater to illegals. They also aid the illegals to get construction licenses to put more citizens out of work. In turn, Illegal company owners hiring illegals.

Sanity said:

Still, though, if it's a big financial windfall having the illegals here, you might not want to be too quick to kick 'em all out.

Or are you "bleeding heart" conservatives tearing up (that's "tear" rhyming with "here", not "where") over the poor exploited hispanics?

"Poor things are being simply being used. They're only making five times what they would make in their native country. It's just best for everybody if we rich folk sacrifice a little and send them back to where they have so much better conditions. And if their American citizen children have to stay here in a foster home or go with them to a country and culture they've never been to, well, it's too bad, but I'm just thinking about them! No sacrifice is too great for my hispanic brothers!"

jacob said:

The illegals are a windfall only to those who employ them. They are a net drain on the rest of the economy.

Sanity said:

Jacob, perhaps, but how do you know? Do we have any kind of reasonable study showing both the positives and the negatives?

It's easy to spew forth your venom. It's harder to actually do an analysis and show what the real impact is.

Until you know ALL the facts, you got nothin' but gripin'.

jacob said:

Your point is a good one, we/I have put up some facts pertaining to the economics of this issue before you became a denizen here. But some more has come out and a new posting is required.

I'll bite. Prepare to be slammed with some facts this weekend. I am up to my eysballs during the week with work, soccer and boyscouts.

As an appetizer ...


David said:


I've simplified my question as much as I think possible. Let's try again. I made two basic points in my letter with which you take issue:

The Loudoun Times-Mirror quotes you as criticizing La Voz for alleged improper activities as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, an accusation which is untrue.

Mr. Ahlemann introduced himself as a candidate at a forum in which the mention of campaigns had been forbidden, and was the only individual to do so.

The documentary material you have posted here confirms both of these facts.

Are you still denying these facts and claiming that I am a "liar"?

Please focus and answer the question.

Jack said:

"Until you know ALL the facts, you got nothin' but gripin'."

We can never know ALL the facts, inSanity. We must make decisions on the facts we have, and change those decisions if enough contrary evidence comes to light.

Yup, David: You said I accused Laura of political activities, which I did not.

Jonathan accused Greg of politicizing the event and then complaining to the Board the event was politicized, which he did not.

So you both lied, and got caught, and you are scrambling to maintain credibility by trying to restate your accusations.

Sorry, buddy, no dice.

ACTivist said:

Do you remember when people used to make jokes about the garbage that came out of Taiwan? Well, that is nothing compared to the garbage that now comes from Mexico, Central and South America or China. A wise neighbor taught me decades ago (in my penny-pinching/cheap days) that when you "buy quality" it only costs have as much in a products lifetime then buying cheap and replacing that product 4 or 5 times.

It's the same with labor. We are losing skilled labor for a "monkey see/monkey do-it's okay. It's very good" industry. I have had work done for me by others because of work and time constrants that don't afford me the time to do it myself. I have too many skills in too many trades to list. After having work done at "competitive" prices, I find that I am always dissatisfied with the labor results (I'm too much of a perfectionist in my work) and end up re-doing half or more of the job over, myself. I'm by no means lazy and I would rather do the work myself to achieve the results I expect.

The economy suffers, the people suffer and the industry suffers because of people trying to save a nickle from a dime. The unskilled will become the new poor and it is a blight that we have been trying to deal with with our OWN citizens. We don't need to expand the numbers to illegal aliens and support them too. I don't care about them being unable to make it in THEIR country. Like the aliens in "Independance Day"; they come, they use up all the resources and then move on. It is NOT about compassion. It IS about taking care of U.S. citizens FIRST!

Stop the nonsense.

Sanity said:

Jack, Jacob,

Naturally, I don't mean ALL in a literal sense. But, it certainly needs to be more than a Delgaudio/Staton number toss, and needs to include pertinent data from both expenses and revenues before we can determine the net negative impact.

Sure, it's easy to say "Well, if there are 10 illegal resident aliens going to school and they cost $10,000 each then this problem costs us $100,000!"

You would never say, "Well, if there are 10 LEGAL resident aliens going to school...", even though, it may be more likely that the illegal residents (or more likely the children of illegal residents, now American citizens) will actually stay in the country and produce net wealth for the country, while the legal residents are more likely to get their free education and then leave to go back to their native countries.

Which is better? Bottom line, again, is that without a much more detailed analysis than I've seen (though there may be ones out there), there is no justification for saying that illegal immigrants cost us money.

It may very well be that they DO cost us money. But we also have to look at whether they cost Loudoun County money, the state of Virginia, or the U.S.? If the impact to Loudoun County is a net positive, say, then I'm not sure it's worth spending my tax $$ to bail the feds out. I already do that enough! However, if the impact to Loudoun County is found to be negative (which, admittedly, it probably is), then we need to weigh the cost of enforcement against whatever the negative impact is. I'm not interested in, say, spending $2 for extra cops to save $1 in illegal immigrant costs.

In any case, once we get to that point of analysis, we can have a much more intelligent conversation. Until then, there's, pretty much, just "blah blah blah" from all sides.

Jonathan said:

Handsome Joe sez:

"As to the first sentence, I would say simply: Prove it, Jonathan."

Jonathan replies:
See the first comment on this page and the link to "gayliberal_misbehavior".

Thanks for admitting that Greg did politicize the La Voz event. I accept that his complaint was not the same as yours, that the organization is political. Given your link to the Cornell law site, his complaint to the BoS is even more misplaced than the original characterization.

David said:


You still haven't answered my question. I'm not asking what you think of how Jason Jacks characterized your remarks. The question is: Are you still claiming that these two things are not true?

1) The Loudoun Times-Mirror quotes you as criticizing La Voz for alleged improper activities as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, an allegation which is untrue.

Did you or did you not say this to Mr. Jacks?

2) Mr. Ahlemann introduced himself as a candidate at a forum in which the mention of campaigns had been forbidden, was the only individual to do so, and was reprimanded for it by the church.

Does the recording of the forum demonstrate this or does it not?

Jack said:

So, inSanity, if someone steals $1000 from you, you don't want the cops to go after the perp if it's going to cost more than $1000 to find him, try him, and put him in jail?

Dan said:

How many times are we going to hear the "Illegals are good for the economy" urban legend. Adjusted for inflation, it costs me the same to have my grass cut and house cleaned as it did 10 years ago. No correlation has been demonstrated, national or locally between the CPI and the rate of illegal immigration.

Cheaper houses ? During the rapid influx of illegals, Loudoun rose to be a consistent top two in the list of national home prices. It is the market that determines home prices, not labor costs.

Let's talk about Social Security, less than 1.5% of annual Social Security contributions come from"no-match" workers. Far cry from a windfall...

In 2006, the PEW Hispanic center estimated that up to 3.9% of Virginia residents were illegal aliens. If we apply this number to Loudoun's 50K students at 12K per year, for up to 12 years, this is a significant sum of money. Many believe that the illegal alien count in the DC metro area is as high as 50% of all immigrants. We need to free our schools from the ball and chain of illegal aliens. We cannot afford failing schools in an area which is one of the largest technology centers in the nation.

It is immutable fact that the economy supports illegal immigration. This is a free ride for them, and the law breaking employers that profit from them, all on the taxpayers dime.. Time to shut down the hog trough.

The point, David, was you lied. You are just making yourself look foolish by trying to change the subject.

David said:


What you said to the reporter is, in fact, the subject. Are you waiting for Jason Jacks to tell you whether you said it?

I did not lie. Your continued insistence otherwise indicates that you are trying to wriggle out of what you *said* by claiming that you really *meant* something else. It's not going to work.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Did you or did you not say "It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]"?

Does the recording from the forum demonstrate that Mr. Ahlemann introduced himself as a candidate or does it not?

It's a simple question.

ACTivist said:


I think you hit on something earlier and you need to check the addresses of Weintraubs to Zippo's. The similarities are too numerous to be coincidental. This whould be funny if it weren't so ridiculous!

Jack said:

Zippo is the worm in the Big Apple.

BlackOut said:


I've been following this blog dialog. You're debating a brick wall. What I can say is many that are lurking see your side clearly.

Ok, brilliant, David. Yes, now that you have winnowed your question to the actual quote from the article, which I cited as a QUOTE, I will grant you it is what I said. Yes, I said it appears La Voz' activities goe beyond what is appropriate for a 501(c)3.

As I said previously it appears to be diverting taxpayer funds to illegal aliens (which is illegal), and as I noted above on Sept 17, 2:48 pm, it appears to break federal law. Promoting illegal behavior should not be taxpayer funded.

Now that we are back to where we started, how do you wish to start this all over again? I can't wait to find out.

David said:

Thanks, Joe, for that tiny concession of the truth that I was finally able to pry from your death grip. There's no need to "start over" when we are making such outstanding progress toward extracting the truth from your lengthy thesis.

The simple fact is that your statement to the LTM was interpreted exactly as I phrased it. The restrictions placed on a 501(c)(3) being restrictions on *political* activities, one would reasonably assume that you were doing exactly what I said that you were doing, notwithstanding your insistence that you really meant something else. Perhaps you should have been more clear when you spoke with the reporter.

I still await your admission that the recording of the forum confirms the statement in my letter as well.

BlackOut: I know.

Sanity said:

So, according to Joe, if I run a soup kitchen and Loudoun County kicks in a few $$ to help buy the soup, then I am violating federal law if I don't ask for proof of citizenship or legal alien status whenever I hand a poor person a ladle of soup?

From Jack: "So, Sanity, if someone steals $1000 from you, you don't want the cops to go after the perp if it's going to cost more than $1000 to find him, try him, and put him in jail?"

Insurance companies do this all the time. So do the cops. It's called "negotiating a settlement" or "plea-bargaining".

I know the words "reasonable" and "compromise" aren't in your vocabulary, but you might want to look them up some day. It's the way normal people get things done.

Ha, ok, David, so that's how you do it. What a wit.

To repeat one final time, you wrote in the LTM that I should be shamed, "...for trying to claim that La Voz is engaging in improper political activity. Mr. Budzinski knowingly made this misrepresentation."

I response to you writing this, I called you a liar in the article above. I now repeat the charge, that you are a liar, because you clearly lied.

If you need any further clarification, read the article above.

Other than that, I am really fine with you, David, and now that we have talked this through, I am willing to leave it aside and move forward: I, content in the knowledge I have cleared the public record; and you, chastened by having made a deceitful statement and been caught dead to rights.

Jack said:

They can't plea bargain until they've caught the guy. Should they not bother trying to catch the perp if they think it will cost more than you've lost?

Sanity said:

Jack, that's true, but next time, for example, someone keys your car, let me know how many resources the cops spend trying to find the perp.

They're going to nod, fill out the forms, maybe even look sympathetic, but unless they have a rash of keyings, they're not going to do anything.

Jack said:

"That's what GUNS are for."
- Gov. Ratcliffe

David said:

Ok, Joe. Apparently repeating this fantasy makes you feel better and allows you to salvage some pride. I can understand that.

David, if what you wrote is a fantasy it's been one of the greatest dreams of my life, which I will never forget.

Jonathan said:


I read your very clear, factual and traceable 1:04 post followed by Handsome Joe's 2:27 response and scratch my head and ask:

"What the heck is he talking about?"

His statement was reported on the front page of the Loudoun Times Mirror. Hundreds of words won't change that fact. I know he's a smart guy, so I wonder why he continues to obfuscate. It's a puzzlement.

charles said:

OK, I'll chime in as another lurker. I get it exactly.

I disagree with Joe on his tie-in between this group and La Voz De Aztlan. Not that there might not be a link, but that the name itself is just too common to prove anything.

Of course, that was not germaine to the actual subject, in which David lied about three things in a letter.

The first was clearly a lie. If David wants to argue that Joe didn't understand what it meant to question a 501-c status, that's OK, because that appears to be what David is saying.

But Joe did NOT say they engaged in political activity, just that they did things that made him question their 501-c status. Since David has no idea what would make Joe question their status, and since Joe explained in the article what made him question their status, David's insistance that by "question their status" Joe HAD to mean "they engate in political activity" is a leap to a conclusion not supported by the evidence.

Further, David has no evidence that Joe doesn't believe they engage in some activity of a political nature, or have what Joe thinks is a rational basis for that belief. Joe didn't say that in the article, but David insists Joe KNOWS the assertion to be false, when in fact for all I know the assertion is true -- an investigation would show whether it was or not.

Groups that violate 501-c status by political activity rarely do so in a way that's obvious, that's why there are investigations. It is clear the group engages in some political discourse, that could well be within their rights, but an investigation would show that.

Joe in fact never claimed to KNOW that the group did ANTHING wrong, he just said it "APPEARED" they did. David's letter asserted a certainty in Joe's statements, as well as a certainty that Joe knew his statements false, neither of which is in the record.

So on point 1, Joe wins.

On point 3 (I'll get back to point 2), Joe wins by default. David NEVER even TRIED to defend his claim that Greg called out La Voz's meeting for being political -- and how could he, because even David couldn't twist what was said to fit that. Of course, David STILL claimed his letter was the "truth", he just conveniently left out that claim of his when he defended his "truthfulness".

On point 2, David in some was was technically correct, as Greg was called out for being political. David also suggests Greg WAS political. I don't personally find that identifying yourself as a candidate is itself a political act, but I will note that when Manes Pierre attended a similar meeting in a church in Manassas, and similarly labelled himself a candidate, nobody ran him out, and some of the anti-illegal people complained that he was politicizing the event.

On the other hand, Joe has demonstrated that Greg's comments at the meeting were not political, so while I give the technical truth to David on this, the implication David was trying to communicate is false.

I will say that David has a strange opinion of what shouldn't be taken personally. If you disagree with someone, that's not necesarily personal. When you say they lied and know they lied, that is personal. Especially the "know" part, as it requires that you have an intimate personal knowledge.

Throughout this comment I used the word "lie", a word I tend not to use because of its connotation. I used it in this case ONLY because it was the word everybody was using.

I am NOT saying that David willfully and purposely wrote false statements. So far as I can tell, David might well BELIEVE that what he wrote is true, and as I said, I don't know otherwise.

One more note, kind of off-topic. The idea that incumbents who are also running for office again are allowed to identify themselves as the incumbents and freely speak, while candidates are prohibited, shows one of the many ways the deck is stacked against challengers.

I went to a high school parent night, and our current school board chair was given a good deal of time to speak. That was only right, it's a school function. They DID mention she was retiring, and she was "running for another office", but they were careful not to mention that other office.

Still, if she had been running for Chair again, her ability to talk to every parent in the school district, and tell them all the wonderful things she and the school board had done, would have been a powerful tool for her re-election.

prince said:

I think both Joe and David need to get over this. I did read an interesting response by Ms. Valle on the Church thing though. I am going to try to find it...

prince said:

Here it is, this was on the LTM web site:

She writes:
"Let me just step in and clarify somthing. The letter that we recieved from the legal advisor of the Catholic Diocese said the following in regard to political candidates that might be present at the meeting:

"In addition, La Voz itself, and its speakers, must refrain from any mention whatsoever of the upcoming election, or the candidacy of either the Supervisors or their opponents. Take care to ensure that no political campaigning takes place at the event (including distribution of campaign literature), that no candidate is recognized publicly as a candidate for public office, and that a nonpartisan atmosphere is maintained at all times.

If an unexpected situation arises – for example, if a candidate in attendance spontaneously attempts to identify himself to the crowd as a candidate or otherwise engages in political activity – you should immediately intervene and advise the candidate, in a polite manner, that your event is non-political and that such activity is neither permitted nor appropriate."

We were under a lot of pressure to control the event. That is why we went to great pains in advertising the meeting and announcing at the beginning to state that no one was to mention any candidacies. In fact, Father Howard technically should have steeped in much sooner to prevent Alhemann from speaking further, given that once he announced himself as a candidate everything else he said could easily be construed as being campaigning, particulary when using the kind of careful anaylsis that Joseph Budzinski applies to everything he seems to be against.

Posted by B_Laura_Valle"

I do think that La Voz was fishing when they invited Delgaudio to attend, though. I don't think their motives were completely on teh up and up. I alos think that Ms. Valle is not as naive as she sometimes acts. She was probably hoping Delgaudio would say somthing like he did at the Muslim PAC picnic
“God sent me a woman! I am fruitful! God has blessed me with a woman! But I'm a ONE
WOMAN MAN!! I'm a ONE WOMAN MAN!! Has God sent you a woman? Are you fruitful?” – Eugene

Charles, thanks for stopping by and for applying your customary analytical approach.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here