Tweet
Here we are six or seven years after the illegal immigration backlash really started to catch fire, and you'd think we'd have learned a great deal after having been through elections with candidates like McCain and Scott Brown, or prominent group leaders like Gilchrist and Simcox. Seriously, the movement has been sidetracked or hijacked by one four-flusher after another, year after year, and yet we keep on electing them, defending them, or supporting them. The definition of insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result each time. For sure we are doing the same thing over and over again. We locate someone that speaks our lingo, supports our cause, and gains media attention, and right away they are projected to the forefront as our heroes without even the slightest look into their past, or their credentials. Most, if not all of the fallen angels within our movement could have been prevented from damaging our credibility had we done simple background checks and applied some basic sense in interpreting the results. Would anyone have supported or worked with Shawna Forde had they been made aware of her recent conviction for shoplifting? Of course shoplifting might have some understandable excuses such as extreme hunger or child support, but when the items taken don't fall into an emergency category the crime and conviction becomes a testament to the persons character.
So why do we keep elevating shitheads to high public status? What makes us cast aside reasonable suspicion when they arise? We don't wanna know, do we? We want to be as blissfully ignorant as those who elected Obama, but we just want our con artists to be right instead of left. But does that really matter? It didn't in the case of Scott Brown. He was claiming to be on the right, but he's been voting more to the left on the issues that have been near and dear to the right. Why do you think that is? Did we deceive ourselves, or did he deceive us? And now we are seeing a similar situation with Meg Whitman; and if you can't see that she's a duplicitous whore you have to be blind or stupid. And here she is on the right supposedly.
So that leads me to the subject of todays thread, Chelene Nightingale. Chelene says she's on the right, and she trumpets some really right wing causes, but is she a practitioner or just a trumpeter? What we see often in our movement for conservatism and immigration law enforcement is its' misuse by newly conscripted soldiers of fortune and/or fame. For my money, I just look at the past for my guide, but many of my betheren seem to use the present as theirs. Some even use the future, as in what someone says they will do, and of course for someone on the right, that should be taken as gospel.
The past is a good indicator. Not to say that a leopard cannot change spots, but if they are a leopard, at least you know to keep an eye out to see if there has been any repetitive spot changing at someone elses expense. This helps avoid the Shawna Fordes of the world. If you know they're a shoplifter, you may want to keep them away from your shop, or at least not put them in a part of the shop where they have ready access to your most valuable goods.
So what do we actually know about this Chelene Nightingale? Other than what she says, that is. Since she doesn't really have that much verifiable history, let's work from what we do have and go backwards.
We know she's on her second marriage, the first being a Robert Harris, and the current one Michael Nightingale.
We also know that the Nightingales have filed a personal chapter 13 Bankruptcy in '07, converting it to a chapter 7 some months later.
We also know she has been sued for a personal debt that was incurred prior to the bankruptcy, and there was a judgement issued, which she recently appealed and lost again. as a side note, the debt was not listed on her BK as required, and witholding financial information from the court is usually referred to as perjury. The story behind the debt is, that a few weeks prior to the BK, Nightingale spun a sobbing story of woe to a fellow activist about being so financially insolvent that they could not buy food or pay mortgage. The activist loaned her 6K with a promise that the funds would be repaid by the beginning of '09. Instead of obtaining employment, nightingale ran for governor of course, and this kind of placed the lending activist in an akward position. Personally, I would have been offended much sooner, having been kept out of the loop about the BK, plus having Nightingale evade my calls about the repayment after 2 years, I'd be steaming if I found out she was making a ridiculous attempt at executive office instead of working to pay back the
Comment