Jonathan Rees, Dr. Griffiths and the AHCC

[Guest Just a victim of the rest of you]

When I read in so many places people having messed with Rees over the most petty stuff, I think all of you are getting back what you rightfully deserve.

 

I too am anti-gay, I too am tired of the gays trying to impose themselves and life-style upon everybody else and it is time that gays start showing some degree of sensitivity and stop thinking of themselves and not open up bars next door to churches and the other antagonistic crap they pull.

[Guest Guest]

Ward 3 Voters, endorsements do not always come with $$$$ but just having a name behind you.

 

I think you are making an jackass of yourself by questioning the impeccable reputation of Dr. Griffiths who has more in life to show than you probably do or will.

 

I might suggest you take your Rees hating ways to a psychiatrist and get it out of your system before you have a nervous breakdown!

 

 

 

Ward 3 Candidate Jonathan Rees claimed of the endorsement from the AHCC (see yourAHCC.org). The American Helthcare Campaign appears to be a sham run by his boss, Dr. Michael Griffiths. The website asks for donations, but the organization is not one in good standing with DCRA, despite using a Washington DC mailing address.

 

Here is the Google cache of his original website with these claims. Where are the Washington Post investigators?

 

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zqwRO...us&ct=clnk&cd=3

I did a websearch and found out it is owned by the same guy that Rees claims to work for at IDC (www.idcinc.com). I tried sending an email to Dr. Griffiths through the website, but it got bounced back.

 

Rees had claimed an endorsement from this \"non-profit\" a year ago, but he does not boast of it now. That same original website cited above ask for donations, yet Rees has filed an exemption claiming he will not exceed $500 on his campaign.

 

What gives with that?

 

What is the deal with AHCC? It is not registered in good standing with DCRA (according to the DCRA website) yet they are asking for donations using a DC address. Is that legal?

 

Dr. Griffiths also ran for MD Senate. There is somethingt very strange going on on 20th Street, NE. The Washington Post should investigate it. One of \"Griffiths\" partners seems to have given a lot of money to a major politician, yet seems to not be a dentist, but rather an employee of a defense contractor. I did a search for this person and came up with no records at the ADA. The only hits for this person were as a Dentist associated with Griffiths and as a donor to a political campaign from a defense contractor. This person\'s name?

 

Galiber Flavius

 

(Do a Google search of the above name. Do a search on the ADA website of the above name)

 

Here is an article of the Dr. and the organization:

 

http://www.washingtoninformer.com/HLTHNati...n2005June6.html

 

There is something very fishy about this.

[Guest The Anti Gay Ramon Rivera]

Now 20 states have amended their constitutions forbidding same sex marriage, 7 states have pending legislation and it is predicted when all is said and done, 42 states will do the same.

 

Thank GOD the gays pushed the envelop and triggered this response by the states. Now it is time to push them back in the closet.

[Guest Jonathan R. Rees]

The "gay rights" movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged.

 

In other words, "gay rights" activists no more represent a true minority than an environmental activist group, a trade union, or any other special interest lobby with a determined political agenda.

 

Now that gay affluence and political clout have been exposed, gay activists are trying to say they want only "protection from discrimination." But never have special interest groups been favored with anti-discrimination laws protecting their behaviors, desires or political agendas from public scrutiny, criticism and control.

 

Special interest groups who can't get their way through legitimate political means simply don't have redress for their grievances under anti-discrimination laws. The Teamsters union doesn't have access to special anti-discrimination protections for their "unionly" philosophy. The tobacco lobby doesn't have special protection for their pro-smoking propaganda activities. Circus clowns can't file discrimination suits if they don't like the way people laugh at them.

 

It is deception of the rankest order for a special interest group to masquerade as a "disadvantaged minority" in order to secure benefits for itself. Will powerful gay extremists get their way and secure the benefits and entitlements of the poor? Would it not be the height of injustice for the people of America to capitulate to such a concerted and deceptive "hijacking" of the status of the disadvantaged? What special interest groups would ask for special protection next? **inappropriate material**ographers (they also represent "sexual orientations")? Smokers? Television watchers? On close analysis, the idea is patently absurd.

[Guest Allison]

Rees you do not have to justify your position to all of these people.

 

Just say that you do not support gay rights and you will be in the majority.

 

So leave it at that and move on to matters more pressing to the District than gay rights.

 

 

The "gay rights" movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged.

 

In other words, "gay rights" activists no more represent a true minority than an environmental activist group, a trade union, or any other special interest lobby with a determined political agenda.

 

Now that gay affluence and political clout have been exposed, gay activists are trying to say they want only "protection from discrimination." But never have special interest groups been favored with anti-discrimination laws protecting their behaviors, desires or political agendas from public scrutiny, criticism and control.

 

Special interest groups who can't get their way through legitimate political means simply don't have redress for their grievances under anti-discrimination laws. The Teamsters union doesn't have access to special anti-discrimination protections for their "unionly" philosophy. The tobacco lobby doesn't have special protection for their pro-smoking propaganda activities. Circus clowns can't file discrimination suits if they don't like the way people laugh at them.

 

It is deception of the rankest order for a special interest group to masquerade as a "disadvantaged minority" in order to secure benefits for itself. Will powerful gay extremists get their way and secure the benefits and entitlements of the poor? Would it not be the height of injustice for the people of America to capitulate to such a concerted and deceptive "hijacking" of the status of the disadvantaged? What special interest groups would ask for special protection next? **inappropriate material**ographers (they also represent "sexual orientations")? Smokers? Television watchers? On close analysis, the idea is patently absurd.

[Guest Guest]

Wow. So we can add plagiarism to the list of Rees' ethical problems:

 

He totally ripped off the op-ed below from this website:

 

 

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc14.html

 

 

No morals at all, this guy.

 

 

The "gay rights" movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged.

 

In other words, "gay rights" activists no more represent a true minority than an environmental activist group, a trade union, or any other special interest lobby with a determined political agenda.

 

Now that gay affluence and political clout have been exposed, gay activists are trying to say they want only "protection from discrimination." But never have special interest groups been favored with anti-discrimination laws protecting their behaviors, desires or political agendas from public scrutiny, criticism and control.

 

Special interest groups who can't get their way through legitimate political means simply don't have redress for their grievances under anti-discrimination laws. The Teamsters union doesn't have access to special anti-discrimination protections for their "unionly" philosophy. The tobacco lobby doesn't have special protection for their pro-smoking propaganda activities. Circus clowns can't file discrimination suits if they don't like the way people laugh at them.

 

It is deception of the rankest order for a special interest group to masquerade as a "disadvantaged minority" in order to secure benefits for itself. Will powerful gay extremists get their way and secure the benefits and entitlements of the poor? Would it not be the height of injustice for the people of America to capitulate to such a concerted and deceptive "hijacking" of the status of the disadvantaged? What special interest groups would ask for special protection next? **inappropriate material**ographers (they also represent "sexual orientations")? Smokers? Television watchers? On close analysis, the idea is patently absurd.

[factchecker2]

The "gay rights" movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged.

 

In other words, "gay rights" activists no more represent a true minority than an environmental activist group, a trade union, or any other special interest lobby with a determined political agenda.

 

Now that gay affluence and political clout have been exposed, gay activists are trying to say they want only "protection from discrimination." But never have special interest groups been favored with anti-discrimination laws protecting their behaviors, desires or political agendas from public scrutiny, criticism and control.

 

Special interest groups who can't get their way through legitimate political means simply don't have redress for their grievances under anti-discrimination laws. The Teamsters union doesn't have access to special anti-discrimination protections for their "unionly" philosophy. The tobacco lobby doesn't have special protection for their pro-smoking propaganda activities. Circus clowns can't file discrimination suits if they don't like the way people laugh at them.

 

It is deception of the rankest order for a special interest group to masquerade as a "disadvantaged minority" in order to secure benefits for itself. Will powerful gay extremists get their way and secure the benefits and entitlements of the poor? Would it not be the height of injustice for the people of America to capitulate to such a concerted and deceptive "hijacking" of the status of the disadvantaged? What special interest groups would ask for special protection next? **inappropriate material**ographers (they also represent "sexual orientations")? Smokers? Television watchers? On close analysis, the idea is patently absurd.

[Guest human_*]

I think I know what's really going on in here?

 

It's simple, you all are not eating enough FISH.

 

That's right!!!! Fish is a brain food. Oh!!! and don't forget to just add some real lemon juice, and it comes out sooooo perfect.

[Guest Ronald McDonald]

Guest Human, I could not have said it any better!

 

There jerk are all standing on their soap boxes, preaching but know their hands have more dirt on it than the persons they are speaking ill of and that is why they never want you to know their real name.

 

 

I think I know what's really going on in here?

 

It's simple, you all are not eating enough FISH.

 

That's right!!!! Fish is a brain food. Oh!!! and don't forget to just add some real lemon juice, and it comes out sooooo perfect.

[Guest voter]

I, for one, have never plagiarized anything in my life. I don't think it's too much to expect that my political representative to maintain a similar ethical standard.

 

 

Guest Human, I could not have said it any better!

 

There jerk are all standing on their soap boxes, preaching but know their hands have more dirt on it than the persons they are speaking ill of and that is why they never want you to know their real name.

[Guest It is all queer to me]

First off people, learn how to spell: Plagiarize

 

Second, you are pigeon heads as you are missing the bigger picture.

 

What is that? Rees is saying that gays have no rights in his book.

 

 

I, for one, have never plagiarized anything in my life. I don't think it's too much to expect that my political representative to maintain a similar ethical standard.

[Guest Guest]

Which is how I spelled it, dolt.

 

And no, YOU'RE missing the bigger picture.

 

Character and ethics are the very least the public can expect from a candidate.

 

If you imagine there can be any serious argument to the contrary than you are indeed amoral.

 

 

 

First off people, learn how to spell: Plagiarize

 

Second, you are pigeon heads as you are missing the bigger picture.

 

What is that? Rees is saying that gays have no rights in his book.

[Guest Guest]

Which is how I spelled it, dolt.

 

And no, YOU'RE missing the bigger picture.

 

Character and ethics are the very least the public can expect from a candidate.

 

If you imagine there can be any serious argument to the contrary than you are indeed amoral.

 

 

Also: Forgive us if no one turns to Rees for spelling or usage advice. :-)

[Guest NO VOTES FOR LIARS PLEASE]

Plagiarist. Slanderer. Chronic dissembler.

 

The guy's got some terrific qualifications. Presuming he's running for Councilperson in the Underworld.

[Guest Justice]

Where is your character and ethics?

 

I recall Rees saying that he would not answer any questions posed by anonymous posters, you and others kept on asking so there was nothing unethical in your being fed disinformation.

 

You want honesty, then you show it by not hiding behind phony names.

 

 

 

Which is how I spelled it, dolt.

 

And no, YOU'RE missing the bigger picture.

 

Character and ethics are the very least the public can expect from a candidate.

 

If you imagine there can be any serious argument to the contrary than you are indeed amoral.

[Guest Rees = Ramon]

Where is your character and ethics?

 

I recall Rees saying that he would not answer any questions posed by anonymous posters, you and others kept on asking so there was nothing unethical in your being fed disinformation.

 

You want honesty, then you show it by not hiding behind phony names.

[Guest Guest]

Don't pretend you don't understand this:

 

 

Plagiarism is bad. Bad people do not deserve to be elected.

[Guest The Fags Are On The Run]

Don\'t pretend you don\'t understand this:

 

HOMOSEXULAITY IS WRONG.

 

HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH AS DICTATED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

 

THANK GOD THAT NEW YORK AND GEORGIA TODAY HAVE RULED SAME SEX MARRIAGE ARE FORBIDDEN NOW!

[Guest Guest]

Trying to change the subject Rees? Typical.

 

 

Don\'t pretend you don\'t understand this:

 

HOMOSEXULAITY IS WRONG.

 

HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH AS DICTATED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

 

THANK GOD THAT NEW YORK AND GEORGIA TODAY HAVE RULED SAME SEX MARRIAGE ARE FORBIDDEN NOW!

[Guest Ramon Rivera]

Rees is not changing the subject you stupid little *happy person**, I am.

 

 

 

Trying to change the subject Rees? Typical.

[Guest human_*]

Changing the subject a little.

 

Could it be that the frustration level on this subject is more do to diet?

 

Think about it?

I had a fish fillet, and a small salad today, and I am as mellow as can be. (okay 5 cookies too,.)

[Guest Ramon Rivera]

I see you are a poor man who eats at McDonalds. And your point is?

 

I would have answered you earlier but I was busy banging your sister.

 

 

Changing the subject a little.

 

Could it be that the frustration level on this subject is more do to diet?

 

Think about it?

I had a fish fillet, and a small salad today, and I am as mellow as can be. (okay 5 cookies too,.)

[Guest Guest]

It's funny how, whenever Ramonathan gets caught in a lie, or in this case outright plagiarism, he starts posting junior-high insults, anti-gay screeds, ANYTHING to attempt to divert everyone's attention.

 

Note that he hasn't yet manufactured a suitable explanation for the obvious plagiarism.

 

I'm guessing he's going to say that he never SAID he'd written it (though he did say it on another board.) OR he'll try to claim that the author's name is another one of his psuedonyms.

 

Either that, or he'll just keep avoiding the subject by posting things that have nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

Changing the subject a little.

 

Could it be that the frustration level on this subject is more do to diet?

 

Think about it?

I had a fish fillet, and a small salad today, and I am as mellow as can be. (okay 5 cookies too,.)

[Guest Guest]

Oops, sorry Human. I quoted you accidentally, rather than Rees. Your post is of course unobjectionable.

[Guest human_*]

Ramon, all you had to say is that you DO eat out at fast food restaurants all of the time.

 

AND my point is simple to underrstand, and that is? If you eat real meals, then you probably wouldn't be so angry ALL of the time.

 

 

Though I have noticed that more politicians in D.C. are talking about bringing in more investments, as well as a greater push to bring in Residents back to D.C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see you are a poor man who eats at McDonalds. And your point is?

 

I would have answered you earlier but I was busy banging your sister.

Changing the subject a little.

 

Could it be that the frustration level on this subject is more do to diet?

 

Think about it?

I had a fish fillet, and a small salad today, and I am as mellow as can be. (okay 5 cookies too,.)