Can anyone explain what the deal is with La Voz? The first thing I heard about them was Laura Valle's column here comparing the people who oppose illegal immigration, like Help Save Loudoun, to Adolph Hitler.

Now they seem to be in the newspaper every single week. So what's the answer - are they political or not,and is that what all the controversy is about? Is Delgaudio really the instigator in this?

Any links to information about Laura Valle and La Voz would be greatly appreciated (Google is showing 479 hits and I don't want to read all of those if someone already has some link). Thanks!

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

David:
You are trying to be too cute by half.

Be very careful when you make assumptions.
As a member of Help save Loudoun we want ALL Non-Profits who receive public funding and deliver services without checking legal status to be de-funded.

Your assumtion that we want only those Non-profits such as LaVoz de-funded is as assumtions sometimes go both wrong and foolish.

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

Your rural community of Lovettsville is isolated, for now from the devastation that illegal aliens of caused Sterling Park and other communities around the country. The insurgency is coming your way Mr. Weintraub. I hold all charitable groups that give aid to ILLEGALS, especially the CATHLOIC CHURCH responsible! Get your head out of the sand!!!!!!!!!

Jeff Talley

Posted by JT

Report Offensive Content

Hensly, you could try their website www.lavozloudoun.org.

You could also try rereading the blog entry by Ms. Valle which absolutely DOES NOT compare people who oppose illegal immigration with Hitler.

And gstone, aren't you opening a can of worms! This should be entertaining.
No more county funding for:
Bluemont Concert Series unless they check the status of all Sunday Concert goers,
Good Shepherd, say goodbye to that $80,000
Legal Services, you too
LAWS, better check that status of that woman who was just beaten
Loudoun Cares, no money from the County until you invest in the technology that determines legal status over the phone (illegal voice recognition technology or IVT), don't want any calls for help from illegals after all.
MotherNet, your in deep, NVFS too.

Oh boy, you guys are total lunatics! What part of COMPLETELY NUTS don't you understand?

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

Last time I checked, these other groups were not advocating for illegal aliens. Also, I am not aware of GSA, LAWS, YMCA openly stating that they are there for only one specific ethnic group. There is a common name for this singular ethnic focus, but it escapes we right now..

If Ms. Valle desires to be an activist, and/or wishes to pick and choose the single ethnic group she works with, let her do it with private money.

Posted by dan_va

Report Offensive Content

It seems to me that a few people do not know what illegal means. Maybe we should give taxpayer money to drug dealers and gang members also. Did any of you listen as President Felipe Calderon declared: "Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." Come on people, our country is at risk! We are under attack! I for one will not allow illegal aliens to continue to infest this country! One more question. Why are some of you so afraid to post your real name?

Jeff Talley

Posted by JT

Report Offensive Content

Last year at this time it was the LGBT community. Our families and our lives became politicized because the Republican party thought they could use the so-called "marriage amendment" to get George Allen voters to the polls. 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.

The voters have seen this before. Hate is hate and lies are lies.

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/2007/0...

Posted by JonathanWeintraub

Report Offensive Content

My word, David and Jonathan, I believe I detect a critical tone towards moi. Maybe I am misreading this? I certainly hope so and shall surely re-read the letter to find that glimmer of a positive message that I know is buried in here somewhere.

In any case, the word "lie" seems like it deserves a test - does it not - and compels me to search out the actual printed record of what I said about La Voz. Why, I am certain such a record must exist somewhere. Also, there may be a record of some type of what Greg Ahlemann actually said at the Church that afternoon.

Well, I guess we'll just have to see. Hang tight and I'll let you know what I come up with.

Posted by joe_b

Report Offensive Content

Hey Joe,

There's really no need to take this personally.

Your previous claim is that you only made your spurious accusations about La Voz in response to a query from this newspaper, as if you weren't quite responsible for what you said. Are you now claiming that you didn't make them at all? I'm pretty sure that the article that appeared on the front page of this newspaper two weeks ago is still available, complete with your quote.

At the Christ the Redeemer meeting, after La Voz and the church clearly stated that there could be no mention of any political campaigns, Greg Ahlemann stood up and said "I'm Greg Ahlemann, and I'm running for Sheriff." I know that you know this, because you were sitting a few rows in front of me. Any other questions?

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

So, Greg, Jeff, et al, you are planning to take on the Catholic Church, and demand that they be denied their IRS tax exemption unless they become enforcers of immigration law? Good luck with that.

I think that Mr. Delgaudio may have gotten himself into a bit of a fix here, what with you folks demanding that his church and the charitable organizations he has enthusiastically supported over the years be held to the same standards as the charitable organizations he opposes. Whatever shall he do?

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

David :

Again, please pay attention, I am going to go slow.

If a non profit or any other NGO receives public funding and provides services or advocates for illegal aliens that funding should be cut off.

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

Greg, I don't see anything new here, but thanks for saying it again.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

Joseph Budzenski, Help Save Loudoun, and Eugene Delgaudio will attack anyone and any group that doesn't support their goal to enact local legislation to enforce federal immigration law. They label the groups/individuals as pro illegal immigrant, liberal activists, you name it. If you speak out on the issue and you don't live in Sterling Park they believe that your views aren't valid. Funny how Greg Stone is so outspoken on their behalf yet he lives in Bluemont.
Joseph B. has a long and rambling attemt to discredit the Weintraubs and uncover the "truth" about Laura Valle on his blog. He does a good job of selectively pasting parts of text in order to prove his point. He devotes so much time to attacking the Weintraubs and Laura Valle that it gives the impression that he is extremely concerned that both the Weintraubs and Laura Valle might be credible voices of opposition to Help Save Loudoun. Why else would he devote so much time to them? Maybe he has nothing better to do.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

prince,

Are you saying that Joe does not have the right to respond to Weintraub with variable fact ? Everything that I have seen on the blogosphere or in print has been the Weintraubs taking the first shot.

You are beginning to sound like one of western Loudoun's liberal elite, or a neo-independent like Steve Simpson or Ken Reid.

Posted by dan_va

Report Offensive Content

Ken:

Thank you for moving me to Bluemont. However, I cannot except your generous relcation in that I have lived in Sterling for 20 plus years, the last 11 in cascades.

It seems you have more than 1 identity mixed up if you know what I mean.

gstone

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

prince,

I just read the novatownhall blog article and I take exception; I think it has a lot of good info. It's responding to things the Weintraub's and Valle said in print so I would not characterize it as an "attack." It's not like the writer is jumping up and down like a madman, he's just methodically responding to specific allegations and proving them false. It seems like what any of us might do if there was a headline saying shame on you.

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

http://loudountimes.com/news/2007/sep...

Sorry Greg, it was the caption by the photo on the above article that appeared in the LTM that made me think that you lived in Bluemont. Just goes to show even newspapers can get stuff wrong.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

Well, well, "prince" old buddy old pal, here you are, raising your head again. Thanks for the compliments on my selective pasting. I like it, if I may say so myself, for the way I select truth and use it to demolish falsehood.

I think anyone who bothers to read what I wrote will see I'm not sweating the opposition but simply enjoy pointing out their errors. You may think it is verbose, but the fact is I had to edit myself to keep the length managable for readers.

When spelling out another writer's errors, it tends to be necessary to tell more so as to head off probable objections. "A" is wrong, because of "B", "C" and "D" is a typical formula for refutation.

A partial argument might leave questions unanswered, and as the Good Book says, "which broken reed if a man leans on, it will go into his hand and pierce it."

Posted by joe_b

Report Offensive Content

You're sort of falling all over yourself to cover for this woman, Ken. Seems to me the article she wrote could be read either way ... not surprising that certain people would take offense, though, I think you must admit.

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

Uh oh, looks like prince got himself deleted on another Web site. He had a post up there between the previous two making a personal attack on a candidate and crowing about how he would not be banned here.

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

Can someone explain to me how having a concern about a political candidate (Greg Alhemann) being a far right wing religous extremist is a personal attack? I am sure that the LTM recieved plenty of complaints about that post as his ferverent supporters want to prevent anyone from raising that concern.

After reading through the blogs and threads over at Nova Town Hall where people regularly call each other morons, idiots, and much worse, it is amazing to me that they would be so sensitive about a LEGITIMATE concern. Just read this LTE from the Purcellville Gazette regarding the Republican Convention: (page 3)http://www.thepurcellvillegazette.com/d/archive/2007/August_10_2007.pdf

And there was also some contoversy regarding his father as reported here: http://www.observernews.com/stories/c...

And three people have told me about a disturbing tattoo that Greg has on his arm as well as a website that he used to have that was removed after he announced his bid for the GOP nomination. Considering that the appropriateness of his actions at a recent event are in question in this letter that we are commenting amount, I don’t believe that these concerns are out of place or amount to anything close to a personal attack.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

...and the clock begins ticking for how long the Times-Mirror staff will allow that one to stay up there, Ken.

Well, I have to hand it to you, you are not afraid to lead with the chin.

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

I am having a hard time understanding why Joe, Greg S, and other members of the Ahlemann team are treating the fact that he has this tattoo as if it's a rumor or personal attack, even to the extent of banning someone from their blog for talking about it.

Guess what, guys: It's not a secret. Mr. Ahlemann showed his tattoo to some members of Equality Loudoun at the 4th of July parade, presumably to dispel the speculation started by an anonymous commenter on our blog. Some reporters have seen it, too. You all need to get on the same page.

The question is why he doesn't want the public to see it. (You have to admit it's a reasonable thing to wonder about when someone campaigns in long sleeves on a 98 degree day.) No, it's not a homophobic or white supremacist symbol, which is one of the rumors going around. Yes, it is a legitimate concern - because if it represents his religious beliefs and he is proud of it, why does he hide it?

For the record, I don't think that what Mr. Ahlemann did at the La Voz forum was so egregious. He violated a ground rule set by the church, but that rule was outside the norm for such an event. Their tax exempt status wouldn't have been threatened by allowing candidates to introduce themselves, but they were being extra cautious because Eugene Delgaudio had gone over their heads trying to get the event cancelled, and my guess is that they were concerned about what else he might do.

Still, Mr. Ahlemann did violate their stated rule and was asked not to speak again because of it. Also, what Joe told reporter Jason Jacks, "It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]," is precisely an accusation of improper political activity, regardless of what Joe would like to claim that he meant by those words. Nuff said.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

Joe, this quote, "I had to edit myself to keep the length managable for readers" is so condescending. And they say the liberal elite are bad. they ain't got nothin on Mr. Budzinski.

The fact is you selectively pasted parts of Ms. Valle's writing,leaving out critical points that contradict the point that you are trying to make about her, and then you go on to try to make a pathetic connection with La Voz of Loudoun and La Voz de Atzlan. So
yes, 'Shame on Mr. Budzinski'

I guess it should come as no suprise given your revelation, in your own words on your own blog. You wrote,"And I'm sorry you are the last to know, but we ARE connected to the Illuminati. I thought that was abundantly clear."
So, now that I have proof, you wrote it yourself, I am going to start my very own blog and expose the truth about Joeseph Budzenski! Hi is an Illuminati!

I won't bother to link to the site where you posted this, as it might provide some context. No. It serves my purpose to highlight just this part of what you said.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

David, Thank you for stating the truth about Greg's tattoo. Ken was starting to look pretty ridiculous with his theories on it.

I also have seen the tattoo ... not at all offensive. Greg told me he does not display it because (I'm paraphrasing here) he feels it is important to project a certain professional image as a candidate.

In other words, lots of folks have tattoos but keep them covered up at work. They are not ashamed of whatever the tattoo depicts but rather are simply aware that there is a certain "image/dress code" to be followed in the business world. I don't think their bosses or their customers or whoever would care that they have one, but there is a certain expectation that it should be covered up while at the office.

Posted by LindaBudz

Report Offensive Content

Well, glad to know about the tattoo, but it doesn't answer the other legitimate concerns about Alhemann being a very far right Evangelical Christian. That may leave really warm fuzzy bunny feelings in the hearts of a lot of Loudouners, but it is troubling for others. This is a particular concern to me when the position that he is seeking is the head of our law enforcement. I am not trying to discrimate on the basis of religion but it does play a role in politics. A recent poll said that 1 in 4 American voters would be uncomfortable voting for a Mormon. Muslim candidates are regularly required to answer to concerns about their religion.

If someone had said something about the tattoo from the very beginning instead of calling me a dog and kicking me off the blog over at Nova Town Hall, I would have been less concerned, but frankly the reaction made me even more nervous. Now could someone also answer to the charge that on a website that has since been removed Alhemann boasted of putting his tattoo in the face of people that he had arrested? If it could just be stated on record that that is not true than I personally will let it go. Just say that is not true, it never happened, and you are a jerk for even repeating that. I for one will be relieved to know that it is not true.

And I am not Ken.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

The only time I have ever heard of that supposed Web site was in your comments on various blogs. I have no knowledge of it, so I cannot confirm or deny, though since each time you posted it in the same breath as the rumors regarding the "offensive" tattoo, I would tend to discount it as another untrue rumor.

I understand the very difficult position you are in, "not Ken," as Greg Ahlemann is one of the nicest, most sincere and clean-cut people in the world and so trying to launch a smear campaign against him must be sort of like trying to convince people that the Girl Scouts are actually a hate group.

Keep trying. Maybe one of these days you'll be able to get one of those rumors you would be so relieved to find out are untrue to stick.

Posted by LindaBudz

Report Offensive Content

Yeah, Linda, it's something like accusing La Voz of Loudoun's educational meeting at Christ the Redeemer as "being a landing pad for further invasions of illegal immigrants"
At least I am not a standing Board member blasting this stuff out as facts on mass e-mails.
Like it or not these are WIDESPREAD "rumors", and they are coming directly from within the Republican Party.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

"I also have seen the tattoo ... not at all offensive."

Well, I didn't exactly say that, did I? It's actually quite disturbing and frightening if you understand what it means. It's not exactly what one would call a mainstream view of world affairs, and should absolutely be of concern to the very international Loudoun community.

Prince says that he is not interested in discriminating on the basis of religion, and neither am I. I am certainly concerned about the possibility of being discriminated against, however. Just because it's not a swastika or something familiar like that does not mean it doesn't represent hate and exclusion.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

"Not Ken," I guessed these rumors were coming from within the Republican Party because one particular member of the party (you) seems intent on spreading them. All the more descpicable, IMO, since you pledged to support the Republican candidates.

David, I did not say you did not find the tattoo offensive. I said I do not find it so. If you find a symbol of someone's faith offensive, that is your prerogative. Jesus was neither disturbing nor frightening, neither hateful nor exclusionary, so how a symbol of Him could be construed in such a way is beyond me. We will have to disagree on that point.

Posted by LindaBudz

Report Offensive Content

Well, Ken, read what you want into it but the only reason you were kicked off our blog was because you went one step further with your innuendo about Greg A. then you've gone here, now didn't you.

And uh, yeah, I guess coming from you it does come "directly from within" the Republican Party, such as it is.

Posted by joe_b

Report Offensive Content

I'm not Ken, I'm not part of the Republican party, and the story about the website came to me from a candidate on the Republican slate. At least the part about the website. The tattoo seems to be something everyone talks about. And loads of people have raised questions about Alhemanns extremist views.
Budzinskys - Eugene Delagudio has made some of the most offensive and false accusations of Loudoun citizens' of any one I can think of. Why don't you apply the same standards to that man as you apply to others? It would lend some credibility to your holier than thouness. You could always take the link to this from your blog.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

Linda,

"A symbol of Jesus"? No, that would be fine. That's not what the tattoo is, however. The symbol represents a very extreme and frightening *political* movement. That's not innuendo, it's just a fact.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

David, Actually, as soon as I hit "Send" it occurred to me that people do use those sorts of symbols as hateful, exclusionary, etc., on both sides. I do not understand it, but it happens. Knowing Greg's character, I do not believe he falls into the category of people who would do so.

I personally disagree that Greg's tattoo represents anything "extreme" or "frightening," though you may have your own ideas on what frightens you. I am guessing lots of perfectly capable, strong Republicans frighten you. :)

Posted by LindaBudz

Report Offensive Content

It's not really a matter of opinion, Linda. Symbols have meanings, and I don't think you are familiar with this one.

If you do know what it means, and you still say it isn't extreme, that says something about you.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

I suggest "not Ken" reid the stuff I've written, of which there is no shortage, and highlight those items which exemplify a holier than thou attitude. I'd be interested in knowing what he finds.

Posted by joe_b

Report Offensive Content

Not Ken, It's only because thee make it so easy.

David, "If you do know what it means, and you still say it isn't extreme, that says something about you."

So would that be, "Shame on Mrs. Budzinski?"

;)

Symbols do have different meanings for different people. Even swastikas can mean all different sorts of things. They were used in Eastern religions and other cultural contexts for a variety of meanings long before the Nazis hijacked them and turned them into a symbol so widely recognized that they can no longer be used without being associated with hate.

You are right ... I do not know what the symbol means to you and am not familiar with the symbol outside of Greg's tattoo. I DO know that each of the elements of the tattoo taken individually are things I would consider good and positive. And I DO know what Greg told me the collective symbol means to HIM, which is not only inoffensive but in fact represents a patriotism and faith that I appreciate. There may be others who use the symbol to mean something more extreme, but again, based on my knowledge of Greg's character and beliefs, I do not believe he belongs in that category.

Posted by LindaBudz

Report Offensive Content

"I do not believe he belongs in that category."

Well, good. I hope that we get to hear more about that.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

I applaud those trying to reason with David and Purple Rain, but save your breath. These guys don't care what this tattoo represents . They know full well it is what it is , a symbol of Greg's personal religious beliefs and love of country. However, that does not serve their agenda, so as usual they poke around the edges of innuendo in an attempt to cast doubt on Greg's character.

I suggest these two take their intellectual charade somewhere else.

It is both cheap and pitiful.

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

Greg Stone is simply misinformed about the tattoo story, and is doing a disservice to Mr. Ahlemann.

Since an anonymous commenter floated the rumor on the Equality Loudoun blog that Mr. Ahlemann is "homophobic and racist" and doesn't want anyone to see his tattoo, we asked him to sit down with us and discuss it. He graciously agreed, and that interview will be published as soon as we have time to transcribe it.

Contrary to Greg Stone's simplistic statements, the tattoo is somewhat complicated to explain, and there is a reason that some would find it sinister. He should do Mr. Ahlemann a favor and allow him to speak for himself.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content