One couldn't help but notice Bill O'Reilly stood taller than Steven Colbert on Colbert's (Comedy Central) Report Thursday. We'd have thought Colbert would have right off stood on a chair and did a mocking of Tom Cruise, but the greeting moment passed uneventfully.
video two parts Bill O'Reilly on Colbert Report
jossip.com http://www.jossip.com/gossip/bill-oreilly/remants-of-a-bill-oreilly-pr-stunt-that-didnt-involve-keith-olbermann-20070119.php?rss
digg.com http://digg.com/search?section=videos&s=colbert+report
transcript Colbert guest on O'Reilly Factor
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244882,00.html
foxnews.com has the vido
Comedy Central's Colbert admits his goal with his program from Day 1 some 14 months ago has been to have Bill O'Reilly, show on his show. Colbert unveils a sign:
Mission Accomplished!
Colbert billed his Colbert Report: Colbert and Bill O'Reilly fix the world.
At one point, Colbert displayed a nativity calendar which featured the faces of Fox personalities and CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Hey, Cooper tried his level best to find out what happened during Hurricane Katrina - saying he wanted to find out who all - all - was responsible for the failures).
The calendar appeared to be on the back of a newspaper...
Colbert checks out front page USA TODAY: Court to oversee wiretap program... that's just what the terrorists want, Colbert says...something about the Democrats...
Announces the minutes remaining to O'Reilly's appearance (should have done an Olbermann Countdown)(we should've been an advisor)
7 minutes
Let's first review O'Reilly Factor Thursday, January 18, 2007
video http://www.foxnews.com/
transcript Stephen Colbert Enters the No Spin Zone Friday, January 19, 2007
Oh the most interesting part of Colbert's appearance on The Factor was the exchange about the pronunciation of Colbert's name.
The pair bantered about O'Reilly's charge Jon Stewart's audience is made up of "stoned slackers."
O'Reilly said they'd contacted Colbert's former third-grade teacher, Miss Crabtree about him.
What an opening for Colbert, but the moment came and went. (I mean, Miss Crabtree, come on).
O'REILLY: OK. Are you ready for the interview?
COLBERT: I'm ready for anything. My life is an open book. I've been waiting my whole life for this, sir. I'm here at the heart of O'Reilly-dom right now. This is the holy of holies. Hit it. I'd love to be nailed.
O'REILLY: Colbert, that's a French name, is it not?
COLBERT: It's a French name, just to get the cultural elites on my side, Bill. I'm as Irish as you. I'm a Cormie, I'm an O'Neal. I'm a Tuck. I'm a Phee. I'm a Connolly.
O'REILLY: Because I talked to...
COLBERT: I could sit toe to toe at a potato table with anybody.
O'REILLY: I talked to your third grade teacher, Miss Crabtree. She said back then you were little Steve Coal-bert. Is that right?
COLBERT: In South Carolina, I was Steve Coal-bert.
O'REILLY: But you, once you got here to Manhattan from South Carolina, changed from little Steve Colbert to Stephen Colbert.
COLBERT: Bill, you know you've got to play the game that the media elites want you to do. OK? Some places you can draw the line. Some place you can't. You and I have taken a lot of positions against the powers that be, and we've paid a heavy price. We have TV shows, product lines and books. OK? It's not the price we pay.
Later...
OK. Now, your middle name is Tyrone.
COLBERT: It is.
O'REILLY: How could that possibly happen?
COLBERT: Because I'm Irish, Bill. Have you ever been — have you ever been...
O'REILLY: There isn't one Irish named Colbert.
COLBERT: Have you ever been — have you ever been — Colbert. Com (ph) Colbert of the east rebellion
O'REILLY: Now you're Colbert again.
COLBERT: I thought you had good researchers.
O'REILLY: Who are you? Are you Coal-bert or Colbert?
Colbert mentioned Colbert.com
IP Address: 206.123.42.24 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: CA(CANADA)-QUEBEC-MONTREAL
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?whoistoken=0
Back to Colbert's Mission Accomplished. Seriously, that was so clever. Mission Accomplished - big sign in the background. Yadda yadda the pair standing facing each other for quite some length of time. It looked like neither wanted to be the first to sit down.
video Comedy Central
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
video Jossip: Remants of a Bill O'Reilly PR Stunt That Didn't Involve Keith Olbermann — Fri, Jan 19, 2007
http://www.jossip.com/gossip/bill-oreilly/remants-of-a-bill-oreilly-pr-stunt-that-didnt-involve-keith-olbermann-20070119.php?rss
Among the highlights we noticed:
O'Reilly's asked about culture warrior, what does it mean explain
It's about secular progressives, like you
Colbert denies he's any of that.
...and traditionalists like himself and Jon Stewart... who believe this is a noble nation, well-founded, we make mistakes, but we have to irrespect the country... we don't need giant changes... we should admit them, this was a huge mistake coming on here...
Wasn't O'Reilly a former teacher? That should be we're respectful of the United States. Why irrespect?
Maybe President George W. Bush and O'Reilly met recently? or maybe Colbert emulating O'Reilly, O'Reilly emulating Bush? You decide. We're gonna have a drink of protein, pure protein and watch Jon Stewart though we never have before.
At any rate, what was this exchange of appearances all about? Only the pair of them will know for sure. What else has gone on for a couple of days that Americans have missed?
newshounds has the clip from the Colbert program and is noted in USA Today on Deadline blog report Colbert, O'Reilly: Gentle barbs, no punches?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/colbert_oreilly.html
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/19/oreilly_on_colbert_report.php#more
O'Reilly and Colbert talk the talk
By Peter Johnson, USA TODAY Updated 1/19/2007 7:52 AM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-01-19-oreilly-colbert_x.htm
The New Yorker FEAR FACTOR
Bill O’Reilly’s baroque period. by NICHOLAS LEMANN Issue of 2006-03-27
Posted 2006-03-20
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060327fa_fact
If you're obsessed with these two and maybe even want to find out what stock they own together start here
then colbert bill o'reilly guests each other program
video off to side
Colbert, O'Reilly Face Off on Both Shows
The Associated Press By JAKE COYLE January 19, 2007
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2973935291233555033907144828833950617611
YOUR NIGHTLY VIDEO: Big Day Finally Arrives -- Stephen Colbert Meets Bill 'Papa Bear' O'Reilly
By E&P Staff Published: January 18, 2007 4:15 PM ET updatd 12:15 AM Friday
NEW YORK Well, it's the big night: Stephen Colbert gets to sit down twice with the man he calls "Papa Bear," Bill O'Reilly -- first on "The Factor" on Fox and then later hosting him on his own "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central.
But the two have met already, in a manner of speaking.
Shortly after the launching of the "Colbert Report," O'Reilly visited Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show." There he complained (joking?) about the "the French guy" who followed Stewart. Here's the segment, as a warmup to the main event tonight...
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003534767
More
Interview George W. Bush why did we have to look and find? Bush is asked about illegal alien problem... responds... puzzling part - missing words after Bush reference to the NAFTA , superhighway, perhaps...
Transcript: Bush Talks to O'Reilly Tuesday, September 28, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133712,00.html
OK this was way too long, but there is more going on than meets the eye, be sure of that.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
O'Reilly unbalanced
O'Reilly interviews Johnny Sutton, prosecutor of two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
Sutton said the two agents shot an unarmed man and instead of reporting the facts they covered it up.
O'Reilly fell for it. He didn't have anyone to speak on behalf of the agents.
Mancow was a follow-up guest a few minutes later, and he did not comment on the border agents! This is weird. Surely, Mancow would engage O'Reilly on the agents, but he didn't. The pair talked instead about the woman who died from drinking two gallons of water to win a contest.
This is puzzling, because Mancow I'm sure would take the side of the border agents. Yet, he isn't asked, nor does he offer an opinion on that issue.
O'Reilly neglected to have anyone representing the position of the two border agents.
http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
He obviously didn't read World Net Daily today, either, or if he did, he ignored the article:
Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
The Bush administration further charges Ramos and Compean failed to file a report that was required after their weapons had been discharged.
Bonner argues that under Border Patrol policy, Ramos and Compean were required to make an oral report, not a written report.
"The agents did fail to make an oral report, but under Border Patrol policy, that failure merits at most a five-day suspension. It is not a crime, it is an administrative violation."
Bonner said a lot of Americans are wondering why the Bush administration seems to be making an effort to represent the case the way the drug smuggler wants it seen.
"If you go to the U.S. attorney's website and look at their version of the events, it looks like the drug smuggler wrote that statement himself," he said. "The U.S. attorney is relying on the drug smuggler's statements, and this drug smuggler has everything to gain by lying."
Bonner pointed out the drug smuggler is suing the federal government for $5 million.
"The government is aiding his case by prosecuting these Border Patrol agents wrongfully," Bonner said. "The U.S. government has virtually guaranteed that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila is going to walk away."
A statement from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, published Oct. 23, 2006, on the U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas, claims Compean and Ramos "shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=border+agents
Meanwhile, newshounds says Hannity and Colmes featured one of the agents on the 16th without anyone from the opposite side.
A Biased, Unbalanced Report of Border Patrol Shooting
Reported by Ellen - January 17, 2007
Several weeks ago, I posted about a Hannity & Colmes segment in which Congressman Dana Rohrabacher became furious with Alan Colmes for questioning the actions of two Border Patrol agents convicted for shooting a drug smuggler from behind and tampering with the evidence. Rohrabacher was one of a number of Congressman seeking a pardon for agents. Last night (1/16/07), on Hannity & Colmes, FOX News did its part for the effort. The show featured one of the agents, due to start his jail sentence today, recounting the events from his side only. Not surprisingly, he left out a few bits of important information.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/17/a_biased_unbalanced_report_of_border_patrol_shooting.php
Odder still
Unresolved Problems Segment
Securing the Mexican border
Guest: Sara Carter, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
The Factor described a case that has landed two border agents in very hot water: "U.S. border patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos have been convicted by a jury in Texas of trying to cover up the shooting of a suspected Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso. The two will be sentenced later this month, could get 20 years in prison." Sara Carter, a reporter for the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, relayed the most outrageous part of the prosecution of Compean and Ramos: "The smuggler, alive in Mexico, comes back and testifies against these two Border Patrol agents, given immunity by our own Department of Homeland Security. He comes back and testifies, and a jury convicts these guys." The Factor commented on the conviction: "This seems like a miscarriage of justice, prosecuting these guys. I don't think they're going to do any time, if they are, that's ridiculous."
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=932
More perspective
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/2006/12/24/bush-pardons-drug-dealers-and-sends-border-agents-to-prison/
Sutton said the two agents shot an unarmed man and instead of reporting the facts they covered it up.
O'Reilly fell for it. He didn't have anyone to speak on behalf of the agents.
Mancow was a follow-up guest a few minutes later, and he did not comment on the border agents! This is weird. Surely, Mancow would engage O'Reilly on the agents, but he didn't. The pair talked instead about the woman who died from drinking two gallons of water to win a contest.
This is puzzling, because Mancow I'm sure would take the side of the border agents. Yet, he isn't asked, nor does he offer an opinion on that issue.
O'Reilly neglected to have anyone representing the position of the two border agents.
http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
He obviously didn't read World Net Daily today, either, or if he did, he ignored the article:
Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
The Bush administration further charges Ramos and Compean failed to file a report that was required after their weapons had been discharged.
Bonner argues that under Border Patrol policy, Ramos and Compean were required to make an oral report, not a written report.
"The agents did fail to make an oral report, but under Border Patrol policy, that failure merits at most a five-day suspension. It is not a crime, it is an administrative violation."
Bonner said a lot of Americans are wondering why the Bush administration seems to be making an effort to represent the case the way the drug smuggler wants it seen.
"If you go to the U.S. attorney's website and look at their version of the events, it looks like the drug smuggler wrote that statement himself," he said. "The U.S. attorney is relying on the drug smuggler's statements, and this drug smuggler has everything to gain by lying."
Bonner pointed out the drug smuggler is suing the federal government for $5 million.
"The government is aiding his case by prosecuting these Border Patrol agents wrongfully," Bonner said. "The U.S. government has virtually guaranteed that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila is going to walk away."
A statement from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, published Oct. 23, 2006, on the U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas, claims Compean and Ramos "shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=border+agents
Meanwhile, newshounds says Hannity and Colmes featured one of the agents on the 16th without anyone from the opposite side.
A Biased, Unbalanced Report of Border Patrol Shooting
Reported by Ellen - January 17, 2007
Several weeks ago, I posted about a Hannity & Colmes segment in which Congressman Dana Rohrabacher became furious with Alan Colmes for questioning the actions of two Border Patrol agents convicted for shooting a drug smuggler from behind and tampering with the evidence. Rohrabacher was one of a number of Congressman seeking a pardon for agents. Last night (1/16/07), on Hannity & Colmes, FOX News did its part for the effort. The show featured one of the agents, due to start his jail sentence today, recounting the events from his side only. Not surprisingly, he left out a few bits of important information.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/17/a_biased_unbalanced_report_of_border_patrol_shooting.php
Odder still
Unresolved Problems Segment
Securing the Mexican border
Guest: Sara Carter, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
The Factor described a case that has landed two border agents in very hot water: "U.S. border patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos have been convicted by a jury in Texas of trying to cover up the shooting of a suspected Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso. The two will be sentenced later this month, could get 20 years in prison." Sara Carter, a reporter for the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, relayed the most outrageous part of the prosecution of Compean and Ramos: "The smuggler, alive in Mexico, comes back and testifies against these two Border Patrol agents, given immunity by our own Department of Homeland Security. He comes back and testifies, and a jury convicts these guys." The Factor commented on the conviction: "This seems like a miscarriage of justice, prosecuting these guys. I don't think they're going to do any time, if they are, that's ridiculous."
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=932
More perspective
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/2006/12/24/bush-pardons-drug-dealers-and-sends-border-agents-to-prison/
The secret for which Sandy risked his all
by Jack Cashill
Posted: January 18, 2007
If not the most skillful of embezzlers, Samuel "Sandy" Berger is a far more formidable character than the media would have us believe. When he made his now-storied sorties into the National Archives, he risked his career and his reputation in so doing, and he knew it. Rest assured, he would not have done so were the secrets to be preserved not worth the risk of pilfering them.
True to form, the major media refuse to even ask the most fundamental question: Just what secrets would justify so much personal exposure? Having read the report on Berger by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, I am more confident than ever that I know the answer.
As the House report makes clear, Berger did not exactly welcome this assignment. This confirms my suspicions. The archivists told the committee, in fact, that Berger "indicated some disgust with the burden and responsibility of conducting the document review."...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53812
by Jack Cashill
Posted: January 18, 2007
If not the most skillful of embezzlers, Samuel "Sandy" Berger is a far more formidable character than the media would have us believe. When he made his now-storied sorties into the National Archives, he risked his career and his reputation in so doing, and he knew it. Rest assured, he would not have done so were the secrets to be preserved not worth the risk of pilfering them.
True to form, the major media refuse to even ask the most fundamental question: Just what secrets would justify so much personal exposure? Having read the report on Berger by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, I am more confident than ever that I know the answer.
As the House report makes clear, Berger did not exactly welcome this assignment. This confirms my suspicions. The archivists told the committee, in fact, that Berger "indicated some disgust with the burden and responsibility of conducting the document review."...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53812
NBC denies Bill O'Reilly accurate about liberal slant
Steve Doocy revealed he grew up in Clay Center Kansas. That's why he's so durn tall.
Meanwhile, NBC exec has retaliated against Bill O'Reilly's charges NBC is not objective and politically leans liberal in news reporting. According to Doocy, the executive (unnamed) called O'Reilly pathetic.
Isn't that a familiar word? Do these people all go to the same brainwashing school?
Barbra Walters - Donald Trump a pathetic man...
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Dan Rather to appear on the O'Reilly program to explain what he meant when he charged Fox News network (anchors) all use White House talking points.
don't forget Dan Rather on O'Reilly Factor Fox News Memo-gate?
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/dont-forget-dan-rather-on-oreilly.html
(Monday, December 18, 2006)
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-oreilly-factor-tonight-bill-oreilly.html
The Rather Factor
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/rather-factor.html
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=dan+rather
As we noted way back in December, we believe Rather's comments were regarding the so-called leaked internal Fox News memo from Fox executive John Moody shortly after the November '06 election wherein Democrats gained the majority. The memo was reportedly "uncovered" by the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html
Notice again, a visit to the HP page does not display the image any longer.
We have also posted an analysis of the image of the reputed memo and its contents, challenging its authenticity.
Dissection of image of memo:
As any internet user should be aware, misspellings and incorrect grammar are indications of fakery and often employed on so-called conspiracy type sites. Mix a bit of truth in with the faked items and people will begin to believe everything they read on the net.
Not only that, the story becomes entwined with more so-called "details" as it crisscrosses the internet, more often than not using snippets from just such sites as News Hounds analysis!
Indications the Fox News memo is faked include...
We also captured the image posted at this site http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/11/fox-news-internal-memo-from-day-after.html
We await a call from Bill O'Reilly to talk about our findings... since Rather won't appear on the Factor.
Fox 'n Friends again on the dispute about NBC and O'Reilly. NBC News chief takes aim at Bill O'Reilly. Gretchen says it was the Steve Capus, president of NBC News.
Well finally...
NBC News Chief Takes Swipe at O'Reilly
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan17/0,4670,TVNBCvsOaposReilly,00.html
Links of interest about Fox 'n Friends
http://www.topix.net/tv/fox-and-friends
Commentary about Doocy and the Happy Handbook
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2006/10/13/learning_from_mr_and_mrs_happy
Fox 'n Friends Exposes More on NBC Liberal Bias newsbusters.org (don't miss the comments)
http://newsbusters.org/node/10182
The Foxy Friends were also discussing the battle for the original first homeplace of the creation of the hamburger (as we know it). Well everybody knows it was:
Wichita. Kansas. Or ... Oklahoma?
(google search)
http://www.foodreference.com/html/fwhitecastle.html
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Castle_%28restaurant%29
On the following pages, the occupations are switched - funny:
The White Castle hamburger chain was founded in Wichita, Kansas by Walter A. Anderson and E. W. Ingram. Anderson was an insurance executive, and together with Ingram, a cook, they started the company in 1921...
http://www.foodreference.com/html/wwalteranderson.html
Occupations are the other way around
http://www.foodreference.com/html/fwhitecastle.html
There is a dispute about who made the first hamburger and bun in America. Have you ever wondered where the first hamburger on a bun came from? Which story you believe depends on your definition of a hamburger. Is it a hamburger when served on a bun? Or is it a hamburger when served between two slices of bread?
Only one of the claimants below served their hamburgers on a bun - Oscar Weber Bilby in 1891. The rest served them as sandwiches between two slices of bread.
And
1916 - Walter Anderson from Wichita, Kansas, a fry cook, developed buns to accommodate the hamburger patties. The dough he selected was heavier than ordinary bread dough, and he formed it into small, square shapes that were just big enough for one of his hamburgers. He quit his job as a cook and used his life savings to purchase an old trolley car and developed it into a diner featuring his hamburgers.
In 1921, Anderson co-founded the White Castle Hamburger with Edgar Waldo "Billy" Ingram, an insurance executive, in Wichita, Kansas. It is the oldest hamburger chain. They serve steam-fried hamburgers, 18 per pound of fresh ground beef, cooked on a bed of chopped onions, for a nickel...
And
On April 13, 1995, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma proclaimed that the real birthplace of the hamburger on the bun, was created and consumed in Tulsa in 1891. The State of Oklahoma Proclamation states...
And
1885 - The family of Frank and Charles Menches from Akron, Ohio, claim the brothers invented the hamburger while traveling in a 100-man traveling concession circuit at events (fairs, race meetings, and farmers' picnics) in the Midwest in the early 1880s. During a stop at the Erie County Fair in Hamburg, New York, the brothers ran out of pork for their hot sausage patty sandwiches. Because this happened on a particularly hot day, the local butchers stop slaughtering pigs. The butcher suggested that they substitute beef for the pork. The brothers ground up the beef, mixed it with some brown sugar, coffee, and other spices and served it as a sandwich between two pieces of bread. They called this sandwich the "hamburger" after Hamburg, New York where the fair was being held. According to family legend, Frank didn't really know what to call it, so he looked up and saw the banner for the Hamburg fair and said, "This is the hamburger." In Frank's 1951 obituary in The Los Angeles Times, he is acknowledged him as the ''inventor'' of the hamburger.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HamburgerHistory.htm
Makes us forget all about the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY!
Olbermann and O'Reilly have a long-standing rivalry: In recent weeks, Olbermann has repeatedly honored O'Reilly with "Worst Person" awards during Countdown, while O'Reilly has responded, on several occasions, by asserting that MSNBC "is a true ratings disaster...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602270007
More from You Tube
Av Westin: Memoranda and Moody and Roger setting the tone at Fox News for the day
John Du Pre ... our job was to execute the plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYDRrmIH2w
More about the Fox News memo reputed around the net, but unverified...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=fox+news+memo
Meanwhile, NBC exec has retaliated against Bill O'Reilly's charges NBC is not objective and politically leans liberal in news reporting. According to Doocy, the executive (unnamed) called O'Reilly pathetic.
Isn't that a familiar word? Do these people all go to the same brainwashing school?
Barbra Walters - Donald Trump a pathetic man...
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Dan Rather to appear on the O'Reilly program to explain what he meant when he charged Fox News network (anchors) all use White House talking points.
don't forget Dan Rather on O'Reilly Factor Fox News Memo-gate?
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/dont-forget-dan-rather-on-oreilly.html
(Monday, December 18, 2006)
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-oreilly-factor-tonight-bill-oreilly.html
The Rather Factor
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/rather-factor.html
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=dan+rather
As we noted way back in December, we believe Rather's comments were regarding the so-called leaked internal Fox News memo from Fox executive John Moody shortly after the November '06 election wherein Democrats gained the majority. The memo was reportedly "uncovered" by the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html
Notice again, a visit to the HP page does not display the image any longer.
We have also posted an analysis of the image of the reputed memo and its contents, challenging its authenticity.
Dissection of image of memo:
As any internet user should be aware, misspellings and incorrect grammar are indications of fakery and often employed on so-called conspiracy type sites. Mix a bit of truth in with the faked items and people will begin to believe everything they read on the net.
Not only that, the story becomes entwined with more so-called "details" as it crisscrosses the internet, more often than not using snippets from just such sites as News Hounds analysis!
Indications the Fox News memo is faked include...
We also captured the image posted at this site http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/11/fox-news-internal-memo-from-day-after.html
We await a call from Bill O'Reilly to talk about our findings... since Rather won't appear on the Factor.
Fox 'n Friends again on the dispute about NBC and O'Reilly. NBC News chief takes aim at Bill O'Reilly. Gretchen says it was the Steve Capus, president of NBC News.
Well finally...
NBC News Chief Takes Swipe at O'Reilly
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan17/0,4670,TVNBCvsOaposReilly,00.html
Links of interest about Fox 'n Friends
http://www.topix.net/tv/fox-and-friends
Commentary about Doocy and the Happy Handbook
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2006/10/13/learning_from_mr_and_mrs_happy
Fox 'n Friends Exposes More on NBC Liberal Bias newsbusters.org (don't miss the comments)
http://newsbusters.org/node/10182
The Foxy Friends were also discussing the battle for the original first homeplace of the creation of the hamburger (as we know it). Well everybody knows it was:
Wichita. Kansas. Or ... Oklahoma?
(google search)
http://www.foodreference.com/html/fwhitecastle.html
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Castle_%28restaurant%29
On the following pages, the occupations are switched - funny:
The White Castle hamburger chain was founded in Wichita, Kansas by Walter A. Anderson and E. W. Ingram. Anderson was an insurance executive, and together with Ingram, a cook, they started the company in 1921...
http://www.foodreference.com/html/wwalteranderson.html
Occupations are the other way around
http://www.foodreference.com/html/fwhitecastle.html
There is a dispute about who made the first hamburger and bun in America. Have you ever wondered where the first hamburger on a bun came from? Which story you believe depends on your definition of a hamburger. Is it a hamburger when served on a bun? Or is it a hamburger when served between two slices of bread?
Only one of the claimants below served their hamburgers on a bun - Oscar Weber Bilby in 1891. The rest served them as sandwiches between two slices of bread.
And
1916 - Walter Anderson from Wichita, Kansas, a fry cook, developed buns to accommodate the hamburger patties. The dough he selected was heavier than ordinary bread dough, and he formed it into small, square shapes that were just big enough for one of his hamburgers. He quit his job as a cook and used his life savings to purchase an old trolley car and developed it into a diner featuring his hamburgers.
In 1921, Anderson co-founded the White Castle Hamburger with Edgar Waldo "Billy" Ingram, an insurance executive, in Wichita, Kansas. It is the oldest hamburger chain. They serve steam-fried hamburgers, 18 per pound of fresh ground beef, cooked on a bed of chopped onions, for a nickel...
And
On April 13, 1995, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma proclaimed that the real birthplace of the hamburger on the bun, was created and consumed in Tulsa in 1891. The State of Oklahoma Proclamation states...
And
1885 - The family of Frank and Charles Menches from Akron, Ohio, claim the brothers invented the hamburger while traveling in a 100-man traveling concession circuit at events (fairs, race meetings, and farmers' picnics) in the Midwest in the early 1880s. During a stop at the Erie County Fair in Hamburg, New York, the brothers ran out of pork for their hot sausage patty sandwiches. Because this happened on a particularly hot day, the local butchers stop slaughtering pigs. The butcher suggested that they substitute beef for the pork. The brothers ground up the beef, mixed it with some brown sugar, coffee, and other spices and served it as a sandwich between two pieces of bread. They called this sandwich the "hamburger" after Hamburg, New York where the fair was being held. According to family legend, Frank didn't really know what to call it, so he looked up and saw the banner for the Hamburg fair and said, "This is the hamburger." In Frank's 1951 obituary in The Los Angeles Times, he is acknowledged him as the ''inventor'' of the hamburger.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HamburgerHistory.htm
Makes us forget all about the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY!
Olbermann and O'Reilly have a long-standing rivalry: In recent weeks, Olbermann has repeatedly honored O'Reilly with "Worst Person" awards during Countdown, while O'Reilly has responded, on several occasions, by asserting that MSNBC "is a true ratings disaster...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602270007
More from You Tube
Av Westin: Memoranda and Moody and Roger setting the tone at Fox News for the day
John Du Pre ... our job was to execute the plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYDRrmIH2w
More about the Fox News memo reputed around the net, but unverified...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=fox+news+memo
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
No pardons for officers of the law
Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
The Bush administration further charges Ramos and Compean failed to file a report that was required after their weapons had been discharged.
Bonner argues that under Border Patrol policy, Ramos and Compean were required to make an oral report, not a written report.
"The agents did fail to make an oral report, but under Border Patrol policy, that failure merits at most a five-day suspension. It is not a crime, it is an administrative violation."
Bonner said a lot of Americans are wondering why the Bush administration seems to be making an effort to represent the case the way the drug smuggler wants it seen.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53823
They don't throw this many charges at guys they've caught with over 2,000 pounds of marijuana," Ramos said. "There's murderers and child rapists that are looking at less time than me.
Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, are set to be sentenced Aug. 22 for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican citizen, on Feb. 17, 2005, in the small Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles south east of El Paso.
A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.
The jury acquitted both men of assault with intent to commit murder.
But the conviction for discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence requires a minimum 10-year prison sentence. The sentences for the other convictions vary.
On July 25, the El Paso U.S. Probation Office recommended to Judge Kathleen Cardone that each man get 20 years.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
This is worse than unjust. What is up with president Bush? He pardons drug dealers during Christmas, but won't pardon the two federal border agents. Maybe if they had Euro-american sounding names, they would've been pardoned.
Provides links to info about Bush pardons of drug dealers...
http://www.nbpc.net/
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean - America shames itself by your prosecutions.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos Jose Compean
http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
Tom Tangredo was guest on O'Reilly Factor this evening.
http://tancredo.house.gov/irc/WYB.2006.06.22.html
O'Reilly didn't have a clue - he kept saying the two agents broke the law - they hid the facts, covered-up. He said he thought they'd be pardoned, eventually, but they needed to be made an example so we don't have more border patrol agents "breaking the law."
Right O'Reilly, let's make an example of them for an administrative mistake, but let the illegal aliens free reign.
O'Reilly spent a portion of the segment on the border agents, then moved on to Tancredo's presidential bid. He said, you won't win... you make too much sense.
That was extremely odd, wasn't it?
O'Reilly must have read this: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/border-agents.htm
Devvy Kidd viewpoint
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd206.htm
Why is it Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are held to a higher standard than Bush. This is what is puzzling.
We have yet to learn what President Bush knew about potential threats to U.S. before September 11, 2001. Was there a cover-up? Bush didn't even testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath or in public hearing. Was there a cover-up? We have yet to have any decent questions answered about when precisely Bush knew that a plane or more than one plane may have been hijacked that morning. Was there a cover-up?
We'll never know, because President Bush escapes accountability by the 9/11 Commission hearings, and there have been no Congressional hearings wherein President Bush has been required to testify under oath.
The inaction of Bush to pardon these two men is the downfall of Bush. It is all down hill from this point forward. Whereas many political conservatives supported Bush on the war on terror, they are leaving his camp in droves on this border security issue. They will leave quicker after Bush's failure to pardon law enforcement agents who faced death day in and day out.
We need our Congressional reps to do more than they are doing. Obviously, letters to President Bush and AG are not enough.
Dana Rohrabacher
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=50972
Phyllis Schlafly
...
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/jan07/07-01-03.html
January 14, 2007 at 13:23:58
An Open Letter to All Border Patrol Agents by Doc Farmer
Dear Border Patrol Agents, Officers, and Employees,
excerpt
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=173146
2 Border Patrol Agents to Turn Themselves in Today for Shooting Mexican Drug Runner
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 By Liza Porteus
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html
Border agents sent to prison
Angry Republican congressman calls President Bush 'disgrace'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53805
Pardon Border Agents, Mr. President By Mike Blair
Fifty-one members of Congress on Dec. 11 sent a letter to President Bush
asking that he commute the sentences of or pardon two U.S. Border Patrol officers sentenced to a combined 20 years for shooting a fleeing illegal alien drug trafficker they had caught smuggling 80 pounds of marijuana and 20 pounds of cocaine across the border from Mexico.
Presidential press secretary Tony Snow has called the pardon issue “nonsensical.” But the appeal to the president, headed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), urges Bush to issue “Christmas pardons.”
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean encountered Osbaldo Aldrete-Davilla on Feb. 17, 2005, in a van containing drugs near a levee road along the Rio Grande River, near the Texas town of Febens...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pardon_border_agents.html
Border Agents Plead for 'Christmas Pardon.'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759777/posts
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush issued 16 pardons Thursday and commuted the sentence of an Iowa man convicted of drug charges.
Six of the federal offenses were drug crimes, while others included bank fraud, mail fraud, the acceptance of a kickback, a false statement on a loan application and conspiracy to defraud the government over taxes.
Seven of the 16 received no prison or jail time, instead getting probation or a reduction in their military pensions.
The longest sentence was nine years, for aiding cocaine distribution, followed by a six-year term for conspiracy to possess marijuana.
With this batch, Bush has issued 113 pardons and commuted three sentences in his nearly six years in the White House, according to spokesman Tony Fratto.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/21/bush.pardons.ap/index.html
More
http://freedomfolks.blogspot.com/2006/12/remember-ramos-and-compean.html
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/compeaniv1be.html
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
The Bush administration further charges Ramos and Compean failed to file a report that was required after their weapons had been discharged.
Bonner argues that under Border Patrol policy, Ramos and Compean were required to make an oral report, not a written report.
"The agents did fail to make an oral report, but under Border Patrol policy, that failure merits at most a five-day suspension. It is not a crime, it is an administrative violation."
Bonner said a lot of Americans are wondering why the Bush administration seems to be making an effort to represent the case the way the drug smuggler wants it seen.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53823
They don't throw this many charges at guys they've caught with over 2,000 pounds of marijuana," Ramos said. "There's murderers and child rapists that are looking at less time than me.
Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, are set to be sentenced Aug. 22 for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican citizen, on Feb. 17, 2005, in the small Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles south east of El Paso.
A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.
The jury acquitted both men of assault with intent to commit murder.
But the conviction for discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence requires a minimum 10-year prison sentence. The sentences for the other convictions vary.
On July 25, the El Paso U.S. Probation Office recommended to Judge Kathleen Cardone that each man get 20 years.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
This is worse than unjust. What is up with president Bush? He pardons drug dealers during Christmas, but won't pardon the two federal border agents. Maybe if they had Euro-american sounding names, they would've been pardoned.
Provides links to info about Bush pardons of drug dealers...
http://www.nbpc.net/
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean - America shames itself by your prosecutions.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos Jose Compean
http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
Tom Tangredo was guest on O'Reilly Factor this evening.
http://tancredo.house.gov/irc/WYB.2006.06.22.html
O'Reilly didn't have a clue - he kept saying the two agents broke the law - they hid the facts, covered-up. He said he thought they'd be pardoned, eventually, but they needed to be made an example so we don't have more border patrol agents "breaking the law."
Right O'Reilly, let's make an example of them for an administrative mistake, but let the illegal aliens free reign.
O'Reilly spent a portion of the segment on the border agents, then moved on to Tancredo's presidential bid. He said, you won't win... you make too much sense.
That was extremely odd, wasn't it?
O'Reilly must have read this: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/border-agents.htm
Devvy Kidd viewpoint
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd206.htm
Why is it Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are held to a higher standard than Bush. This is what is puzzling.
We have yet to learn what President Bush knew about potential threats to U.S. before September 11, 2001. Was there a cover-up? Bush didn't even testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath or in public hearing. Was there a cover-up? We have yet to have any decent questions answered about when precisely Bush knew that a plane or more than one plane may have been hijacked that morning. Was there a cover-up?
We'll never know, because President Bush escapes accountability by the 9/11 Commission hearings, and there have been no Congressional hearings wherein President Bush has been required to testify under oath.
The inaction of Bush to pardon these two men is the downfall of Bush. It is all down hill from this point forward. Whereas many political conservatives supported Bush on the war on terror, they are leaving his camp in droves on this border security issue. They will leave quicker after Bush's failure to pardon law enforcement agents who faced death day in and day out.
We need our Congressional reps to do more than they are doing. Obviously, letters to President Bush and AG are not enough.
Dana Rohrabacher
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=50972
Phyllis Schlafly
...
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a 5-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible.
A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy; by the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
There were a couple of factual discrepancies between the smuggler's story and the agents' testimony, but the government chose to believe the immunity-motivated repeat drug smuggler rather than Border Patrol agents with clean records. Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, and Compean served honorably in the U.S. Navy before joining the Border Patrol.
The Bush Administration tidied up Aldrete's wound at a U.S. hospital at our expense and opened the way for him to sue the U.S. government for $5 million for violating his civil rights, which he is now doing.
This case exposes the misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration. The case also reminds us that our Border Patrol agents are in daily danger from hardened criminals.
The Department of Homeland Security issued this Officer Safety Alert on December 21, 2005: "Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers . . . have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers." The alert cautions that, to perform the killings, the smugglers intend to use the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, known for its unspeakable atrocities and torture.
T.J. Bonner, national Border Patrol Council. said: "There is a palpable sense of outrage and betrayal. Here, you have five convicted drug dealers being pardoned, and two border patrol agents, who were doing their job, fighting the war on drugs on the front lines, and they're going to prison."...
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/jan07/07-01-03.html
January 14, 2007 at 13:23:58
An Open Letter to All Border Patrol Agents by Doc Farmer
Dear Border Patrol Agents, Officers, and Employees,
excerpt
There have been many calls for the president to provide a pardon for these two gentlemen. Fifty-one congressmen signed a letter asking the president to intervene on their behalf. Well, George W. Bush did issue some pardons a short while back. However, he was apparently too busy pardoning convicted drug dealers to get around to pardoning two men who were wrongly prosecuted and persecuted for trying to stop a drug trafficker who was illegally in our country.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are scheduled to report to prison on January 17, 2006. Illegal Alien and Drug Smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davilla is laughing all the way to the bank.
If this isn't a perversion of justice, I don't know what is.
There are nearly 30,000 border patrol agents, officers and employees currently out there, doing a very necessary but very hard job.
Now I, as an American, am going to ask you to do something very, very hard.
I'm asking all of you, on January 17, 2006, to quit your jobs.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=173146
2 Border Patrol Agents to Turn Themselves in Today for Shooting Mexican Drug Runner
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 By Liza Porteus
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html
Border agents sent to prison
Angry Republican congressman calls President Bush 'disgrace'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53805
Pardon Border Agents, Mr. President By Mike Blair
Fifty-one members of Congress on Dec. 11 sent a letter to President Bush
asking that he commute the sentences of or pardon two U.S. Border Patrol officers sentenced to a combined 20 years for shooting a fleeing illegal alien drug trafficker they had caught smuggling 80 pounds of marijuana and 20 pounds of cocaine across the border from Mexico.
Presidential press secretary Tony Snow has called the pardon issue “nonsensical.” But the appeal to the president, headed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), urges Bush to issue “Christmas pardons.”
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean encountered Osbaldo Aldrete-Davilla on Feb. 17, 2005, in a van containing drugs near a levee road along the Rio Grande River, near the Texas town of Febens...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pardon_border_agents.html
Border Agents Plead for 'Christmas Pardon.'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759777/posts
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush issued 16 pardons Thursday and commuted the sentence of an Iowa man convicted of drug charges.
Six of the federal offenses were drug crimes, while others included bank fraud, mail fraud, the acceptance of a kickback, a false statement on a loan application and conspiracy to defraud the government over taxes.
Seven of the 16 received no prison or jail time, instead getting probation or a reduction in their military pensions.
The longest sentence was nine years, for aiding cocaine distribution, followed by a six-year term for conspiracy to possess marijuana.
With this batch, Bush has issued 113 pardons and commuted three sentences in his nearly six years in the White House, according to spokesman Tony Fratto.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/21/bush.pardons.ap/index.html
More
http://freedomfolks.blogspot.com/2006/12/remember-ramos-and-compean.html
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/compeaniv1be.html
Bush to address global warming in annual speech By Caren Bohan
Tue Jan 16, 3:27 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will outline a policy on global warming next week in his State of the Union speech but has not dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, the White House said on Tuesday...
...Bush administration stances on global warming and other environmental issues appear to have evolved over the last year, starting with the president's 2006 State of the Union address, when he called U.S. addiction to foreign oil a serious problem that required more spending on new technologies.
After years of skepticism and calls for more research into the causes of global warming, Bush acknowledged last summer that humans exacerbate the problem.
His administration also is considering designating polar bears, whose icy habitat has been melting in recent years, as an endangered species. That could pressure the government to impose tougher measures to avoid global warming.
Snow suggested the president was sticking to his emphasis on voluntary steps to curb emissions.
"The president believes in doing everything in our power to use innovation and the power of innovation to achieve people's goals of having cleaner energy and abundant energy," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/sc_nm/bush_climate_dc_5
For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Tue Jan 16, 3:27 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will outline a policy on global warming next week in his State of the Union speech but has not dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, the White House said on Tuesday...
...Bush administration stances on global warming and other environmental issues appear to have evolved over the last year, starting with the president's 2006 State of the Union address, when he called U.S. addiction to foreign oil a serious problem that required more spending on new technologies.
After years of skepticism and calls for more research into the causes of global warming, Bush acknowledged last summer that humans exacerbate the problem.
His administration also is considering designating polar bears, whose icy habitat has been melting in recent years, as an endangered species. That could pressure the government to impose tougher measures to avoid global warming.
Snow suggested the president was sticking to his emphasis on voluntary steps to curb emissions.
"The president believes in doing everything in our power to use innovation and the power of innovation to achieve people's goals of having cleaner energy and abundant energy," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/sc_nm/bush_climate_dc_5
For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Saturday, January 13, 2007
U.S. Supremes on Labor Union Dues for Political Activities
Education Week's Trotter was a guest this morning on C-Span. Discussion focused on labor unions and a Supreme Court case to be decided...
January 10, 2007 Justices Weigh Cases on Teachers' Union Fees, Federal Impact Aid
By Andrew Trotter and Jessica L. Tonn
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case testing the constitutionality of a Washington state law that requires non-union teachers to “affirmatively consent,” or opt in, before a teachers’ union may spend money from “agency fees” on political campaigns and similar activism.
Five non-union teachers and the state of Washington sued the Washington Education Association, the state’s largest teacher’s union, for allegedly violating the state law, resulting in two appeals that have been consolidated by the high court, Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association (Case Nos. 05-1589 and 05-1657).
It was one of two education-related cases the justices heard today. The other dealt with the federal Impact Aid Act and how it is carried out in the states.
The teachers’ union only ends its political use of a nonunion teacher’s agency fees when the teacher sends a letter opting out of such use. State law authorizes the agency fees, which cover the costs of collective bargaining activities from which even non-union members benefit. The Washington Supreme Court, the state’s highest court, ruled last year that the opt-in provision in the law, passed by voter initiative as part of a 1992 campaign integrity law, places an impermissible burden on the union’s First Amendment free-speech rights.
But in arguments today, the question that seemed especially to bother the justices was why the union should presume to speak politically for teachers who have chosen not to join its ranks...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/01/10/19union_web.h26.html
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Union Fees
By Vaishali Honawar
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last week to take up the issue of when a teachers’ union may spend the money it collects in the form of “agency fees” from nonmembers on political causes.
The justices said they would review a Washington state law that requires nonmembers to “affirmatively consent,” or opt in, before a union may spend money from such fees on political campaigns and similar activism. A decision by the high court upholding the law could give ammunition to union critics to push for similar restrictions on union clout in other states.
On another education front, the court also agreed to take up a case involving the federal impact-aid statute and when states may reduce their funding to districts with large federal land holdings or installations by the same amount of aid provided by the federal government.
The court announced Sept. 26 that it would add the two cases to its docket for the term that was set to begin officially on Oct. 2. The justices had already accepted two major school cases, both dealing with the use of race as a factor in assigning students to schools, for this term.
In the teachers’ union case, the high court accepted appeals from the state of Washington and five nonunion workers of a ruling by the state supreme court that struck down the consent provision as a violation of the Washington Education Association’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The union and its opponents have jousted for years over the rules for political spending by the WEA.
The appeals in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (Cases No. 05-1589 and 05-1687) involve fees paid by workers who choose not to join the union but who benefit from the collective bargaining process. Unions collect what is called an agency fee from such workers.
Under a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, states that allow unions to collect agency fees from nonmembers are required to give them the opportunity to opt out of having their fees used for political purposes...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/04/06scotus.h26.html
Union Membership in 2000:
Numbers Decline During Record Economic Expansion
By: Rich Reinhold
Union membership in the U.S. decreased in 2000 even as the national economy continued to grow and the unemployment rate reached 30-year lows. Despite the recent good economic times, the union membership levels were lower in 2000 then they were during the recession of the early 1990s, suggesting that most of the jobs created during the economic expansion were non-union. In the past ten years, the number of employed workers in unions fell by about 482,000, while the percentage of employed workers in unions dropped from 16 percent to 13.5 percent (see table below).
http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/lmr/union.htm
Labor's Divisions Widen As Membership Declines
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A02
LAS VEGAS -- AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney last week won the latest round in a bitter internal clash over the future of the labor movement by insisting that more money go for future campaigns to unseat Republicans than for trying to shore up the federation's sagging membership.
That showdown pitted Sweeney, AFSCME's Gerald McEntee and the Steelworkers' Leo Gerard against such powerhouse dissidents as the Teamsters' James P. Hoffa, the Service Employees' Andrew L. Stern and the Laborers' Terence M. O'Sullivan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11958-2005Mar6.html
January 10, 2007 Justices Weigh Cases on Teachers' Union Fees, Federal Impact Aid
By Andrew Trotter and Jessica L. Tonn
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case testing the constitutionality of a Washington state law that requires non-union teachers to “affirmatively consent,” or opt in, before a teachers’ union may spend money from “agency fees” on political campaigns and similar activism.
Five non-union teachers and the state of Washington sued the Washington Education Association, the state’s largest teacher’s union, for allegedly violating the state law, resulting in two appeals that have been consolidated by the high court, Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association (Case Nos. 05-1589 and 05-1657).
It was one of two education-related cases the justices heard today. The other dealt with the federal Impact Aid Act and how it is carried out in the states.
The teachers’ union only ends its political use of a nonunion teacher’s agency fees when the teacher sends a letter opting out of such use. State law authorizes the agency fees, which cover the costs of collective bargaining activities from which even non-union members benefit. The Washington Supreme Court, the state’s highest court, ruled last year that the opt-in provision in the law, passed by voter initiative as part of a 1992 campaign integrity law, places an impermissible burden on the union’s First Amendment free-speech rights.
But in arguments today, the question that seemed especially to bother the justices was why the union should presume to speak politically for teachers who have chosen not to join its ranks...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/01/10/19union_web.h26.html
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Union Fees
By Vaishali Honawar
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last week to take up the issue of when a teachers’ union may spend the money it collects in the form of “agency fees” from nonmembers on political causes.
The justices said they would review a Washington state law that requires nonmembers to “affirmatively consent,” or opt in, before a union may spend money from such fees on political campaigns and similar activism. A decision by the high court upholding the law could give ammunition to union critics to push for similar restrictions on union clout in other states.
On another education front, the court also agreed to take up a case involving the federal impact-aid statute and when states may reduce their funding to districts with large federal land holdings or installations by the same amount of aid provided by the federal government.
The court announced Sept. 26 that it would add the two cases to its docket for the term that was set to begin officially on Oct. 2. The justices had already accepted two major school cases, both dealing with the use of race as a factor in assigning students to schools, for this term.
In the teachers’ union case, the high court accepted appeals from the state of Washington and five nonunion workers of a ruling by the state supreme court that struck down the consent provision as a violation of the Washington Education Association’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The union and its opponents have jousted for years over the rules for political spending by the WEA.
The appeals in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (Cases No. 05-1589 and 05-1687) involve fees paid by workers who choose not to join the union but who benefit from the collective bargaining process. Unions collect what is called an agency fee from such workers.
Under a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, states that allow unions to collect agency fees from nonmembers are required to give them the opportunity to opt out of having their fees used for political purposes...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/04/06scotus.h26.html
Union Membership in 2000:
Numbers Decline During Record Economic Expansion
By: Rich Reinhold
Union membership in the U.S. decreased in 2000 even as the national economy continued to grow and the unemployment rate reached 30-year lows. Despite the recent good economic times, the union membership levels were lower in 2000 then they were during the recession of the early 1990s, suggesting that most of the jobs created during the economic expansion were non-union. In the past ten years, the number of employed workers in unions fell by about 482,000, while the percentage of employed workers in unions dropped from 16 percent to 13.5 percent (see table below).
http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/lmr/union.htm
Labor's Divisions Widen As Membership Declines
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A02
LAS VEGAS -- AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney last week won the latest round in a bitter internal clash over the future of the labor movement by insisting that more money go for future campaigns to unseat Republicans than for trying to shore up the federation's sagging membership.
That showdown pitted Sweeney, AFSCME's Gerald McEntee and the Steelworkers' Leo Gerard against such powerhouse dissidents as the Teamsters' James P. Hoffa, the Service Employees' Andrew L. Stern and the Laborers' Terence M. O'Sullivan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11958-2005Mar6.html
Stem Cell Research: Adult vs Embryonic
C-Span guests January 13, 2007 Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council Sr. Fellow for Life Sciences vs Dr. Steven Teitelbaum, Washington University School of Medine (St. Louis)
Arguing for the use of adult stem cells was Prentice.
Teitelbaum says other guest continues to use disinformation...
Prentice says visit stemcell.com and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
What I found absolutely abhorrent was Dr. Teitelbaum referrenced a child he was treating and he said he had to tell the parents that he couldn't find a perfect match among the adult stem cells, whereas there might be hope and possibility for successful treatment with embryonic stem cells.
That's political, not humanitarian. It's sick. What parent wouldn't want every single measure possible taken to cure their ill child?
There are currently alternatives to embryonic stem cells.
What should happen. Congress should pass a law wherein the umbilical cords from all newborns are preserved for that individual's health bank.
http://www.google.com/search?q=umbilical+cord+stem+cell&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=
Umbilical Cord Blood
Following the birth of a baby, the umbilical cord usually is discarded along with the placenta. However, it is now known that blood retrieved from the umbilical cord is a rich source of stem cells. Stem cells are unspecialized blood cells that produce all other blood cells, including blood-clotting platelets and red and white blood cells. Like donated bone marrow, umbilical cord blood can be used to treat various genetic disorders that affect the blood and immune system, leukemia and certain cancers, and some inherited disorders of body chemistry. To date, more than 45 disorders can be treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood.
Currently, commercial companies provide services to parents to store their newborn baby’s cord blood. Prospective parents who are considering this option should have as much information as possible to make an informed decision.
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1160.asp
A Rich New Stem Cell Source: Research on Umbilical Cord Matrix
nächste Meldung 27.09.2004
Stem cell research. Just the mention of the controversial study stirs up a storm of debate.
The divisive research has become a political hot potato, even emerging as a campaign issue. One presidential candidate has declared it an ethical and moral issue that must not be treated lightly; the other has pledged to lift a partial ban on the research. In California, voters will vote on a measure that would devote $3 billion to human embryonic stem cell experiments...
The cushioning material or matrix within the umbilical cord known as Wharton’s jelly is a rich and readily available source of primitive stem cells, according to findings by Troyer and Weiss. Animal and human umbilical cord matrix cells exhibit the tell-tale characteristics of all stem cells, the capacity to self-renew and to differentiate into multiple cell types.
The cells -- called cord matrix stem cells to distinguish them from cord blood cells -- can be obtained in a non-invasive manner from an abundant source of tissue that is typically discarded. "Unfortunately, people hear the term stem cells and they automatically conclude that it is coming from an embryonic source," Weiss said. "That is an unfortunate connotation that is not always accurate."
According to Weiss and Troyer, "Umbilical cord matrix cells could provide the scientific and medical research community with a non-controversial and easily attainable source of stem cells for developing treatments for Parkinson’s disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries, cancers and other conditions."
The discovery of the matrix stem cells may also lead to important new technologies in animal agriculture and for the preservation of endangered species. Among the group’s findings: Wharton’s jelly cells from pigs were propagated in the lab for more than a year without losing potency; they can be stored cryogenically and engineered to express foreign proteins.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-34052.html
Umbilical cord blood may hold cure to rare diseases
By JOANNA DAVIS - The Press Thursday, 11 January 2007
All New Zealanders should have access to public cord-blood collection, rather than just those able to afford more than $4000 for the "health insurance", an advocate for people with rare diseases says.
The umbilical cord blood of newborn babies is a rich source of stem cells that can be used to treat diseases such as leukaemia and other diseases of the blood, bone marrow and immune system.
A private cord-blood bank opened in Auckland in 2002 but, because of the incredibly small probability of a transfusion ever being needed by the donor, none of the thousands of samples has been used.
The executive director of the Organisation for Rare Disorders, John Forman, said cord blood was hardly ever able to be used by the person who donated it.
Doctors say the probability could be as low as one in 200,000.
However, Forman said research was opening up exciting new possible uses for the blood and New Zealand should be collecting and storing it for future use for everybody.
He said that New Zealand should set up a public cord-blood bank that would cater for the country's rare ethnic mixes and contribute more core blood to the worldwide donor pool.
"At the moment, we rely on large international banks which are set up for stem-cell transplants.
"We need to pull our weight internationally," he said.
Louise Dibley, from the private Cord Bank, which charges $2450 to collect blood plus $150 a year to store it, said that staff made it clear to parents their children were unlikely to need to use their own blood.
However, Dibley said families considered it health insurance and wanted to "invest in the future of science".
"Recent research shows a lot more work being done with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and liver and heart problems ... Cord stem cells could be used for all those things," she said.
Auckland haemotologist Hilary Blacklock said private cord-blood banking had no real use.
New Zealand legislation meant the blood could be used only for the donor, and even in one of the most common conditions – leukaemia – a transfusion from someone else was preferable.
This was because children who developed leukaemia sometimes had malignant cells present in their blood in the neo-natal period, and also because blood from another donor could recognise the remaining cancer cells as foreign and kill them.
Blacklock said New Zealand contributed to worldwide stem-cell donation through the Government-funded Bone Marrow Donor Registry.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3924411a11.html
Arguing for the use of adult stem cells was Prentice.
Teitelbaum says other guest continues to use disinformation...
Prentice says visit stemcell.com and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
What I found absolutely abhorrent was Dr. Teitelbaum referrenced a child he was treating and he said he had to tell the parents that he couldn't find a perfect match among the adult stem cells, whereas there might be hope and possibility for successful treatment with embryonic stem cells.
That's political, not humanitarian. It's sick. What parent wouldn't want every single measure possible taken to cure their ill child?
There are currently alternatives to embryonic stem cells.
What should happen. Congress should pass a law wherein the umbilical cords from all newborns are preserved for that individual's health bank.
http://www.google.com/search?q=umbilical+cord+stem+cell&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=
Umbilical Cord Blood
Following the birth of a baby, the umbilical cord usually is discarded along with the placenta. However, it is now known that blood retrieved from the umbilical cord is a rich source of stem cells. Stem cells are unspecialized blood cells that produce all other blood cells, including blood-clotting platelets and red and white blood cells. Like donated bone marrow, umbilical cord blood can be used to treat various genetic disorders that affect the blood and immune system, leukemia and certain cancers, and some inherited disorders of body chemistry. To date, more than 45 disorders can be treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood.
Currently, commercial companies provide services to parents to store their newborn baby’s cord blood. Prospective parents who are considering this option should have as much information as possible to make an informed decision.
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1160.asp
A Rich New Stem Cell Source: Research on Umbilical Cord Matrix
nächste Meldung 27.09.2004
Stem cell research. Just the mention of the controversial study stirs up a storm of debate.
The divisive research has become a political hot potato, even emerging as a campaign issue. One presidential candidate has declared it an ethical and moral issue that must not be treated lightly; the other has pledged to lift a partial ban on the research. In California, voters will vote on a measure that would devote $3 billion to human embryonic stem cell experiments...
The cushioning material or matrix within the umbilical cord known as Wharton’s jelly is a rich and readily available source of primitive stem cells, according to findings by Troyer and Weiss. Animal and human umbilical cord matrix cells exhibit the tell-tale characteristics of all stem cells, the capacity to self-renew and to differentiate into multiple cell types.
The cells -- called cord matrix stem cells to distinguish them from cord blood cells -- can be obtained in a non-invasive manner from an abundant source of tissue that is typically discarded. "Unfortunately, people hear the term stem cells and they automatically conclude that it is coming from an embryonic source," Weiss said. "That is an unfortunate connotation that is not always accurate."
According to Weiss and Troyer, "Umbilical cord matrix cells could provide the scientific and medical research community with a non-controversial and easily attainable source of stem cells for developing treatments for Parkinson’s disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries, cancers and other conditions."
The discovery of the matrix stem cells may also lead to important new technologies in animal agriculture and for the preservation of endangered species. Among the group’s findings: Wharton’s jelly cells from pigs were propagated in the lab for more than a year without losing potency; they can be stored cryogenically and engineered to express foreign proteins.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-34052.html
Umbilical cord blood may hold cure to rare diseases
By JOANNA DAVIS - The Press Thursday, 11 January 2007
All New Zealanders should have access to public cord-blood collection, rather than just those able to afford more than $4000 for the "health insurance", an advocate for people with rare diseases says.
The umbilical cord blood of newborn babies is a rich source of stem cells that can be used to treat diseases such as leukaemia and other diseases of the blood, bone marrow and immune system.
A private cord-blood bank opened in Auckland in 2002 but, because of the incredibly small probability of a transfusion ever being needed by the donor, none of the thousands of samples has been used.
The executive director of the Organisation for Rare Disorders, John Forman, said cord blood was hardly ever able to be used by the person who donated it.
Doctors say the probability could be as low as one in 200,000.
However, Forman said research was opening up exciting new possible uses for the blood and New Zealand should be collecting and storing it for future use for everybody.
He said that New Zealand should set up a public cord-blood bank that would cater for the country's rare ethnic mixes and contribute more core blood to the worldwide donor pool.
"At the moment, we rely on large international banks which are set up for stem-cell transplants.
"We need to pull our weight internationally," he said.
Louise Dibley, from the private Cord Bank, which charges $2450 to collect blood plus $150 a year to store it, said that staff made it clear to parents their children were unlikely to need to use their own blood.
However, Dibley said families considered it health insurance and wanted to "invest in the future of science".
"Recent research shows a lot more work being done with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and liver and heart problems ... Cord stem cells could be used for all those things," she said.
Auckland haemotologist Hilary Blacklock said private cord-blood banking had no real use.
New Zealand legislation meant the blood could be used only for the donor, and even in one of the most common conditions – leukaemia – a transfusion from someone else was preferable.
This was because children who developed leukaemia sometimes had malignant cells present in their blood in the neo-natal period, and also because blood from another donor could recognise the remaining cancer cells as foreign and kill them.
Blacklock said New Zealand contributed to worldwide stem-cell donation through the Government-funded Bone Marrow Donor Registry.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3924411a11.html
Brady Campaign: Myth of Second Amendment
What most citizens unfortunately do not fully understand is the U.S. Constitution does not give rights, nor does the federal, state, or local government give rights to the people, or to individuals of the United States of America.
The Constitution doesn't grant the right to possess a gun.
The constitution protects an inherent inalienable right to unenumerated rights, and the Constitution protects - equally to all citizens - inherent rights which have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
this is an important distinction which shows the Brady campaign of gun control is misinformed about the Constitution's Second Amendment.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
From the webpage Myth of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
Response: the NRA doesn't omit the referrenced half of the Second Amendment, but puts it in its place as part of the entire thought carried out by the phrase.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Notice the word people. Had the Framers of the Constitution only wanted the militia, well-regulated, to possess the right to bear arms, the Framers would have simply used militia again in the sentence. Instead, the Framers used the word people.
Remember, too, the Framers were enumerating or taking notice of only two handfuls of rights as warning to the government to stay away from infringing on these rights any time, any place, for any reason!
In addition, the Brady campaign is way off in this paragraph:
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it.
the Brady campaign is intentionally misleading. All rights which the individual possesses can be used to commit an infraction of another individual's rights, and therefore infringe on another individual's rights. That's why we have courts of law.
People unfortunately have emotions which can be used for good or ill. A person can take a branch from a tree, whittle the branch into a stick, and with malice use the stick to kill someone, thrusting the make-shift dagger into someone's heart.
Does that mean you don't have an inherent right to take a branch from a tree on your own property, whittle away for a day, and produce a wood dagger? Of course not. Use the dagger to show off an artistic talent. Use the dagger to remove dirt from the crack in the door. Use the dagger for a benign purpose. The instant you use the dagger to try to put someone's eye out, you've crossed the line and infringed on someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A right to possess arms is guaranteed to - the people - not exclusively to the militia only - under the Constitution. Should an individual use arms to kill, maim, or infringe upon another's rights, that individual is committing a crime.
Our right to bear arms was pulled out of unenumerated rights classification to be noted as a right enumerated in the Constitution to warn the government, all government - do not infringe on this right which of itself enables a protection of all unenumerated rights.
More on this later. I just came across the Brady campaign site, and am reeling from the intentional misinformation contained therein.
NRA Fact Sheet
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=63
Second Amendment right to bear arms
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=177&issue=010
Site sparks discussion of the topic
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
The Constitution doesn't grant the right to possess a gun.
The constitution protects an inherent inalienable right to unenumerated rights, and the Constitution protects - equally to all citizens - inherent rights which have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
this is an important distinction which shows the Brady campaign of gun control is misinformed about the Constitution's Second Amendment.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
From the webpage Myth of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
Response: the NRA doesn't omit the referrenced half of the Second Amendment, but puts it in its place as part of the entire thought carried out by the phrase.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Notice the word people. Had the Framers of the Constitution only wanted the militia, well-regulated, to possess the right to bear arms, the Framers would have simply used militia again in the sentence. Instead, the Framers used the word people.
Remember, too, the Framers were enumerating or taking notice of only two handfuls of rights as warning to the government to stay away from infringing on these rights any time, any place, for any reason!
In addition, the Brady campaign is way off in this paragraph:
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it.
the Brady campaign is intentionally misleading. All rights which the individual possesses can be used to commit an infraction of another individual's rights, and therefore infringe on another individual's rights. That's why we have courts of law.
People unfortunately have emotions which can be used for good or ill. A person can take a branch from a tree, whittle the branch into a stick, and with malice use the stick to kill someone, thrusting the make-shift dagger into someone's heart.
Does that mean you don't have an inherent right to take a branch from a tree on your own property, whittle away for a day, and produce a wood dagger? Of course not. Use the dagger to show off an artistic talent. Use the dagger to remove dirt from the crack in the door. Use the dagger for a benign purpose. The instant you use the dagger to try to put someone's eye out, you've crossed the line and infringed on someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A right to possess arms is guaranteed to - the people - not exclusively to the militia only - under the Constitution. Should an individual use arms to kill, maim, or infringe upon another's rights, that individual is committing a crime.
Our right to bear arms was pulled out of unenumerated rights classification to be noted as a right enumerated in the Constitution to warn the government, all government - do not infringe on this right which of itself enables a protection of all unenumerated rights.
More on this later. I just came across the Brady campaign site, and am reeling from the intentional misinformation contained therein.
NRA Fact Sheet
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=63
Second Amendment right to bear arms
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=177&issue=010
Site sparks discussion of the topic
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Friday, January 12, 2007
Think Tank Town
Washingtonpost.com edits and publishes columns submitted by 10 prominent think tanks on a rotating basis every other weekday. Each think tank is free to choose its authors and the topics it believes are most important and timely. Here are the participating organizations:
American Enterprise Institute
Brookings Institution
Cato Institute
Center for American Progress
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Council on Foreign Relations
Heritage Foundation
Hudson Institute
Manhattan Institute
New America Foundation
RAND Corporation
Health Insurance for the Masses
By Robert E. Moffit
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000926.html
American Enterprise Institute
Brookings Institution
Cato Institute
Center for American Progress
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Council on Foreign Relations
Heritage Foundation
Hudson Institute
Manhattan Institute
New America Foundation
RAND Corporation
Health Insurance for the Masses
By Robert E. Moffit
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000926.html
Global Warming Debate Continues in 2007
Don't miss Net the Truth Online previous research and links on global warming, including information and references...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Melanie Morgan Posted: January 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern world net daily
Liberal hot air
On another front, reaction continues to pour in from my column last week, which exposed the blatant move by The Weather Channel to advocate a liberal stand on global warming.
Environmental activists are furious that I mocked the failed prediction by climatologists and weather forecasters about the 2006 hurricane season. The global warming crowd promised a devastating year of powerful cyclones fueled by the warming of the earth. As it was, not one single hurricane struck the United States during the entire hurricane season.
I pointed out that this was just one example of why listening to people who have been proven wrong about forecasts time and again, and letting them dictate how we lived our lives, was insane.
I suggest everyone read this copy of the June 24, 1974, article in Time magazine where the junk science crowd in climatology beat their chests about the coming ice age. The article is literally titled, "Another Ice Age." Now, just 30 years (and no ice age) later, they say the earth is heating up and the ice caps are melting.
How many times will these people be proven wrong about global warming before brave politicians stand up and confront those who are trying to engage in social engineering?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53738
Con job at The Weather Channel Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Melanie Morgan
This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.
The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.
What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.
But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.
The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks...
Emotional weather forecasting?
The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.
The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)
The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.
Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.
Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to tow the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.
George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.
The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.
Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.
Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.
As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
Related
JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert
December 21, 2006
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html
Another Ice Age? Time Magazine
June 24, 1974
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Melanie Morgan Posted: January 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern world net daily
Liberal hot air
On another front, reaction continues to pour in from my column last week, which exposed the blatant move by The Weather Channel to advocate a liberal stand on global warming.
Environmental activists are furious that I mocked the failed prediction by climatologists and weather forecasters about the 2006 hurricane season. The global warming crowd promised a devastating year of powerful cyclones fueled by the warming of the earth. As it was, not one single hurricane struck the United States during the entire hurricane season.
I pointed out that this was just one example of why listening to people who have been proven wrong about forecasts time and again, and letting them dictate how we lived our lives, was insane.
I suggest everyone read this copy of the June 24, 1974, article in Time magazine where the junk science crowd in climatology beat their chests about the coming ice age. The article is literally titled, "Another Ice Age." Now, just 30 years (and no ice age) later, they say the earth is heating up and the ice caps are melting.
How many times will these people be proven wrong about global warming before brave politicians stand up and confront those who are trying to engage in social engineering?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53738
Con job at The Weather Channel Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Melanie Morgan
This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.
The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.
What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.
But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.
The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks...
Emotional weather forecasting?
The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.
The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)
The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.
Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.
Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to tow the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.
George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.
The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.
Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.
Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.
As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
Related
JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert
December 21, 2006
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html
Another Ice Age? Time Magazine
June 24, 1974
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Court brief alleges crime by Hillary
Cites federal code that carries possible 5-year prison sentence
Posted: January 12, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A brief filed yesterday in a civil fraud case alleges Sen. Hillary Clinton engaged in criminal misconduct, citing a violation of federal code that carries a possible five-year prison sentence.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who claims he was the largest contributor to Clinton's 2000 campaign, alleges the New York Democrat solicited and accepted his illegal contribution of more than $1 million and falsified statements to the Federal Election Commission.
Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton's actions violated Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53740
Cites federal code that carries possible 5-year prison sentence
Posted: January 12, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A brief filed yesterday in a civil fraud case alleges Sen. Hillary Clinton engaged in criminal misconduct, citing a violation of federal code that carries a possible five-year prison sentence.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who claims he was the largest contributor to Clinton's 2000 campaign, alleges the New York Democrat solicited and accepted his illegal contribution of more than $1 million and falsified statements to the Federal Election Commission.
Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton's actions violated Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53740
Dr. Erika: Some Medical Research Waste of Time
Dr. Erika answers questions about the bioidentical hormones vs synthetic hormones in her columns, all the while, keep in mind, Dr. Erika is a supporter of bioidentical hormones...
Don't forget the disagreement between Dr. Erika and Suzanne Somers
Dr. Erika's October letter
http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/10/letter_to_suzan.html
Saturday, December 23, 2006
More About Research And What It Means
Dear Dr Erika:
I assume you've seen the article in yesterday's NY Times
I wonder about the effects of natural estrogen supplementation, and
whether it would be possible to tease out the effects of natural vs artificial
supplementation. With this clear effect, it is dramatic and fascinating
epidemiologic proof of one arm of the breast cancer puzzle.
Happy Holidays!...
The results of the MD Anderson study are not as clear cut as the media would have you believe. The doctors who explained it were all at a minimum philosophically aligned with the group that presented the data. They did not represent balanced views.
The data was presented at a conventional cancer researchers and clinicians’ meeting. That means all the data presented had to relate to cancer. Important but limited.
It would be best to realize that applying the information from a cancer meeting to the general population is not a forgone conclusion. Not everyone in the general population has or gets cancer.
At conferences, clinicians and researchers report on their findings. Studies are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and private donors. Academic institutions do or die based on the amount of research data they produce and publish.
Academic researchers get funding for their research through grants. The only way to get a grant is to do research and publish. The more they publish, the more likely they are to get funded.
This is a key piece of information you need to understand.
It clarifies why you read about a new study every day, even if the study is a waste of time and money and proves either things we already know or outlandish things that make you wonder why they even bothered. Well, it’s a way to make a living. Some do it to save the world, others just to get a paycheck and in response to what may be considered sexy by the media to put them on the map for bigger grants next time.
With this thought in mind, you can now look at the reported data with different eyes...
http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/12/more_about_rese.html
Don't forget the disagreement between Dr. Erika and Suzanne Somers
Dr. Erika's October letter
http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/10/letter_to_suzan.html
Saturday, December 23, 2006
More About Research And What It Means
Dear Dr Erika:
I assume you've seen the article in yesterday's NY Times
I wonder about the effects of natural estrogen supplementation, and
whether it would be possible to tease out the effects of natural vs artificial
supplementation. With this clear effect, it is dramatic and fascinating
epidemiologic proof of one arm of the breast cancer puzzle.
Happy Holidays!...
The results of the MD Anderson study are not as clear cut as the media would have you believe. The doctors who explained it were all at a minimum philosophically aligned with the group that presented the data. They did not represent balanced views.
The data was presented at a conventional cancer researchers and clinicians’ meeting. That means all the data presented had to relate to cancer. Important but limited.
It would be best to realize that applying the information from a cancer meeting to the general population is not a forgone conclusion. Not everyone in the general population has or gets cancer.
At conferences, clinicians and researchers report on their findings. Studies are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and private donors. Academic institutions do or die based on the amount of research data they produce and publish.
Academic researchers get funding for their research through grants. The only way to get a grant is to do research and publish. The more they publish, the more likely they are to get funded.
This is a key piece of information you need to understand.
It clarifies why you read about a new study every day, even if the study is a waste of time and money and proves either things we already know or outlandish things that make you wonder why they even bothered. Well, it’s a way to make a living. Some do it to save the world, others just to get a paycheck and in response to what may be considered sexy by the media to put them on the map for bigger grants next time.
With this thought in mind, you can now look at the reported data with different eyes...
http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/12/more_about_rese.html
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Voter Registration: Ripe for fraud 2008
Based on past history, 2008 should be riddled with attempts of voter registration fraud. It's time for Pennsylvania county election boards across this state to do what they are obligated by law to do: clean up the inflated voter registration rolls of deceased, voters who have moved out of the county, possibly even the state, and/or potentially have dual voter registration in different states because of election laws that have lax residency requirements.
Voter fraud suspected in registration deluge
Sharon Spohn, sspohn@pottsmerc.com
10/08/2004
READING -- A backlog of last-minute voter registrations in Berks County is pushing the system to its breaking point, according to election officials.
Director of Elections V. Kurt Bellman told the Board of Elections Thursday that there have been flagrant attempts at voter registration fraud.
"It’s absolutely out of hand," Bellman said. "Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registrations but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations."
Bellman said groups conducting voter drives are coming out of the woodwork, something Berks County hasn’t seen before. He added that some of the drives are being conducted in violation of the law because they are paying incentives to sign up voters.
Commissioner Mark Scott suggested the Board of Elections conduct its own investigation that would be public rather than create more work for the district attorney’s office.
"I’d like the public to get more access to the details of fraud," Scott said.
Bellman said his office has had numerous calls from people who were registered through a group called the Association Communication Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), complaining that those taking down the voter information deliberately put inaccurate information on the form.
Bellman said he also received a batch of registrations from Citizens for Consumer Justice in Allentown that contained several hundred forms, including ones that have been held since July and ones with fictitious names and addresses and even wrong counties...
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13098474&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6
Investigation Needed in Election Programs
Reading (PA) Eagle
May 29th, 2005
The Issue: Because of errors in programming, 463 people in four city voting precincts will have to participate in a special election. Several races hang in the balance.
Our Opinion: Although no one is suggesting fraud, District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin should investigate the snafu and recommend how similar problems can be avoided.
With several primary election contests still undecided because of a mistake in the programming of some voting machines, it is time for the Berks County commissioners to answer a couple of questions...
...City Councilwoman Donna Reed, whose renomination in the 5th Council District remains in doubt because of the snafu, has called for an independent investigation into the programming glitch.
In light of some of the election irregularities that have taken place nationwide, Reed’s call for an independent investigation sounds like a good idea. And District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin would be an excellent person to conduct such an investigation.
Considering the complexity of the voting machines and their programming, it is somewhat surprising that these types of mistakes don’t occur more frequently. But when they do, it is important for the electorate to know that the error was inadvertent and not an attempt to tamper with the election.
We’re not suggesting that anyone attempted to do that, but an independent investigation would short-circuit any claims of impropriety that might arise and provide rec-ommendations to avoid a similar mistake.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5815
related issues
Voter ID
Bev Harris opposed
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/44627.html?1162490338
Exit polls discussion
Pennsylvania primary...by the numbers
http://www.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/2006/05/pennsylvania_pr_1.html
who is who
http://www.votingintegrity.org/tool/who/who.html
provisional ballots
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/36510.html?1158778859
Search Net the Truth Online blog (search block located left top corner)for more voting related issues such as overseas and military email voting, Rush Holt's bill, black box voting, more.
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=email+voting
Voter fraud suspected in registration deluge
Sharon Spohn, sspohn@pottsmerc.com
10/08/2004
READING -- A backlog of last-minute voter registrations in Berks County is pushing the system to its breaking point, according to election officials.
Director of Elections V. Kurt Bellman told the Board of Elections Thursday that there have been flagrant attempts at voter registration fraud.
"It’s absolutely out of hand," Bellman said. "Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registrations but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations."
Bellman said groups conducting voter drives are coming out of the woodwork, something Berks County hasn’t seen before. He added that some of the drives are being conducted in violation of the law because they are paying incentives to sign up voters.
Commissioner Mark Scott suggested the Board of Elections conduct its own investigation that would be public rather than create more work for the district attorney’s office.
"I’d like the public to get more access to the details of fraud," Scott said.
Bellman said his office has had numerous calls from people who were registered through a group called the Association Communication Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), complaining that those taking down the voter information deliberately put inaccurate information on the form.
Bellman said he also received a batch of registrations from Citizens for Consumer Justice in Allentown that contained several hundred forms, including ones that have been held since July and ones with fictitious names and addresses and even wrong counties...
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13098474&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6
Investigation Needed in Election Programs
Reading (PA) Eagle
May 29th, 2005
The Issue: Because of errors in programming, 463 people in four city voting precincts will have to participate in a special election. Several races hang in the balance.
Our Opinion: Although no one is suggesting fraud, District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin should investigate the snafu and recommend how similar problems can be avoided.
With several primary election contests still undecided because of a mistake in the programming of some voting machines, it is time for the Berks County commissioners to answer a couple of questions...
...City Councilwoman Donna Reed, whose renomination in the 5th Council District remains in doubt because of the snafu, has called for an independent investigation into the programming glitch.
In light of some of the election irregularities that have taken place nationwide, Reed’s call for an independent investigation sounds like a good idea. And District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin would be an excellent person to conduct such an investigation.
Considering the complexity of the voting machines and their programming, it is somewhat surprising that these types of mistakes don’t occur more frequently. But when they do, it is important for the electorate to know that the error was inadvertent and not an attempt to tamper with the election.
We’re not suggesting that anyone attempted to do that, but an independent investigation would short-circuit any claims of impropriety that might arise and provide rec-ommendations to avoid a similar mistake.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5815
related issues
Voter ID
Bev Harris opposed
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/44627.html?1162490338
Exit polls discussion
Pennsylvania primary...by the numbers
http://www.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/2006/05/pennsylvania_pr_1.html
who is who
http://www.votingintegrity.org/tool/who/who.html
provisional ballots
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/36510.html?1158778859
Search Net the Truth Online blog (search block located left top corner)for more voting related issues such as overseas and military email voting, Rush Holt's bill, black box voting, more.
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=email+voting
Buchanan seated amid dissent: Contested result of District 13 race could result in House investigation
Sarasota Rep. Vern Buchanan on Thursday secured the pin that identifies him as a member of Congress, flashed the computerized card that permits him to cast votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and was sworn into office.
But not without a serious note of dissent - and a reminder from the Democratic-run House that it may investigate the Republican's 369-vote margin of victory and 18,000 votes that weren't cast in the congressional race in Sarasota County.
As newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to swear into office the other 434 members of the House, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., an advocate for paper ballots, stood amid a chorus of boos and hisses from Republicans to formally note that Buchanan's Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings, is contesting the election and has asked Congress to intervene.
'The House remains the judge of the elections of its members,' Pelosi replied from the rostrum, her tenure as speaker just minutes old. 'The seating of this member-elect is entirely without prejudice to the contest over the final right to that seat . . .'
Republicans have warned Democrats not to pursue the contested election further, and Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, rose in response, noting that Buchanan had been certified as the winner by the Florida secretary of state.
'The gentleman is correct,' Pelosi replied, and went on with the oath, dispensing, at least for a day, with an issue that Republicans say threatens to undercut her promise to approach the speakership 'in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.'
A relieved Buchanan said he was taken aback by the reference to his seat - on a day that Democrats elected the first-ever female House speaker.
'It was a little awkward. Here it is this historical day for her and our nation's history and I get thrown in,' he said, chuckling. 'They could have finished it on a high note.'
He later posed with Pelosi for pictures at a ceremonial swearing-in, telling the California Democrat that he was 'the one you talked about from Florida District 13.
'She said, 'I know, I know,'' said Buchanan, who chatted at length with Pelosi before they both left the room to cast votes - the first in a series of votes on a rules and ethics package.
Jennings is challenging at the state level and in Congress the results of the hard-fought battle to succeed former Rep. Katherine Harris in Florida's 13th Congressional District, which includes Sarasota County as well as parts of Manatee, Charlotte, DeSoto and Hardee counties.
Democrats referred to Buchanan's seating Thursday as provisional.
http://www.topix.net/content/kri/3143465386315300948642704905833633207732
http://www.votelaw.com/blog/
December 29. 2006 5:06PM
Judge rules against Jennings, Democrats to seat Buchanan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
TALLAHASSEE -- A judge ruled Friday that congressional aspirant Christine Jennings has no right to examine the programming source code that runs the electronic voting machines at the center of a disputed Southwest Florida congressional race.
Circuit Judge William Gary ruled that Jennings' arguments about the possibility of lost votes were "conjecture," and didn't warrant overriding the trade secrets of the voting machine company.
Democrats in Congress meanwhile, said they'd allow Republican Vern Buchanan to take the seat next Thursday, but with a warning that the inquiry wasn't over and that his hold on it could be temporary.
The state has certified Buchanan the winner of the District 13 race by a scant 369 votes.
The ruling Friday from Judge Gary prevents for now the Jennings camp from being able to use the programming code to try to show voting machines used in Sarasota County malfunctioned. Jennings claims that an unusually large number of undervotes _ ballots that didn't show a vote _ recorded in the race implies the machines lost the votes.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061229/BREAKING/61229007
Democrats Will Allow Buchanan to Be Seated Jan. 4
Friday, Dec. 29; 1:52 pm
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46421.html?1168485827
Sarasota Rep. Vern Buchanan on Thursday secured the pin that identifies him as a member of Congress, flashed the computerized card that permits him to cast votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and was sworn into office.
But not without a serious note of dissent - and a reminder from the Democratic-run House that it may investigate the Republican's 369-vote margin of victory and 18,000 votes that weren't cast in the congressional race in Sarasota County.
As newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to swear into office the other 434 members of the House, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., an advocate for paper ballots, stood amid a chorus of boos and hisses from Republicans to formally note that Buchanan's Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings, is contesting the election and has asked Congress to intervene.
'The House remains the judge of the elections of its members,' Pelosi replied from the rostrum, her tenure as speaker just minutes old. 'The seating of this member-elect is entirely without prejudice to the contest over the final right to that seat . . .'
Republicans have warned Democrats not to pursue the contested election further, and Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, rose in response, noting that Buchanan had been certified as the winner by the Florida secretary of state.
'The gentleman is correct,' Pelosi replied, and went on with the oath, dispensing, at least for a day, with an issue that Republicans say threatens to undercut her promise to approach the speakership 'in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.'
A relieved Buchanan said he was taken aback by the reference to his seat - on a day that Democrats elected the first-ever female House speaker.
'It was a little awkward. Here it is this historical day for her and our nation's history and I get thrown in,' he said, chuckling. 'They could have finished it on a high note.'
He later posed with Pelosi for pictures at a ceremonial swearing-in, telling the California Democrat that he was 'the one you talked about from Florida District 13.
'She said, 'I know, I know,'' said Buchanan, who chatted at length with Pelosi before they both left the room to cast votes - the first in a series of votes on a rules and ethics package.
Jennings is challenging at the state level and in Congress the results of the hard-fought battle to succeed former Rep. Katherine Harris in Florida's 13th Congressional District, which includes Sarasota County as well as parts of Manatee, Charlotte, DeSoto and Hardee counties.
Democrats referred to Buchanan's seating Thursday as provisional.
http://www.topix.net/content/kri/3143465386315300948642704905833633207732
http://www.votelaw.com/blog/
December 29. 2006 5:06PM
Judge rules against Jennings, Democrats to seat Buchanan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
TALLAHASSEE -- A judge ruled Friday that congressional aspirant Christine Jennings has no right to examine the programming source code that runs the electronic voting machines at the center of a disputed Southwest Florida congressional race.
Circuit Judge William Gary ruled that Jennings' arguments about the possibility of lost votes were "conjecture," and didn't warrant overriding the trade secrets of the voting machine company.
Democrats in Congress meanwhile, said they'd allow Republican Vern Buchanan to take the seat next Thursday, but with a warning that the inquiry wasn't over and that his hold on it could be temporary.
The state has certified Buchanan the winner of the District 13 race by a scant 369 votes.
The ruling Friday from Judge Gary prevents for now the Jennings camp from being able to use the programming code to try to show voting machines used in Sarasota County malfunctioned. Jennings claims that an unusually large number of undervotes _ ballots that didn't show a vote _ recorded in the race implies the machines lost the votes.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061229/BREAKING/61229007
Democrats Will Allow Buchanan to Be Seated Jan. 4
Friday, Dec. 29; 1:52 pm
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46421.html?1168485827
state official violated English-only voter information law
Iowa: congressman sues over multi-lingual voter information
AP reports: Iowa Congressman Steve King and hard-line immigration advocates are suing Gov.-elect Chet Culver for allegedly violating the state's official English law by distributing voter information in several languages while serving as secretary of state.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in state District Court, also names incoming Secretary of State Michael Mauro, charging he placed voter information on his official Web site in Spanish, Bosnian, Vietnamese and Laotian. ...
Culver aide Brad Anderson rejected the charges, saying that state election law requires officials to aid potential voters in registering and casting ballots. ...
The issue first surfaced last fall when King wrote a letter to Culver charging that the English-only law requires all government proceedings to be in English. He said Culver was breaking the law by posting voter registration forms in foreign languages on his Web site.
http://www.votelaw.com/blog/
AP reports: Iowa Congressman Steve King and hard-line immigration advocates are suing Gov.-elect Chet Culver for allegedly violating the state's official English law by distributing voter information in several languages while serving as secretary of state.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in state District Court, also names incoming Secretary of State Michael Mauro, charging he placed voter information on his official Web site in Spanish, Bosnian, Vietnamese and Laotian. ...
Culver aide Brad Anderson rejected the charges, saying that state election law requires officials to aid potential voters in registering and casting ballots. ...
The issue first surfaced last fall when King wrote a letter to Culver charging that the English-only law requires all government proceedings to be in English. He said Culver was breaking the law by posting voter registration forms in foreign languages on his Web site.
http://www.votelaw.com/blog/
Defrocked PA leader Perzel resurrected Speaker Emeritus
today's Herald Standard headline doesn't give indication of the real scoop... Blah blah, reformer timing off by decade blah blah, great story next week.
The big revelation was PA Republicans created a new, unique post called Speaker Emeritus, just for John Perzel, who was defeated as Speaker of the House January 2, 2007, in a move by Democratic Leader, H. William DeWeese. All but 3 Democrats voted for Dennis O'Brian for speaker, and all but 6 Republicans voted for John Perzel. The 3 Dems voted for Perzel. O'Brien abstained from a vote.
A week of caucusing with headlines such as
Pa. House Republicans urging reorganization.
Indications state Republicans were possibly considering a second reorganization, but the speaker emeritus position was not in the floodlights. Who'd have thought of it?
Gene Stilp cleverly: Speaker Demeritus
...The new position doesn't come with more pay, Miskin said. After losing the speaker's election, Perzel's salary dove from $114,916 to $73,614, the base legislative pay.
Perzel, who helped orchestrate the legislative pay raise in the summer of 2005 and drew public anger for his vehement defense of it, has become a target of activists across the state.
Gene Stilp, a Harrisburg activist who filed several lawsuits challenging the since-repealed pay raise, poked fun at the new position.
"We are starting the effort to call him Speaker Demeritus," said Stilp. "For us, he is the best source of material in the world."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16428058.htm
Via Penn Patriot... Tony Phyrillas: Perzel PA Plague, malignancy on Pennsylvania legislature, position an "absurdity."
http://pennpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/01/perzel-is-plague-on-pennsylvania.html
House GOP names Perzel ‘speaker emeritus’By Mario F. Cattabiani
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
HARRISBURG - State Rep. John M. Perzel, who tried desperately but unsuccessfully to retain the House speaker's gavel last week, finds himself back in the GOP leadership ranks in a post created just for him.
Republican leaders announced late yesterday that they unanimously decided to give Perzel (R., Phila.) the new title of speaker emeritus.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16428058.htm
Post Gazette
State Republicans name Rep. Perzel 'speaker emeritus'
Thursday, January 11, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- State Rep. John Perzel didn't get what he really wanted for the 2007-08 legislative term, another two years as speaker of the House. But he got what might be considered a consolation prize, the new title of "speaker emeritus."
"The House Republican caucus wanted to keep John Perzel as part of the team," Steve Miskin, spokesman for House Minority Leader Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney, told Capitol reporters. Mr. Perzel "has knowledge and experience that will benefit the caucus."
What exactly does a speaker emeritus do, since one has never existed before?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07011/752968-85.stm
Philly.com has the story headlined
Perzel to become speaker emeritusBy Mario F. Cattabiani
Inquirer Staff Writer
State Rep. John M. Perzel won't lose his speaker's title after all. He'll just add emeritus to it.
In a move some already are mocking, Republican House leaders have created the leadership post for Perzel, who last week was stripped of the speaker's gavel he had so desperately tried to retain.
Not wanting to lose their top fund-raiser, GOP leaders announced late Tuesday that they unanimously decided to make Perzel "speaker emeritus" - a post that comes with a small staff, but not the discretionary funds and big paycheck the Northeast Philadelphia Republican was accustomed to as the top House official.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16431354.htm
Perzel's "reign of error" - Lincoln Institute's Lowman Henry
http://www.patownhall.com/blog/484
Wednesday posts at voicepa and grassrootspa
http://voicepa.blogspot.com/2007/01/house-republicans-create-speaker.html
http://www.voicepa.blogspot.com/
http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/12429
Then there's the Herald Standard's headline, with Speaker Emeritus basically buried at the end of the story about efforts of who knows his name except those who voted for him and against him in his district?
Reformer counts capitol struggle
By Alison Hawkes, For the Herald-Standard
01/11/2007
HARRISBURG - Bucks County Rep. Davis Steil got a dose of strong political medicine, and the bad-tasting kind, early into his 15-year tenure.
He said it was concerning his first land-use bill and it was headed for obscurity all because of a political process he was just beginning to understand.
...More recently, "reform" for Steil has been about changing his own party leadership. He became one of six Republican lawmakers to vote last week against heavyweight Rep. John Perzel for Speaker and in favor of the Democrat's choice, Rep. Dennis O'Brien, both Republicans.
"I thought it was time to change some faces," Steil said.
The move has provoked anger from fellow Republicans, even those he's normally close to on legislative and district matters.
"Dave's vote, like it or not, gives the power to Democrats to control everything," said
Rep. Scott Petri, a Bucks County Republican whose district adjoins Steil's.
Bucks County Republican Chairman Harry Fawkes said he's going to talk to Steil about the Speaker vote but is withholding immediate judgment.
"I think his character is the best," said Fawkes. "I think what he did, he thought was right."
But Steil feels comfortable, especially given the "literally hundreds of emails and faxes supporting me" from the public.
However, Perzel is now in the leadership picture again. Republican leaders announced this week they appointed Perzel to a newly created leadership position called "Speaker Emeritus." While the details are yet to be fully explained, Perzel will likely have a role in winning back a Republican majority. He'll be taking the same $73,626 a year salary as rank-and- file members, but will have several extra staffers and an office in leadership quarters that's "respectful of a former Speaker," according to a House GOP spokesman.
Steil said he's not against Perzel's new post.
But Steil admits his own vote against Perzel could be detrimental to his legislative work and to his ability to continue to take the lead on rules changes.
"I'm sure it will hurt for a while. I suspect some people who had confidence in my abilities" might not now, he said. "But I think this rules reform has a life of its own now. It's gone too far to be abandoned."
The big revelation was PA Republicans created a new, unique post called Speaker Emeritus, just for John Perzel, who was defeated as Speaker of the House January 2, 2007, in a move by Democratic Leader, H. William DeWeese. All but 3 Democrats voted for Dennis O'Brian for speaker, and all but 6 Republicans voted for John Perzel. The 3 Dems voted for Perzel. O'Brien abstained from a vote.
A week of caucusing with headlines such as
Pa. House Republicans urging reorganization.
Indications state Republicans were possibly considering a second reorganization, but the speaker emeritus position was not in the floodlights. Who'd have thought of it?
Gene Stilp cleverly: Speaker Demeritus
...The new position doesn't come with more pay, Miskin said. After losing the speaker's election, Perzel's salary dove from $114,916 to $73,614, the base legislative pay.
Perzel, who helped orchestrate the legislative pay raise in the summer of 2005 and drew public anger for his vehement defense of it, has become a target of activists across the state.
Gene Stilp, a Harrisburg activist who filed several lawsuits challenging the since-repealed pay raise, poked fun at the new position.
"We are starting the effort to call him Speaker Demeritus," said Stilp. "For us, he is the best source of material in the world."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16428058.htm
Via Penn Patriot... Tony Phyrillas: Perzel PA Plague, malignancy on Pennsylvania legislature, position an "absurdity."
http://pennpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/01/perzel-is-plague-on-pennsylvania.html
House GOP names Perzel ‘speaker emeritus’By Mario F. Cattabiani
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
HARRISBURG - State Rep. John M. Perzel, who tried desperately but unsuccessfully to retain the House speaker's gavel last week, finds himself back in the GOP leadership ranks in a post created just for him.
Republican leaders announced late yesterday that they unanimously decided to give Perzel (R., Phila.) the new title of speaker emeritus.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16428058.htm
Post Gazette
State Republicans name Rep. Perzel 'speaker emeritus'
Thursday, January 11, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- State Rep. John Perzel didn't get what he really wanted for the 2007-08 legislative term, another two years as speaker of the House. But he got what might be considered a consolation prize, the new title of "speaker emeritus."
"The House Republican caucus wanted to keep John Perzel as part of the team," Steve Miskin, spokesman for House Minority Leader Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney, told Capitol reporters. Mr. Perzel "has knowledge and experience that will benefit the caucus."
What exactly does a speaker emeritus do, since one has never existed before?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07011/752968-85.stm
Philly.com has the story headlined
Perzel to become speaker emeritusBy Mario F. Cattabiani
Inquirer Staff Writer
State Rep. John M. Perzel won't lose his speaker's title after all. He'll just add emeritus to it.
In a move some already are mocking, Republican House leaders have created the leadership post for Perzel, who last week was stripped of the speaker's gavel he had so desperately tried to retain.
Not wanting to lose their top fund-raiser, GOP leaders announced late Tuesday that they unanimously decided to make Perzel "speaker emeritus" - a post that comes with a small staff, but not the discretionary funds and big paycheck the Northeast Philadelphia Republican was accustomed to as the top House official.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16431354.htm
Perzel's "reign of error" - Lincoln Institute's Lowman Henry
http://www.patownhall.com/blog/484
Wednesday posts at voicepa and grassrootspa
http://voicepa.blogspot.com/2007/01/house-republicans-create-speaker.html
http://www.voicepa.blogspot.com/
http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/12429
Then there's the Herald Standard's headline, with Speaker Emeritus basically buried at the end of the story about efforts of who knows his name except those who voted for him and against him in his district?
Reformer counts capitol struggle
By Alison Hawkes, For the Herald-Standard
01/11/2007
HARRISBURG - Bucks County Rep. Davis Steil got a dose of strong political medicine, and the bad-tasting kind, early into his 15-year tenure.
He said it was concerning his first land-use bill and it was headed for obscurity all because of a political process he was just beginning to understand.
...More recently, "reform" for Steil has been about changing his own party leadership. He became one of six Republican lawmakers to vote last week against heavyweight Rep. John Perzel for Speaker and in favor of the Democrat's choice, Rep. Dennis O'Brien, both Republicans.
"I thought it was time to change some faces," Steil said.
The move has provoked anger from fellow Republicans, even those he's normally close to on legislative and district matters.
"Dave's vote, like it or not, gives the power to Democrats to control everything," said
Rep. Scott Petri, a Bucks County Republican whose district adjoins Steil's.
Bucks County Republican Chairman Harry Fawkes said he's going to talk to Steil about the Speaker vote but is withholding immediate judgment.
"I think his character is the best," said Fawkes. "I think what he did, he thought was right."
But Steil feels comfortable, especially given the "literally hundreds of emails and faxes supporting me" from the public.
However, Perzel is now in the leadership picture again. Republican leaders announced this week they appointed Perzel to a newly created leadership position called "Speaker Emeritus." While the details are yet to be fully explained, Perzel will likely have a role in winning back a Republican majority. He'll be taking the same $73,626 a year salary as rank-and- file members, but will have several extra staffers and an office in leadership quarters that's "respectful of a former Speaker," according to a House GOP spokesman.
Steil said he's not against Perzel's new post.
But Steil admits his own vote against Perzel could be detrimental to his legislative work and to his ability to continue to take the lead on rules changes.
"I'm sure it will hurt for a while. I suspect some people who had confidence in my abilities" might not now, he said. "But I think this rules reform has a life of its own now. It's gone too far to be abandoned."
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
David Dill on paper ballots and hand counts
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/0418test/dill.pdf
Comments used in Chester County recount case
Big hopes to upset a tiny lead in ChescoThe GOP is almost certain to challenge the hair's-breadth margin - 0.1% - Democrats hold in the 156th District.
By Carrie Budoff Inquirer Staff Writer
excerpt
The 156th District, which encircles West Chester, has become the focal point of a statewide power struggle over the House of Representatives.
Royer came out of Election Day with a 19-vote lead, but a subsequent count of absentee ballots threw the edge to Smith. The outcome of this one race has left the 203-member chamber in limbo, with Republicans urging caution and Democrats claiming House control for the first time in 12 years.
A Chester County Court judge will decide whether to grant a recount and how it would be performed once Republicans - as they said they would - file a recount request by tomorrow's deadline.
While election experts agree a recount should be done, they disagree over which method - counting the paper ballots by hand or by machine - would be more accurate.
Ansolabehere favors a machine count, citing the likelihood of human error that comes with a manual review. "I know computer scientists love hand-counted paper. Go with the optical scanners."
David L. Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said he prefers a human count.
"You want to go slowly and carefully; you have multiple people watching it," he said. "You are only counting one race on the ballot. The careful hand count takes longer and takes more effort but will be much more accurate."
The number of "undervotes" - instances where voters didn't make a selection in the race, but did make choices in other contests - serves as a barometer for possible counting problems. There were 273 undervotes, or about 1 percent of the total.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16164903.htm
discussions
David Dill responds on BBV forum
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 06:12 pm:
More
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 03:07 pm:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/17084.html
do not miss this discussion
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
Just the kind of stuff we need to know - who is who?
David Dill responds in his first post on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 04:33 pm:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/1948.html?1122526050
More from Kim Alexander
http://www.calvoter.org/news/blog/2005_05_01_blogarchive.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=david+dill+careful+hand+count&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/0418test/dill.pdf
Comments used in Chester County recount case
Big hopes to upset a tiny lead in ChescoThe GOP is almost certain to challenge the hair's-breadth margin - 0.1% - Democrats hold in the 156th District.
By Carrie Budoff Inquirer Staff Writer
excerpt
The 156th District, which encircles West Chester, has become the focal point of a statewide power struggle over the House of Representatives.
Royer came out of Election Day with a 19-vote lead, but a subsequent count of absentee ballots threw the edge to Smith. The outcome of this one race has left the 203-member chamber in limbo, with Republicans urging caution and Democrats claiming House control for the first time in 12 years.
A Chester County Court judge will decide whether to grant a recount and how it would be performed once Republicans - as they said they would - file a recount request by tomorrow's deadline.
While election experts agree a recount should be done, they disagree over which method - counting the paper ballots by hand or by machine - would be more accurate.
Ansolabehere favors a machine count, citing the likelihood of human error that comes with a manual review. "I know computer scientists love hand-counted paper. Go with the optical scanners."
David L. Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said he prefers a human count.
"You want to go slowly and carefully; you have multiple people watching it," he said. "You are only counting one race on the ballot. The careful hand count takes longer and takes more effort but will be much more accurate."
The number of "undervotes" - instances where voters didn't make a selection in the race, but did make choices in other contests - serves as a barometer for possible counting problems. There were 273 undervotes, or about 1 percent of the total.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16164903.htm
discussions
David Dill responds on BBV forum
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 06:12 pm:
More
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 03:07 pm:
I don't think that means we should eliminate machines. There is a significant part of the activist component that believes we should go back to all hand counting. That's ok in theory, and even in practice in rural areas in the U.S., but it has several problems. One is that it ALSO requires careful procedures and lots of auditing, because those human counters can make mistakes and cheat. Some people have proposed hand counting all the ballots at the polling places right after the close of the election. It would be HARD to mobilize enough observers to watch this process at every precinct! Also, it seems to be a tough sell. Finally, it doesn't seem BETTER than optical scan with extensive auditing, which seems to me to have a much better chance of working out...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/17084.html
do not miss this discussion
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
Just the kind of stuff we need to know - who is who?
Among computer scientists who have achieved renown in the voting integrity movement, in general, the following scientists are against crypto:
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri
Dr. Barbara Simons (at least last time I talked to her about it, which was in August).
Dr. Herbert Thompson (at least, last time I talked to him about VoteHere, which was in a cab in Washington D.C. in late September)
Those who have been for the crypto solution:
Dr. David Dill
Dr. Avi Rubin
Dr. David Jefferson
Dr. David Chaum (has his own crypto solution, a company called Votegrity)
However, Drs. Dill, Rubin and Jefferson who have been favorable to VoteHere in the past say it is NOT ready for prime time now.
One more question: Has anyone heard of a crypto solution combined with mail-in ballots? That may be in the works, and I'd like to find out more about it.
(Message edited by Bev_Harris on January 10, 2005)
David Dill responds in his first post on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 04:33 pm:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/1948.html?1122526050
More from Kim Alexander
http://www.calvoter.org/news/blog/2005_05_01_blogarchive.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=david+dill+careful+hand+count&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
