Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

(Tuesday October 16, 2007) After the press conference sponsored by passopenrecords.org, held Monday October 15, 2007 at the Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg, PA, our news representatives took a turn asking questions of the legislative speakers supporting new Pennsylvania open records legislation.

One of the bills in the House of Representatives is sponsored by state Rep. Timothy Mahoney (Democrat-Fayette County-51st District) House Bill 443) who is asked about his brief statement during the conference in support of his bill.

Rep. Mahoney is asked point blank by a news reporter to explain his position that there is no need for more investigations.

What Mahoney said in response to the question: there is no need for more investigations... it's time for Pennsylvania to go forward and not backwards... there are plenty of black eyes... we don't need more black eyes... we need to focus on open records... property tax elimination... not referring to anything ongoing, but back in the past five or ten years... we need to go forward...


What was said during the press conference.

Senator Dominic Pileggi. "We have made remarkable progress.. enact a statute that states all government records remain open unless they fall under the category of the (exemptions)...

Sen. Jim Ferlo several controversial issues... original open records law passed in the 1950s is long overdue for change... no window-dressing... pass the strongest open records law in the country...

Rep. Tim Mahoney... this bill is not a reform bill... it is a bill of trust to put trust back into this beautiful building here where people trust (us) to take care of their 27 billion dollars a year, so people know where their money is being spent... we don't need more investigations... records covered ... from the time this bill passes... we need to start there... this is the first step...

Babette Josephs... what this state government has always assumed is that the docs the info generated by state government belongs to state government and that it's up to the people requesting information to prove it has a right to the information... we're going to turn that on its head in our legislation...

(Net the Truth Online Tuesday October 16, 2007)(from viewing Pennsylvania Cable Network broadcast)


Well, the news media failed us again. Really, if you are going to ask a legislator to explain his or her position, and he or she doesn't, you press further to get a decent answer. (press, that's one reason they're called The Press)

That didn't happen with the questioning of Rep. Timothy Mahoney. He wasn't asked why past "investigations" in Pennsylvania history SHOULD BE EXEMPTED from sunshine.

He wasn't pressed to answer why the legislation should only apply to records from the time of enactment of the bill, if that was his meaning.

What reason could there possibly be to suppress anything so long as there would not be a so-called "immediate" national or state security risk to divulge?

Representative Mahoney should have been questioned further by the same group of newspaper reporters and editors who support full open records. (barring security concerns)

The public does not want piece-meal open records in Pennsylvania. It appears that Rep. Mahoney won't refrain from the political rhetoric on the issue. Give them a bite of the bone, but not the whole bone. Who or what is he bent on protecting?

What an early Christmas gift should the Mahoney legislation be adopted filled with its current exemptions.

The news media did not ask Rep. Mahoney specifically about contents of this bill in regard to a string of exemptions contained in his legislation.

Seriously, here they had the passopenrecords.org (created by the PA Newspaper Association), and Rep. Mahoney, and all the time in the world before deadlines, and it was like in the past at these public events, whatever the legislator says, just let it go, maybe the public will forget there are still unanswered questions. (And questions we just didn't ask).

All government records shall be open, sounds great, getting all warm and fuzzy... but read on, unless EXCLUDED...

That's right, unless excluded, and take a look and really see what is excluded...

The Mahoney bill presents over 25 such exemptions.

Take a look at the long-laundry-list of exemptions in Rep. Mahoney's open records bill. Section 302 Access Generally (a) Enumerated Exemptions

Pay particular attention, folks. Enumerated Exemptions.

(24) Electronic mail...

provided that the electronic mail does not contain the discussion of the spending of public money or the duties and powers of the office, officeholder, or agency.

Say what? What is sad is Rep. Mahoney will not be held accountable by the media for his lack of an explanation. All the public will hear and read is how great this bill is, how it reverses the longstanding burden of seekers of the information having to prove a right to access.

Worse, if Mahoney's bill doesn't pass, (and it should not unless the exemptions disputed are removed) he'll still be supported and blame will be placed on legislators who "just don't want to see open records with teeth."

The Post-Gazette reports Beverly Schenck's comments:

"I don't want a bill that's simply there to make it look like they're doing something. I want some actual action," she said. "The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have."

Well guess what, that's what the Mahoney bill is - it looks like they are doing something, but if there are exemptions and material prior to the passage of the bill are exempted as well, then really what are they doing? Nothing.

There should be growing citizenry discontent pertaining to the open records "exemptions." That can't happen if there remains a press that's supposed to ask the questions on our behalf, failing.

The Newspaper Publishers Association and others are so bent on getting anything, anything opened they'll accept a watered-down version. The informed public should not.

Write PA state Rep. Timothy Mahoney. Tell him not to open the door just a bit, then close it right smack in our faces. Either do open records right, or don't do it at all at this time.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?districtnumber=51

Write letters to the editor, or comment here.

(Net the Truth Online posted Tuesday October 16, 2007)

clip

Pennsylvania pushes to open records
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
HARRISBURG -- A House committee on Wednesday likely will approve legislation intended to make state and local government records more open to taxpayers, the panel's chairwoman said.

The House State Government Committee will vote on legislation sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Uniontown Democrat, to strengthen the state's Right to Know Law enacted in 1957.

"I aim to see the citizens of this state get the records they already own," said Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who chairs the committee.

The Senate State Government Committee soon will vote on a separate bill by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, according to Colleen Greer, an aide to Chairman Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County.

...Lawmakers of both parties, including Pileggi and Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, called for action Monday at a Capitol news conference. They said the proposed law should put the burden on government to show why records should not be released. Currently, that burden rests with citizens requesting records.

"Let's pass the strongest and most viable open records law in the country," Ferlo said.

Lawmakers said they are working on the exemptions to records that would be publicly released, such as those containing trade secrets, Social Security numbers, credit reports and details of ongoing police investigations.

Advocates are concerned about a provision in Mahoney's bill that would limit release to future records, Wilson said.

Any records from the past would be covered by existing law, Mahoney said. "Why do we want to go backward when we should go forward?" he said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_532821.html


House panel to vote on open records bill
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/16/2007
Updated 10/16/2007 11:47:37 AM EDT
HARRISBURG - A state House panel plans to push ahead this week with a vote on an open records bill expanding public access to government records, House Democrat leaders said Monday.


But the public - and most lawmakers - will have to wait until at least today to see if the bill lives up to the months of hype or laden with loopholes.

Copies of the bill and the several amendments were still being printed late Monday.

Rep. Babette Josephs, a Philadelphia Democrat, said during a rally in support of strengthening the state's Open Records Law that the State Government Committee would vote on a measure to make it easier for residents to obtain records ranging from how much townships pay solicitors to how much lawmakers' spend on lunch.

"We will pursue legislation that will say, without a shadow of a doubt, that documents, information and data belong to the people," said Josephs, chairwoman of the committee.

Josephs said lawmakers would craft exemptions to the law that bar the public from obtaining personal information, such as Social Security numbers or trade secrets.

"I do not want to expose any government employees to the risks of identity theft," she said.

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., has proposed the most ambitious overhaul of the state's law governing open records in decades.

He did not know exactly how much information would still be off-limits to the public in the bill's final version.

Regardless, Mahoney said his main concern is giving taxpayers access to all documents involved in spending public funds.

"We have to open the records so a common Joe knows where their money is being spent," he said during the rally.

Two separate bills have been introduced in the state Senate to loosen the firm grip state and local governments have on information in Pennsylvania.

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Delaware County Republican, said leadership in both chambers agrees that the burden of proving that a document is not a public record should be shifted to government officials.

Currently, the burden is on citizens requesting records to prove that the document they want is considered a public record...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18920672&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6



Details delay open records legislation
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 15, 2007 6:44 AM


HARRISBURG — Loosening the steel grip that state and local governments in Pennsylvania have on documents could take a little longer than some expected.

A state House panel vote may be delayed on a bill that would expand access to government documents ranging from lawmakers' expense accounts to Penn State football coach Joe Paterno's salary.

Good government advocates and lawmakers are still trying to agree on whether government officials' e-mail messages and records from the past should be available for public review.

Some disagreement remains over whether individuals' birth dates, which are currently available in court documents, should be excluded from all public documents and which state agency would oversee requests to review records...

...Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Fayette County Democrat, is the prime sponsor of a House bill that would require any document related to spending taxpayer money public.

Mahoney said he still believes a committee vote will occur this week, but acknowledged staffers are fine-tuning the legislation.

“I'm pretty sure that we are real close (to an agreement),” he said. “Who in their right mind would be against this bill, and think they are going to get elected next year?”

Mahoney said there's pretty much widespread support for putting the burden on government to prove that a document should not be public. Currently, citizens requesting documents must make the case that a document should be released.

But Mahoney said the broader definition of a public record should apply to only those documents generated after the law goes into effect, not past records.

“We don't need to open up other scandals,” Mahoney said. “We have enough investigations going on in this damn state. We don't have to have more.”

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-10152007-1423756.html


Bills aim to open public records
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Beverly Schenck has been waiting 41/2 years for an itemized accounting of attorney fees paid by Center Township.

She's been through Butler County Common Pleas Court and Commonwealth Court, which both ruled the township could withhold the documents under attorney-client privilege. Now she's awaiting a ruling from the state Supreme Court, which heard her case last month.

Invoices for the expenditure of public funds should be public, she said during a press conference yesterday in Harrisburg.

State Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Uniontown, thinks so, too.

That's why he is the prime sponsor of an open-records bill that is expected to come before the House State Government Committee tomorrow. A floor vote could occur by week's end and a Senate vote could soon follow.

"We are closer than ever to achieving an open-records bill that is both meaningful and imminent," said Jamie Blaine, editor of the blog passopenrecords.org.

The centerpiece of Mr. Mahoney's legislation would change the way government records are viewed in Pennsylvania. Currently, they are presumed to be closed to public inspection unless the requester proves otherwise.

Most other states and the federal Freedom of Information Act begin with the presumption that government records are public unless the agency that possesses them proves that disclosing them would cause harm.

Under Mr. Mahoney's bill, records would be presumed open unless they fall under a limited list of exceptions.

The bill faces wrangling whether those exceptions should include things such as public universities' payroll records, police officers' disciplinary records, recordings of 911 calls and casino-license applications...

...Mrs. Schenck is hoping for fast action so other residents don't have to go through the legal battles she is continuing to fight to get information about how public funds are spent.

"I've spent thousands of dollars to fight for this because it's the right thing to do, and I'm a paralegal. I'm sure the majority of people don't have the knowledge or the resources I have," she said after the press conference.

She hopes the Legislature passes strong, meaningful legislation that makes public records broadly accessible.

"I don't want a bill that's simply there to make it look like they're doing something. I want some actual action," she said. "The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have."


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07289/825744-85.stm


Related

search results

http://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+newspapers+association+open+records+press+conference&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Rep. Tim Mahoney

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=pennsylvania+tim+mahoney+open+records+investigations&btnG=Search

Kori Walter Bucks County Courier Times article

Open records vote expected this week
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 16, 2007

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-10162007-1424364.html

Pass Open Records

clip


Yesterday
Oct 16th, 2007 by dani_k

You can read the press release from yesterday’s event here.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Scranton Times-Tribune, the Carlisle Sentinel , the Bucks County Courier Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered the event. Whew! That’s just the news coverage - on the editorial page, the Allentown Morning Call wrote about open records reform along with the Uniontown Herald Standard and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And we also announced the winners of PNA’s Open Records Challenge: Alan Trexler a student at Lock Haven University, and Bob Spurdle, a resident of Wayne. Congratulations to both.

Remember, if you want to see open records reform, we need your help - contact your legislator today and urge them to vote for open records reform.

Beverly Schenck summed up what a lot of us are feeling when she told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “I don’t want a bill that’s simply there to make it look like they’re doing something. I want some actual action. The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have.”

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/16/yesterday/


A Fresh Breeze is Blowing
Oct 15th, 2007 by JamieB


On the morning of our press conference at the Capitol, there is a real hum of excitement about the possibility of meaningful open records legislation soon. . . .

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/15/225/

PNA/PassOpenRecords.org Press Conference Monday
Oct 11th, 2007 by dani_k


http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/11/pnapassopenrecordsorg-press-conference-monday/

Naomi Wolfe: 10 steps to dictatorship underway in U.S.

On her point that there are (ten) steps to a dictatorship underway in the United States, I cannot disagree with Naomi Wolfe.

The problem I see is there is absolutely no difference in the candidates the two major parties put forth as leaders of this country. As posted on Net the Truth Online previously, even Ron Paul, who overall displays a grasp of constitutional issues, has failed to hold President George W. Bush accountable by directly questioning Bush's inaction for several minutes (6) on the morning of September 11, 2001 after Bush was told, "a second plane hit the world trade towers, America is under attack."

The media has failed to ask President Bush to be accountable for his inaction. The Congress has failed as well. A conspiracy of silence?

Any candidate for the presidency who does not ask Bush outright whether his inaction for those several minutes after told America is under attack constitutes an abrogation of his own duty to defend this country - is not himself or herself fit for this time's presidency of the United States.

The reason these candidates are unfit for the presidency of the United States:

underpinning every presidency is the amount of "executive power" the president has constitutionally, and the amount the president "wants" to have and invariably "seeks" to have. And believe it - once they get in office - they always want to retain the power of past presidents, desire more power, and seek expansion of power for the office of the presidency. In fact, retaining this power for a president, not eroding this power for a president, were reasons Senator Hillary Clinton voted for authorization for the president to use force in Iraq.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002


October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


A dictatorship can't gain hold in these United States if and only if the kind of person chosen for the office of the presidency is one who will hold other presidents accountable for their actions or inactions in the past and as well remove temptation - withhold from using executive orders to bypass Congress and withhold from engaging in any treaty or agreement or pass any act which is contrary to our Constitution.

Unfortunately, by not publicly holding President George W. Bush accountable for his non-action for several minutes after being told "America is under attack" presidential candidates reveal they themselves have fallen in line to the idea of executive power.

That is the danger. Therefore, they are all capable of becoming dictators, even though they claim otherwise.

So while I agree a dictatorship is underway in the United States under George W. Bush, there is no guarantee such won't continue under the next President and the next.

Naomi Wolfe talks

Naomi Wolfe: blueprint - every would be despot every dictator does the same ten things... there are ten steps... the great dictators perfected it from each other... we teach the blueprint in the school for the Americas... we teach the blueprint... it's like they were going through a shopping list... today they're marching in the street... shooting the protestors in the streets... in a week gonna be suspending communications... the blueprint is predictive... what's even EVEN MORE CHILLING TO ME... what became clear to me is that each of these ten steps, these ten classic steps that every would be dictator puts in place are underway in the United States...

when you go back and read the founding fathers you see that they were writing in a state of dread and fear they knew in their bones a despot could arise in America to oppress the people...

... they can keep us in solitary confinement for up to three years... they can do this to any of us

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5057555023195472231&q=NAOMI+WOLF+ENDING+OF+aMERICA&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Search results

http://www.google.com/search?q=naomi+wolf+end+of+america&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en&aq=t

Monday, October 15, 2007

PA Effort Oust All Incumbent Judges Insulting: to voters

Have to agree with Marks. "It's insulting to voters seeking to make informed choices," said Lynn A. Marks, who heads Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts. The nonpartisan group joined with the League of Women Voters and two other civic groups in urging voters to consider the record of each judge.

In fact, here at Net the Truth Online, the same thinking was applied to the movement in 2005 and 2006 to replace ALL incumbents, even if those incumbents didn't vote for the "midnight" payraise, or the unconstitutional unvouchered expenses and didn't take either! In fact, what happened in many of the subsequent statewide races for representatives with the fervor to replace the incumbent with anybody - what happened was the local political party machine whether Democrat or Republican strongholds installed their own replacement anyway. The names and faces may have changed, but the "party" games remained during the Primary election and after the General Election.

Obviously, others don't think the idea to oust each and every candidate seeking judicial retention is worth much either...

Throwing Out All of the Judges Will Only Make Things Worse
The Legal Intelligencer
Monday, September 24, 2007

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/index.jsp

Legal Intelligencer Weighs in on PACleanSweep

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/elections/2007-elections/legal-intelligencer-weights-pacleansweep

Judging judges Oct. 4, 2007

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07277/822996-366.stm?cmpid=elections.xml

Plan to oust judges spurs ire, debate
Activists: Judges should pay for tacit support of pay raise. Judges: They should be judged on their records
By RICHARD FELLINGER
Harrisburg bureau
Article Last Updated: 09/30/2007 01:19:39 AM EDT

http://www.yorkdailyrecord.com/newsfull/ci_7041473

Friday, September 14, 2007
When lawyers attack

http://tonyphyrillas.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-lawyers-attack.html

Commonwealth Foundation
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sweep The Judges?

http://cfpolicyblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/sweep-judges.html

Pa. backlash hitting judges - and critics
By Emilie Lounsberry Inquirer Staff Writer

Posted on Sun, Oct. 14, 2007

...The attempt to throw out several dozen incumbents has triggered criticism outside the black-robed circles.

"It's insulting to voters seeking to make informed choices," said Lynn A. Marks, who heads Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts. The nonpartisan group joined with the League of Women Voters and two other civic groups in urging voters to consider the record of each judge.

This month, former Gov. Tom Ridge also went on the attack as he stumped for GOP judicial candidates, expressing concern that qualified judges might be ousted.

Commonwealth Court Judge James G. Colins, who is stepping down in January, said dumping virtually every judge would "cripple" the system by causing delays in trials and appeals.

"The concept of throwing out every judge is absurd," he said.

The controversy comes in an election year of high significance for the state judiciary.

Voters will decide whether to give Supreme Court Justice Thomas G. Saylor another 10-year term. They also will pick two new justices for the seven-member court and three new Superior Court judges.

In addition, two Superior Court judges and three Commonwealth Court judges, including Leadbetter, are up for retention votes, as are trial judges from many parts of the state.

In Philadelphia, 10 Common Pleas Court judges, six Municipal Court judges, and one Traffic Court judge face retention votes - and PACleanSweep is urging "no" votes for all.

The idea of voting against judges just because they received a raise is a "completely irresponsible barometer" for assessing whether they are qualified for retention, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Bernstein said...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/20071014_Pa__backlash_hitting_judges_-_and_critics.html


Judging Judges

http://judiphilly.blogspot.com/2007/10/judging-judges.html

Retention repeat?
Pennsylvania - September 13, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.judicialselection.us/news/detail.cfm?statenewsid=138

Discussion

http://www.pennlive.com/forums/capitol/?initial=true

editorial

Well this should create quite the precedent
blieberman@patriot-news.com, 10/15/07 7:15 AM EDT
UPDATED: 10/19/07 2:10 PM EDT


...The paralysis might not just be limited to the state's top appellate court, though and could extend to the entire state judicial system if voters heed the call of government reformers like the group PA Clean Sweep that are urging voters to vote "no" on retention votes for 66 of 68 judges from Commonwealth Court to common pleas.

The targeted judges are those who have not publicly turned down the pay raise they received from the much-criticized 2005 legislative pay raise deal that also bumped up judges pay. While legislators later backtracked and rescinded their own pay hike, the Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution blocked the Legislature from cutting judges' pay.

Gov. Ed Rendell would appoint replacements subject to state Senate confirmation, which could take months, if voters toss Saylor or other judges. But the delay in their appointments and the time it takes for new judges to learn the system would leave the courts in shambles, current and former justices and legal experts are warning.

"The call to voters not to use their minds and evaluate the record of service and to simply vote 'no' is in our view not responsible," said Andrew Susko, president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

But continued voter anger in parts of the state and the uncertainty over retention votes that had been taken for granted until Justice Russell Nigro narrowly lost his up-down vote in 2005 has many judges at the county level who never cast a vote for a pay raise worried that they could be the next victim....

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/article240364.ece

PA House defeats Study Commission for Constitutional Convention

Action in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives today defeated the measure to form a commission to study the Constitution of PA and to make recommendations for amendment or revision. The vote was

Nay 118
Yea 83

Primary sponsor of the bill was Rep. Dwight Evans.

Thank you clear thinking 118. For the time being, our PA Constitution is safe from tampering for all sorts of reasons. In fact, one of the representatives who spoke in favor of the study commission began listing a whole host of things that could be considered IN A CONVENTION. I was wondering when he was going to pull out the handkerchief and bring in "the children" - we need a convention to revise the PA Constitution, for the children, I was waiting to see the tears flowing.

Our PA Constitution is not at fault for the unconstitutional actions of members of the legislative body who not only voted themselves increases in salary back in 2005, but who voted to take the pay raise in the form of the unconstitutional vouchered expenses.

The action today not to form such a commission shows that many there are aware the Constitution is not at fault.

One member, Rep. Baker said he opposed the measure because the reforms desired could be proposed and enacted per the channels already available. He revealed all of the mail and e-mail he received on the issue was running 100 percent against the study commission and a convention.

See sidebar information for the dangers of holding a PA Constitutional Convention.

(Net the Truth Online posted Monday, Oct. 15, 2007 from first-hand viewing PCN broadcast of House Chamber vote)

HB 1179

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1179&pn=1848

Related

Rep. Babette Josephs

http://www.babette.org/News-1281.html

Pa. House rejects study of constitution, vote to shrink assembly
10/15/2007, 6:54 p.m. EDT
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The state House on Monday voted against a proposal to establish a commission to consider changes to the state constitution and against forcing a vote on a bill to shrink the size of the Legislature.

The chamber, on an 83-118 vote, rejected legislation that would have set up a 15-member commission to suggest potential amendments and recommend whether to convene a constitutional convention.

The House then defeated by a 65-136 vote a rarely used "discharge" resolution that would have bypassed the State Government Committee and brought directly to the House floor a bill to cut the General Assembly's 253-member size by one-fifth.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-55/1192489180259190.xml&storylist=penn

Glenn Beck unconvinced man causing global warming

Heard the Glenn Beck comments first-hand so the transcript appears to be dead-on accurate. But you do have to re-read. At first hearing, it appeared Beck agreed to "maybe man is causing global warming." Upon further reading the transcript, it appears Beck paraphrased what others say "maybe man is causing global warming."

I don't think Glenn Beck will be following in the footsteps of Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey with a conversion period that leads to acceptance of manmade global warming, according to Bailey in his 2005 article, We're all global warmers now.

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place
Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html


See sidebar posting Special Focus: Global Warming Issue

Speaking to James Hagee about signs the end times are here, Beck asks Hagee specifically about global warming...

Hagee says he doesn't believe in global warming.

Beck asserts he believes global warming is happening, but he is unconvinced of man's contribution or causing global warming.

Beck can settle the matter for all of us. He should have the author of the book the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Christopher C. Horner, on (again) but immediately after an invite to Ronald Bailey.

He should then have Al Gore, and follow that up with Michael Crichton.

He then should interview Chris Matthews, followed by Dr. John Christy.

He should invite Anderson Cooper and then invite Don Easterbrook.

Corner Lou Dobbs, then invite Timothy Ball

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


See where we're going with this.

Beck's the only one who can present one side in one interview and a dose of the other side in a follow-up interview.

He as well as the rest of us should beware of hidden messages - however - subliminal messages - they are everywhere.


BECK: Do you believe that global warming is a possible sign?

HAGEE: I don`t believe in global warming.

BECK: You don`t believe the earth is getting warmer?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: Really?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: No changes?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: OK. So what is the -- what is the next sign? I mean, you know, I believe it`s getting warmer. Science tells us it`s getting warmer. I don`t believe man is causing it. I don`t believe that -- maybe man is causing it. I`m not convinced of that. I definitely don`t think we can solve it.

But I mean, the earth is constantly cycling. We`ve seen forever that it gets colder and warmer and colder and warmer.

HAGEE: I`m certainly for clean air and clean water, but I have books in my library written by very responsible people up into the middle 80s were talking about the ice age, where Canada was supposed to be a block of ice right now.

And now we`re talking about global warming, and I think the Kyoto Treaty is really nothing more than something to manipulate the economy of the United States.

BECK: It`s global -- it`s global socialism. Quickly, we`ve only got a minute. So give me the next one.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/12/gb.01.html

Global warming, economy, world what's next

After listening to Hakim's interview, need we warn yet again to what all this is leading? Global world order and global governance.

Peter Hakim, Inter-American Dialogue, president, interviewed on C-Span's Washington Journal

...there's global warming, the global economy, we're part of the global world... supports integration hemisphere-wide, says Hakim

http://www.google.com/search?q=peter+hakim&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Peter Hakim North American "integration" "union" pro

http://www.google.com/search?q=peter+hakim+north+american+union&btnG=Search&hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen

Worldnet daily North American Union con

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=worldnet+daily+north+american+union&btnG=Search

New World Order Drive Behind Global Warming March 12, 2007

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-world-order-drive-behind-global.html

William Gray: we're brainwashing our children

Fox 'n Friends picks up the story of hurricane expert Dr. William Gray, who says the Al Gore global warming book gets it all wrong. Gray says we're brainwashing our children... scientists are not speaking out because they fear they'll lose their grants...

Well, absolutely, we're brainwashing our children on global warming (one sided presentations are inherently brainwashing), and we're brainwashing our children on many other issues. Among those issues: the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It's a Constitutional republic, a nation based on the rule of law.

As to global warming caused exclusively by man... Gray isn't alone in his attempts to provide material to the contrary, but the mainstream media simply won't include that side to global warming.

See the sidebar category on this blog containing dozens of (exhaustive) postings

Special Focus: Global Warming Issue

Gray must be steaming as hot as Hot Springs when he reads articles and headlines such as the following. Wish him well. The last thing politicians and mainstream media want is the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth.

Colorado Could Be Facing a Tragedy with Global Warming
Published Jun 15, 2007

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282590/colorado_could_be_facing_a_tragedy.html

Meanwhile

British Court: Gore Film 'Political'
Friday, Oct. 12, 2007

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

updated 8:34 p.m. EDT, Fri October 12, 2007
UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Constitution Revision Promoted by authors

Sunday at 7:00 AM, and Sunday at 7:00 PM
Larry Sabato author of "A More Perfect Constitution" and Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes authors of "The Genius of America"
Authors: Eric Lane; Michael Oreskes; Larry Sabato

http://www.booktv.org/

I knew Larry Sabato was a wolf in sheep's clothing long ago. There are some parts of the Constitution that work fine, other parts that need revision, Sabato says leading a discussion in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center rebroadcast on Book TV. The discussion centers on constitutional revision.

Why didn't the group invite experts like the John Birch Society? Why didn't they invite Phyllis Schlafly?

There has always been a movement to hold a "second" convention to "amend" the Constitution, in fact immediately after the first and only convention back in 1787... the danger in holding a convention to "revise" the Constitution of the United States is that an entirely NEW constitution can be proposed to replace the existing constitution. What could happen for instance, the second amendment could be eliminated, removed, and abolished. Our form of government which is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, can be abolished with for instance proposals for the mob, the citizenry, enabled to amend the Constitution or there could be a proposal to adopt a measure such as the state of California and implement national voting initiatives and referendums.

The Founding Framers warned of a democracy. That's exactly what many nowadays want, including Sabato.

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"
By: John F. McManus
November 6, 2000

http://thenewamerican.com/node/1540

Putting this upfront. There goes the host... I hope a constitutional convention happens if for no other reason, journalistic reason, it would be a heck of a story to cover...

Yep, people, listen up, that is the reason they want a convention, so the news media can cover them... the self-anointed important blowhards...

One of the authors Eric says... 220 years... the longest running demcracy in the history of the world.

He got that wrong as the United States is not a democracy. The United States is a Constitutional (compound) republic.

Larry Sabato: we're improving on the Founders work

there's no thing as a runaway... it's called by the states, 34 states need to call it... some would say there are already the required amount of states needed to call a convention who have submitted proposals for amending the Constitution... once it meets the delegates would be elected one per district one vote per delegate... would they be able to replace the constitution no because it would have to be ratified by the states, only 13 states needed to stop, more than enough division the blue and the red states.


Micael Oreskes says there was a runaway convention the first one... there was a ratification process, he says, and even if you have a runaway convention as the first one... there is a ratification process...

OK while I am steaming writing this let me get back to the beginning.

opening question: issue of executive power and what has happened in the last several years in the wake of 9/11 and the Bush Administration and expansion of executive power.

Has Bush been able to expand because con is vague enough or can't withstand politicians bent on expanding power and what should be done... does the constitution require some revisions to allow us to correct the imbalances of the last several years.

Larry Sabato A More Perfect Constitution 23 Proposals...

many pieces in Constitution that are archaic and need changing... look to the Founding Fathers... Sabato proposes a constitutional convention the first ten years of when...

Michael Oreskes, co-author, The Genius of America

Eric Lane, co-author, The Genius of America

It only took a few minutes, but they have weaved around the initial questions posed to them.

Larry Sabato goes on again about revising the Constitution as a necessity every so often...

Oh my goodness, Sabato proposes as one of his revisions of our Constitution a six-year elected term for the president, than a retention election with a yeah or nay, if the people say nay, the president is out, if they say yeah, he's in for another two years...

Guess that abolishes the Electoral College in one fell swoop. Not only that, how would we then go about electing a replacement president and would the term be only for the next two years?

What a sick proposal. Again Larry Sabato wolf in academic sheep's clothing.

The discussion about a runaway convention not being a possibility because the states would be able to stop such during the ratification process - only 13 states are needed - well - people - listen up - Sabato is in error.

Because the first convention altered the Articles of Confederation ratification process. The second convention can do likewise. It is called precedent. But Oreskes didn't go further and mention that.

Beware.

My position on an Article V Constitutional Convention:


The first convention held in 1786 was called in order to revise the Articles of Confederation, not replace the document with a new Constitution. A contemporary Second convention would be called upon application of 34 states for the purpose of proposing an amendment, or amendments. There is no controlling authority, not Congress, not the President, not the United Nations Charter, and not even the Supreme Law of the land, the U.S. Constitution itself which would rein in modern-day delegates.

Delegates were not restrained or hampered in any way during the original convention to their original mission, and there is no reason to expect modern-day delegates would be limited in any way by any one, even the U.S. Constitution's Article V!

Delegates from fifty state legislatures, chosen not by we, the people, but by state representatives, many not to be trusted on matters of state import, let alone Constitutional import, not we, the people, would be sent to a convention.

During the first convention, the delegates altered even the method of states' ratification from unanimous to three-fourths. Nine, not thirteen states, were enough to replace the Articles of Confederation with an entirely new form of government. Luckily for us, the U.S. Constitution adopted by our Founding Framers sought to protect individual rights. Contemporary delegates could alter the requirements for their own purposes.


My partial bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CALL


A MACHINE THAT WOULD GO OF ITSELF, Michael Kammen, 1986.

A NEW CONSTITUTION FOR A NEW AMERICA, William MacDonald, 1921.

A NEW CONSTITUTION NOW, Henry Haxlitt, 1942, reprint, 1974.

ACTION FOR AMERICANS: THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT, Lloyd Herbstreith and Gordon King, 1963.

ALTERNATIVE CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES: DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, Stephen Boyd, 1992.

AMENDING AMERICA, Richard Bernstein, 1993.

AMERICA AT THE POLLS: 1994, Everett Ladd, 1995.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SPECIAL: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE CONVENTION METHOD UNDER ARTICLE V, Constitutional Convention Study Committee, 1974.

THE AMERICAN CITIZENS' HANDBOOK, Joyce Elmer Morgan, 1941, 1968.

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, 3rd edition, C. Herman Pritchett, 1977.

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Carl B. Swisher.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, Lewis Lipsitz, 1986.

THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May-June 1990, "We the Peoples: A Checklist for New Constitution Writers," Robert A. Goldwin.

THE AMERICAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, John Fergusan and Dean McHenry, 1956.

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, James Censer, Lawrence O'Toole, John Bessette, and Glen Thurow.

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, Peter Woll, 1962.

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IDEALS AND REALITY, Abraham Holtzman and Sylvia Holtzman, 1980.

AMERICA'S SECRET ARISTROCACY, Stephen Birmingham, 1987.

AMERICAN THEORIES OF FEDERALISM, Walter Hartwell Bennett, 1964.

AN AMERICAN RENAISSANCE: A STRATEGY FOR THE 1980'S, Jack Kemp, 1979.

AN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW READER, Robert McKay, 1958.

APPROVAL VOTING, Stephen J. Brams and Peter Fishburn, 1983.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, Merrill Jensen, 1940.

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, NEW AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM, Anthony King.

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, C. Herman Pritchett, 1963.

BEHIND THE SCENES: THE POLITICS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (for a 51st state), Philip G. Schrag, 1985.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS HOW WE GOT IT AND WHAT IT MEANS, Meltzer, 1990.

BIRTH OF A NATION THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS 1789-91, Charlene Bangs Bickford and Kenneth R. Bowling, 1989.

BOOK OF THE STATES, Volume 28, 1990-91. Volume 29, 1992-93, Council of State Governments.

BRAVE NEW WORLD: THE ESSENTIAL ROAD MAP TO THE 21ST CENTURY, William Knoke.

C-Span, November 12, 1996. "We're a Constitutional Republic," John Shadagg, R-AZ, 105th Congress.

C-Span, National Press Club, March 2, 1996. "... a new global interdependency," Mike McCurry, White House Press Secretary.

CASE FOR FEDERAL UNION, W.B. Curry, 1939.

CITIZENS' GUIDE TO LEGAL RIGHTS, J. Shane Creamer, 1971.

THE COMING BREAKPOINT, Barry Goldwater, 1976.

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, Anastaplo.

THE CONSTITUTION AND WORLD ORGANIZATION, Edward S. Corwin, 1944.

THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS TODAY, Edward S. Corwin, 1965.

CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS, Joan B. Collins and Kenneth C. Hill, 1994.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DELEGATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER, Sotirios A. Barber, 1975.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDING PROCESS IN AMERICAN POLITCAL THOUGHT, John R. Vile, 1992.

CONSTITUTIONAL BRINKMANSHIP: AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY NATIONAL CONVENTION, Russell L. Caplan, 1988.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN AMERICA, John R. Vile, 1992.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHAFF: REJECTED SUGGESTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787 WITH EXPLANATORY ARGUMENT, Jane Butzner, 1941.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: A MANUAL OF ITS PLANNING, ORGANIZATION, AND OPERATION, John Wheeler, 1961.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: HOW WELL IT WOULD WORK?, John Charles Dalp, moderator, American Enterprise Institute Forum for Public Policy Research, May 23, 1979.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: THREAT OR CHALLENGE?, Wilbur Edel, 1981.

CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: A REAPPRAISAL, Charles W. Dunn, 1987.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM, David Engdahl, 1987.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, Woodrow Wilson, 1908.

CONSTITUTIONAL INEQUALITY: PROCEDURES FOR ERA AMENDMENT, Gilbert Steiner, 1985.

CONSTITUTIONAL JOURNAL: A CORRESPONDENT'S REPORT FROM THE CONVENTION OF 1787, Jeffrey St. John, Jameson Books, Inc. 1987.

THE CONSTITUTION RECONSIDERED, Conyers Read, 1938.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT, James L. Sunquist, 1985.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN AMERICA, Charles M. Hardin, 1989.

CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE CHANGING WORLD, C.H. McIlwain, 1939.

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: THE BOLD PLAN. 1994.

THE CONVENTION AND THE CONSTITUTION, David G. Smith, 1965.

A CONVENTION OF DELEGATES, Dennis J. Houptly, 1987.

COURT OF REASON (Robert Hutchins and The Fund for the Republic), Frank K. Kelly, 1981.

COURT OVER THE CONSTITUTION: A STUDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT, Edward. S. Corwin, 1938.

CREATIVE FEDERALISM, William A. Jump, 196.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE CONSTITUTION: LEADING SUPREME COURT CASES, 1994 edition, Jarold H. Israel, and others, 1994. Chapter 2, "The Nature and Scope of the 14th Amendment Due Process and The Applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States."

DEADLOCK TO DEMOCRACY, James M. Burns, 1963.
NEW AMERICAN, MARCH 18, 1996, P. 11.

William Gray debunks global warming hurricane theory

Gray: He cited statistics, showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900-1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957-2006, when the earth warmed.

Unfortunately, he's ignored...

October 13, 2007 02:05pm
Gore's climate theory savaged
Agente France
ONE of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His visit, arranged through the meteorology program at UNCC, came on the same day that Gore was honoured for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students from several Carolinas universities and a host of professional meteorologists, Gray also said those who have linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years are in error.

He cited statistics, showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900-1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957-2006, when the earth warmed...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C23739%2C22579081-5003419%2C00.html


Think tank: Withdraw Gore film's Oscar
Citing court ruling, compares situation to sports stars found to be 'cheats'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58111

Abraham Foxman debunks Jewish conspiracy

C-Span 2 Book TV broadcast Abraham Foxman's speech in New York at Barnes and Noble Bookstore... at the end of his talk he said when the college campus professors require their own books for reading and propagandize the myth that Jews control everything, the American media, politics, etc. at least out there will be another book, his, THE DEADLIEST LIES...

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Ron Paul chances going going going

Speaking to the Taft Club organization, presidential candidate Ron Paul said a secretive monetary scheme is the Federal Reserve. Paul's speech was re-broadcast on C-Span Saturday. Paul further said it produces conterfeit money...

huh... he didn't explain, and he should have. He may have been preaching to the choir, those already convinced of his positions and opinions, but the rest of the voters need more clarification to swing to the Republican's presidential effort.

Later he's asked what would he do about the federal reserve. He said he would legalize the money... hmmm, why not be absolutely clear. Say you'd abolish the Federal Reserve and void the 16th amendment. He did later say he would eliminate the income tax. What would he replace it with?

He wasn't very clear again. He said something about we used to have tariffs... but he didn't clarify further or adequately.

now ron Paul says anybody who doesn't want to pay social security taxes, etc. ought to just get out...

What? Missed why Paul would think the government should be even collecting social security taxes? Again unclear.

Paul says we're basically attacking third world nations... they don't have any weapons... we're a bully... we're attacking nations before they get any weapons... preemptive war... endless and open... continuing on... he says it's war propaganda, we always have to have another war... that's where our problems come from.. we always have to be occupying a foreign Muslim country...

I had at one time been leaning heavily toward supporting Paul. Now I'm not so convinced.

At this appearance, speaking to those he knows are overall in agreement with him, he confirmed my growing belief that on the Iraq war he's saying what he knows a larger percentage of Americans are with increasing fervor being propagandized to believe...

Guess one has to continue reading his weekly columns to see who else he panders to

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Ron Paul doesn't place the blame squarely where it lies. With a Congress that abrogated its sworn duty to uphold the Consitution of the United States.

Don't get me wrong. To his credit, Ron Paul did not vote to give President Bush authority to use force in Iraq back in 2002. He also is the Congressman who session after session presents a bill to get the United States out of the United Nations.

I support those efforts.

Paul also correctly states that Congress declares war according to our United States Constitution. And with the war on Iraq that didn't happen.

But Paul ignores that it didn't happen because our members of Congress abrogated their DUTY. That's right, their duty. Minus Ron Paul's vote and a handful of others, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use necessary force in Iraq.

Now these same law-breakers who thwarted the U.S. Constitution are crying they were lied to and that's why many don't support the war now...

No, that isn't acceptable. At least Paul has ethical ground on which to stand as he didn't vote for the use of force authorization.

First, the Bush Administration was no different than the Clinton Administration concerning the real and imminent potentiality of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's threats to use those weapons. Even the United Nations was unsure of the status of Hussein's stockpiles of such including mustard gas the UN said he used on his own people in the 1980s.

And yes, it's been documented that the United States when supporting Hussein at one point was responsible for providing some of those weapons of mass destruction. That's despicable.

But Congress, even newcomers to service there, has the power to stop it all.

Congress had in its domain of power, one of the few limited powers it possesses, to outright declare war on Iraq, or not. Congress had the power to call in experts as well as the state department to obtain independent information to make their decision to "declare war." They didn't.

Members of Congress had one directive from the Constitution of the United States -

Congress declares war.

Congress members did not do their duty as sworn to uphold the Constitution. Those members who authorized the use of force by the president, sidestepping their constitutional duty to declare war, are the ones who should be held accountable and should have been recalled or impeached by the people of the United States.

President Bush went to Congress under the so-called War Powers Act. Congress doesn't have to abide by unconsitutional acts. But members did.

After Congress allowed President Bush to use force they either then fully support the effort or do their next constitutional duty. Withhold money to fight the illegitimate war.

But they won't do that now, either.

They are the hypocrites. Either withhold the money or shut up.

Congress could also challenge en masse the War Powers Act and abolish it.

They won't.

While Ron Paul is a champion on many fronts, on this one, he simply fails.

He also didn't adequately explain what is "imminent" threat or danger or attack or sudden attack.

Do nuclear warheads have to be dropping on United States soil before Congress declares war?

When does a President have the authority to fight back without the consent of Congress - when there is an imminent threat of an attack to the United States.

And that's why President Bush did not have to go to Congress under the War Powers Act or any other act, to take action against Iraq, if the president believed from all available intelligence that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat.

That he did seek Congressional authorization tells us a lot.

That members of Congress acquiesced and voted for the president to use necessary force tells us a lot.

When Ross Perot ran for President back in the early 90s, I was fortunate enough to be in a postition to ask Perot just such a question at a press conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. When would you go to war against another country?

When there's an imminent threat... when we're under attack, responded Perot.

The difference between then and now truly is the perceived "imminent" threat of attack since September 11, 2001.

And that is the primary reason we do need to have all of the information we can obtain about what happened the morning of September 11, 2001.

Why didn't President George W. Bush get up from his seat in the classroom when he was told by Andrew Card that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, America is under attack?

America Under Attack: Job Ahead of Bush
Aired September 14, 2001 - 03:10

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/se.30.html

Why didn't Bush do his duty when told America is under attack and immediately get up politely from his seat, go into the adjacent room already set up with secure phone lines (according to Bill Sammon in Fighting Back) and call out the full military forces of the United States of America? Did Bush know planes had been hijacked before he entered the second grade classroom to listen to children read? How would Bush know that military planes of a foreign country were not "attacking" the United States? How would Bush know these were only suicide missions and not an in concert broad attack with a combination of hijacked planes and nuclear warheads coming in from wherever?

(See my This is Not a Conspiracy Theory for treatment of these issues)

Ron Paul should be screaming about President Bush being told America IS UNDER ATTACK the morning of September 11, 2001, and doing nothing for several minutes. (Again see This is not a Conspiracy Theory for documentation that Bush remained seated in the classroom for six minutes).

But even Ron Paul isn't asking President Bush anything about that morning. Why not?

He can be vocal about an illegitimate war all he wants. But if he doesn't go the distance and show that the basis of that war and all subsequent U.S. policy rests on what happened on September 11, 2001 which as of this date remains unexplained fully he is no more presidential material than any other of the candidates.

All of the other issues Paul is correct about do not matter if he isn't willing to directly ask the President of the United States to account for his inaction when there was an imminent threat on United States soil.

posted by Net the Truth Online with revisions

More

THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY: 6-MINUTE SLIVER SHOWS HISTORICAL TRUTH

http://dirtline.tripod.com/talkacrosstown/id3.html

october 10, 2002 AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_01.html

Quotes from Ron Paul speech

http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Quotes_From_Ron_Paul_s_Speech_Last_Night

Ron Paul forum

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=24058

clip

Danny Carlton Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Did Clinton get a declaration of war when he bombed Kosovo civilians?

Also, Ron Paul claimed we have never been under an imminent
attack in 220 years. Where was he on December 7th, 1941?
Where was he September 11th, 2001?

Kurt Obermeyer Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Rep. Paul may have misspoke when he said we were never under the threat of an imminent attack, however, he is absolutely correct in saying that we need to have a Congressional declaration of war to go to war. This is the real issue. This country has been in a nearly continuous state of war since the end of WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Kosovo, contiued bombing of Iraq after Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again, the list is exhausting. Not a single one of these conflicts has had a Constitutionally directed declaration of war. By the way, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution says the Congress has to declare war. Article 1, section 8, if anybody cares anymore.

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/10/09/video-rudy-vs-ron-paul-on-911/


clip

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

September 25, 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm


CATO Institute position on executive power

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Z8xxeesRfggJ:www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-11.pdf+power+president+imminent+sudden+attack&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

The Debate over war powers

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&context=lawfaculty

clip


Thursday, May 10, 2007
Ron Paul's Weekly column Dec.11, 2006
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
December 11, 2006

...The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.

The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.

Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:

The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.

But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).

So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.

It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.


Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul

http://fredanderson.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-pauls-weekly-column-dec11-2006.html

clip

Source: Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2003

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."

Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html


clip

In Response to Richard E. Berg-Andersson's Commentary
Dealing with War Powers
Thursday, September 19, 2002 by Kenneth Stremsky

Mr. Berg-Andersson responds:

The main point of my Commentary of 13 September was that there is a "gray area" in between a sudden attack which the President appears to have the power to repel without necessarily or immediately consulting Congress (I would put the attacks of 11 September 2001 in this category) and that which requires a Declaration of War from Congress per Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution (I would put any military action re: the current threat level from the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in this category). Assuming that a condition of Peace is "condition GREEN", the former condition (surprise attack on the United States) would be "condition RED" and the latter condition (dealing with an indirect, less than imminent, danger from abroad) would be "condition YELLOW"; liberally borrowing the color code of alert levels used by the U.S. Office of Homeland Security, I referred to the "gray area" (into which the Bush Administration- or so it appears- currently wishes a present Iraqi "threat" to be placed) as "condition ORANGE"-- in such a case, at bare minimum, a Congressional Resolution would be in order (and, so it appears as of this typing, it seems we are rather likely to get just that-- though only that!). To reiterate my own position: in the case of war with Iraq as contemplated at present, a Congressional Resolution is simply not good enough- since it is "YELLOW" and not "ORANGE" as I defined these in my Commentary; a Declaration of War would be much more advisable- as well as necessary under the terms of the Constitution of the United States itself...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20020919-0




Ron Paul and “Islamofascism”

http://thecrossedpond.com/?cat=1

Search results

http://blog-admin.lewrockwell.com/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=5&search=%22ron%20paul%22

Republican Debate Transcript, South Carolina
Published May 15, 2007

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13338/

May Debate posting

http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=760

Ron Paul (did he say we invited the attack on 9/11 because we are over there...?)

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008623.html

search results Ron Paul executive orders

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+executive+orders&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'

has gone to its eighth printing, and this latest edition incorporates more clarifying revisions than any previous release!

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

Friday, October 12, 2007

Nobel Peace Prize Politically Charged

In doubt the Nobel Peace Price committee's been politicized? Banish the doubt now that Al Gore has been a co-awardee with what say who?

UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.google.com/search?q=gore+peace+prize&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Yep, their presentations have been challenged, but so what, right.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=climate+change+hype&btnG=Search

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Earl Tilford: U.S. can't afford a nuclear Iran

Earl Tilford was a guest on the Pittsburgh, PA (PCNC) Honsberger Live program (phone interview) with guest host, Chris Moore.

Asked specifically about the policy of the United States regarding Iran, Tilford said the U.S. can't afford a nuclear Iran...

Of course, liberal Moore, later, after Tilford is off the air, disagrees, so there is no opportunity for any further education on the reasoning behind Tilford's statement...

Related
Earl H. Tilford, Ph.D.
Working Group Coordinator, Middle East & Terrorism
Fellow, Middle East & Terrorism

http://www.visandvals.org/Earl%20H.%20Tilford,%20Ph.D..php

Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=earl+tilford+nuclear+iran&btnG=Search

Airport body scanners: virtual strip search

Right the full body scanners operators won't look at Tom Selleck or Brad Pitt or any of the Desperate Housewives lookalikes x-rayed body parts. We believe you benevolent dictator, we believe, we believe...

Seriously, these people simply don't read fiction. (like Delphi Betrayal) Weapons have been broken into smaller parts and stored in items ok'd for air travel. Later, the weapons can be dismantled in the "john" or the "jane."

Just like pre-9/11, there is a lack of reading on the part of all...

TSA - More Body Scans
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
The Transportation Security Administration plans to expand its use of screening machines that look under passengers' clothing for hidden weapons. New York's Kennedy and Los Angeles International airports will get "backscatter" X-ray machines that the American Civil Liberties Union has called a "virtual strip search" for the vivid anatomical images they can create. Those airports and Phoenix Sky Harbor also will test a similar technology, using low-intensity millimeter waves, to scan passengers' bodies. The machines are capable of showing passengers' bodily parts, but TSA says that, due to privacy concerns, they will not. All of the machines will use software that will blur images of passengers, so screeners will see weapons but only fuzzy images of people's bodies...

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49984&fb=1


Guess this really wasn't implemented before September 11, 2001

Airport scanner shows body's naked outline
Last Updated: Friday, November 10, 2000 | 11:48 PM ET
CBC News


http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/12/30/xray991230.html

Ah. Yes, the x-ray scanners were available, implemented, being used, but a choice was given... and so the question arises... what happened on 9/11 with a few of the hijackers actually being stopped at the airport, but let go...

The Nation: Thanks, but I'll Have the Strip-Search; No Takers for the X-Ray Option
By ALAN FINDER
Published: January 24, 1999
IT seemed to officials of the United States Customs Service like a good idea, no doubt. When Customs inspectors became suspicious that someone was trying to smuggle drugs or other contraband into the country, they would offer a choice: a conventional strip-search or an X-ray.

For innocent travelers, an X-ray would be less degrading than a strip-search by a stranger in uniform. And for Customs inspectors, it would be easier to discover drugs, cash or other illicit goods hidden beneath travelers' clothing or even inside their bodies.

But, as sometimes happens with good ideas, the reality did not match the hope. The Customs Service began offering foreign visitors and returning Americans the X-ray option last October at two major airports, John F. Kennedy in New York City and Miami International in Florida. In the first three months of the experiment, nine people at Kennedy and eight in Miami were offered the choice of an X-ray. No one accepted.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E4DB1F30F937A15752C0A96F958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fS%2fSearch%20and%20Seizure


(7:00 a.m.-7:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Computer Screening Program Selects Some Hijackers; Fails to Stop Them Sometime during this period, the hijackers pass through airport security checkpoints at the various airports. The FAA has a screening program in place called the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS). CAPPS automatically targets passengers for additional screening based on suspicious behavior such as buying one-way tickets or paying with cash. If a passenger is selected, their bags are thoroughly screened for explosives, but their bodies are not searched. [Washington

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a700someselected#a700someselected
Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine
Jon Markman
Solar power and compressed natural gas offer more-efficient energy technologies than planting, fertilizing, harvesting and refining fields of corn into fuel. Investors, take note. Congress, listen up.

New research by a University of California petroleum engineering professor suggests that worldwide crude oil supplies will start to run so low over the next nine years that resource-blessed countries like Saudi Arabia will begin to hoard them for domestic use instead of exporting -- and states with large reservoirs of natural gas, like Montana, will seek ways to avoid sharing with less-advantaged neighbors like Oregon.

Attempts to forestall the political and economic damage by turning aggressively to agriculture for "renewable" transportation fuel in the form of ethanol will prove futile, according to professor Tad W. Patzek, as new calculations show that the entire surface of the Earth cannot create enough additional biomass to replace more than 10% of current fossil fuel use.

The process of sowing, fertilizing, reaping, distributing and refining corn and grasses for ethanol feedstock uses up nearly as much carbon energy as fuel farmers claim to save, and it generates so much soil degradation and toxic byproducts that widespread use will leave the Earth denuded and hostile to human life within decades, according to the professor's data.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Commentary/Experts/Markman/Jon_Markman.aspx?msn=1

PA Tax elimination plans: not real

Beware. Most of the property tax elimination plans making the rounds in Harrisburg aren't real. Reason: the PA Constitution contains a clause which disallows abolishing the property tax. In order for any property tax elimination plan to be adopted, the PA Constitution would first have to be altered by means of an amendment and the clause would have to be removed.

Notice in the following plan, property taxes are not totally eliminated! County and municipality property taxes would remain.

The state legislators will never pass a bill that totally eliminates all local property taxes. they talk a good game, but none can or will deliver.

(Net the Truth Online)

Pa. tax plan shifts burden to consumers, wage earners
Thursday, September 27, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- A state senator from Eastern Pennsylvania has come up with a startling proposal on tax shifting, one that would virtually eliminate school property taxes in many districts by significantly raising the sales tax and personal income tax rates.

Under the plan of Sen. James J. Rhoades, R-Schuylkill, Pennsylvania would have the highest sales tax rate in the nation by far -- 9.19 percent in 55 counties and 10.19 in two of them, Allegheny and Philadelphia. The state sales tax is 6 percent now in most Pennsylvania counties, but it's 7 percent in the two largest counties.

Nationwide, California has a 7.25 percent sales tax and four states, New Jersey, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Tennessee, have a 7 percent rate.

Under the Rhoades plan, the personal income tax rate also would jump significantly, to 4.36 percent from the current 3.07 percent.

Mr. Rhoades, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, wants the proposal to go before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

Raising those two taxes would generate $9 billion in additional revenue, Mr. Rhoades told a news conference yesterday. That would permit the elimination of school property taxes for both homeowners and businesses in 305 school districts. In the other 196 districts, property taxes would be cut by an average of 96 percent, he said.

But he said none of these moves would happen without approval from Pennsylvania voters. He wants the Legislature to put the question of this major tax-shifting proposal on the statewide ballot in November 2008. But he said he wants to get the discussion started now.

The referendum results would be binding on the Legislature. If voters gave the go-ahead for the tax shift, the Legislature would have to enact it in 2009, he said. If it's defeated, the state's tax structure would stay as it is.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07270/820911-85.stm

IRS private debt collection program challenged

Yep, an income tax collection system that is unconstitutionaly anyway, and the private debt collectors do a better job than the IRS, and what do the Democrats want to eliminate? Not the unconstitutional income tax, but the private debt collectors. Yep, way to go...

House backs bill to end private tax collections
Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:35pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1028746920071010?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Jewish Democrats want Coulter ban

Everyone is so touchy when it comes to religion... A few months ago, Bill O'Reilly on his radio program said something along the lines that atheists can't be good citizens, they have no morals, no base of belief in God, so how can they be decent people. Yeah, thanks Bill. Think atheists have called for an O'Reilly ban?

Sometimes, these pundits don't have a script. They say whatever pops into their head, and when it comes to religion - whatever that religion, they are correct, according to them.

What Ann Coulter said really isn't that unusual because it is exactly what has been said before. Books have been written about this belief which is widespread.

Nobody should care what Coulter says or does, or what O'Reilly says or does since they are not elected public officials passing laws which mandate all the rest of us to believe a certain way, or else...

That's what people need to understand. The government can't intrude on your beliefs, or your non-beliefs, end of story...

Jewish Democrats demand Coulter media boycott
Ann tells TV interviewer she wants everyone to convert to Christianity

WASHINGTON – A Jewish Democratic group is demanding the media stop interviewing bestselling author Ann Coulter because of her insistence in a TV appearance that she would like everyone to convert to Christianity.

The National Jewish Democratic Council called on "mainstream media outlets" to stop inviting Coulter as a guest commentator and pundit and strongly condemned her comments that in a perfect world all would be Christians.

"While Ann Coulter has freedom of speech, news outlets should exercise their freedom to use better judgment," said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "Just as media outlets don't invite those who believe that Martians walk the earth to frequently comment on science stories, it's time they stop inviting Ann Coulter to comment on politics."

Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently claimed credit for helping to launch Media Matters.

In the Monday interview, Deutsch asked Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?"

"It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention.," Coulter said. "In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like."

In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."

"It would be better if we were all Christian?" Deutsch asked.

"Yes," she said.

Later, Deutsch returned to the subject, saying: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians."

"Yes," she replied again.

When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."

After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?"

Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe – this is just a statement of what the New Testament is – is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."

Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58089

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Heartbreaking story Grand Canyon Danger

4-Year-Old Girl Dies After Falling Into Grand Canyon

A 4-year-old girl on a vacation trip to the Grand Canyon has died after falling off the canyon edge.

National Parks Service spokeswoman Maureen Oltrogge says the girl fell near Mather Point just before noon and her father immediately scrambled down the cliffs to reach her.

He started CPR, and a Parks Service ranger who rappelled down the canyon also began trying to resuscitate the little girl, to no avail.

Oltrogge says the child's death is a tragic reminder to everyone that extreme care needs to be taken at the canyon rim, especially with children.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300629,00.html

Trade Union for all the Americas on the way

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, too.

Don't miss the dynamite interview ... your government wouldn't stop it, the illegals coming in here... says O'Reilly... talks about narcotics, etc...

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?100907/100907_oreilly_fox&OReilly_Factor&Vicente%20Fox%20enters%20No%20Spin%20Zone&acc&World&-1&News&450&&&new

More video and blog postings on the issue...

http://www.sphere.com/search?q=Vicente+Fox&tq=1&datedrop=1&lang=en

Meanwhile, at Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs apparently received an invitation from Fox to debate him. Dobbs polled his viewers on whether or not he should take him up on the offer... Dobbs interviewed two NY state senators as well on the issue of drivers' licenses for illegal aliens...

Unbelievably, the aliens may not have to provide a "social security" number issued by the United States of America as citizens would have to provide in order to obtain the licenses. And, the licenses will look the same as those citizens obtain, thus making it potentially easier for illegal aliens to obtain a voter registration card and then be afforded a right to vote!

Read the entire Dobbs transcript

Dobbs: Mexican president's blatant hypocrisy

Don't miss World Net Daily Corsi's article on former Mexican president Vicente Fox revelation of a forthcoming Amero coinage and trade union for all the Americas!

O'Reilly The Immigration Insurrection

http://www.billoreilly.com/column;jsessionid=258455DD66FAD9E4C0003124DEEF1F5F?pid=21709

Vicente Fox enters No Spin Zone Video See Pt 1, Pt 2, Pt 3

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?100907/100907_oreilly_fox&OReilly_Factor&Vicente%20Fox%20enters%20No%20Spin%20Zone&acc&World&-1&News&450&&&new


LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Democrats Threaten Showdown Over Warrantless Wiretaps; Former Mexican President Speaks Out on Illegal Immigration

Aired October 9, 2007 - 18:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, startling new insults and threats against the United States uttered by none other than former Mexican President Vicente Fox, Fox declaring that -- quote -- "xenophobics, racists, and the superior race," as he put it, "are deciding the future of the United States."
Oh, yeah? And President Fox has an offer for me. We will be discussing that tonight and we will have complete coverage of his outburst here...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/09/ldt.01.html


Ex-Mexican prez: 'Amero' on the way
Vicente Fox confirms long-term deal worked out with President Bush
Posted: October 9, 2007
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.

According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency.

"Long term, very long term," he said. "What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas..."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58052


CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Vicente Fox

Aired October 8, 2007 - 21:00 ET


KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

KING: How is NAFTA doing?

FOX: Excellent. Mexico's seventh largest trading economy in the world. Mexico trades more products and services than all of Latin America together, including Brazil, Argentina and all of them. And Mexico buys -- and this people don't know -- Mexico buys from the United States more products and services than what Italy, France, Germany and Britain do together. So we account for hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy in the U.S.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html


CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Vicente Fox

Aired October 8, 2007 - 21:00 ET

KING: Do you know of CNN's Lou Dobbs?

Do, you know Lou Dobbs?

FOX: Yes. Yes, I know him. Yes.

KING: And you know he is kind of leading a fight against illegal immigration?

Do you take issue with him?

FOX: I'm (INAUDIBLE). I'd love to have a debate with him, because what I was going to say that Andy Grove, the president of Intel, coming from abroad and contributing to this nation's economy or my dear paisanos, which are all over the United States, working hard, being loyal to this nation, contributing to its productivity and contributing to the management of its economy.

It wasn't work, Larry. It just don't work...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html

Monday, October 08, 2007

JAG episode tackles war crimes trial

And more

Iraq's Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction agasinst his own people, says Harm, during the trial...

No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, says prosecution witness...

Not yet, says Harm...

JAG episode features a war crimes trial against the United States for an attack on a hospital where it was suspected terrorists were hiding but innocent civilians killed and injured.

Who are you?

America has been a symbol of hope for the world, we accept our responsibility which all civilized nations should to fight against tyranny... take up arms against violent men who threaten security... we reserve the right to protect ourselves...


(Net the Truth Online)

episode
http://rrjmd4.home.att.net/jsNine.html

google search results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=jag+People+vs.+SecNav+february+2004&btnG=Search

Summary

http://www.rosepetaldesign.com/jagreview/pvsecnav.htm

http://www.rosepetaldesign.com/jagreview/


Summary

When civilians are killed in a bombing raid, an International Criminal Court charges the United States with war crimes and the SecNav is the one on trial representing the USA. The SecNav is defended by Harm, Mac & Bud who find they must also defend the United States decision for waging the war. At the end, the court finds the USA on the following charges:

Crimes against humanity - Not Guilty
War Crimes - Not Guilty
Intentionally targeting non-combatants - Not Guilty

Willful destruction of civilian property - Guilty.

The court orders the USA to provide reparations to the town of Tikifa in the amount of $20 million US dollars.


The prosecutor mentions to the SecNav that he doesn't agree with the verdicts, but pleased the SecNav won't have to go to prison. In response, the SecNav states that the two countries have been friends for too long and they both go off to get a drink together.

Back in the USA, when Bud has to fly overseas to help defend the SecNav, Mike is asked to babysit little AJ who takes him to play video games. When he has to purchase additional tokens so AJ could play one more game, Mike is shocked to find that little AJ has disappeared, necessitating a search for him that has Bud flying back to the USA in the middle of the trial.

http://www.tv.com/jag/people-v.-secnav/episode/303820/summary.html


Mentioned is U.N. Resolution 1441 (Iraq ignored)

http://www.google.com/search?q=u%2En%2E+resolution+1441&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Established in 2002 and located in The Hague, the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It has been the subject of episodes of TV series such as "The West Wing" and "JAG," and was recently featured in the movie, "The Interpreter," starring Nicole Kidman. The ICC has been a controversial topic for the Bush administration, which opposes the court for fear that it could bring politically motivated prosecutions against U.S. officials. But last March the United States permitted the U.N. Security Council to refer the Darfur situation to the ICC for prosecution, thereby implicitly recognizing the court's legitimacy and usefulness to American foreign policy. The ICC is currently preparing cases for prosecution involving Darfur, Congo, and Uganda.

http://www.case.edu/news/2005/11-05/cox.htm


International Criminal Court in popular culture

http://www.answers.com/topic/international-criminal-court-in-popular-culture

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Mainstream Media Ignores Hillary Clinton Past

As it has been said before here on this site, once elected, politicians beoome a protected class of people. The laws that apply harshly to the rest of us simply don't apply to "them." this occurs no matter the level of government, local, state, or federal where the elected are to serve the interests of the people, not their own self interests.

The media itself in turn protects the "favored." It happens time and time again.

The media had a hand in electing former President Bill Clinton when it didn't do its duty and report his well-known political appointments of women with whom he was involved at the time he was Governor of Arkansas. That info flew under the radar and to this day is ignored.

The same has happened with Hillary Clinton before becoming Senator - nobody has investigated her role in how it happened that the West Wing couple obtained FBI files on numerous persons...

http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+fbi+files+republicans&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en&aq=t

Suppression of a "smoking gun" video which could implicate Hillary Clinton in potential illegal fundraising simply isn't surprising...

Judge confronted with Hillary 'smoking-gun' video
Clinton-appointee previously insisted in court senator not involved in alleged crimes
Posted: October 2, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


A federal judge who stated in court Sen. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the planning and preparation for a scandal-plagued Hollywood fundraiser, received by hand-delivery yesterday a transcript of a videotape that allegedly captures the New York Democrat committing felonies related to the event.

The transcript, along with a letter demanding a hearing, was hand-delivered to Federal Judge A. Howard Matz by Douglas Cogan, a regular contributor to FreeRepublic.com who has followed the case closely and helped produce a documentary.

As WND reported, the tape – held by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York from 2001 to 2007 – documents a July 2000 phone call that purportedly shows Clinton taking an active role in the production of the fundraiser.

Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who has filed a $17 million fraud lawsuit against Sen. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, contends the senator's participation in soliciting performers and planning for the August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser would make his more than $1.2 million in contributions to the event a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than to a joint fundraising committee. That would violate federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Matz, who was appointed by President Clinton, presided over the 2005 trial of Sen. Clinton's campaign finance director David Rosen who was acquitted of filing false financial reports of the fundraiser.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57931

NAFTA Savvy Don't Want It in OK

NAFTA question draws 'I don't know'
Oklahoma lawmaker vows to halt Superhighway at state line
Posted: October 2, 2007
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The expressed intention of a state lawmaker in Oklahoma to halt any NAFTA Superhighway project at his state line has failed to draw a meaningful response from the White House.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, about the comments from state Sen. Randy Brogdon, who told a meeting in Tulsa that "The NAFTA Superhighway stops here at the border with Oklahoma."

"And my question," said Kinsolving. "What will the federal government do to overcome pockets of resistance, such as this, to NAFTA transportation project[s]?"

"I don't even know where to begin," Perino said. "Obviously the president is a supporter of NAFTA."

Brogdon said he's recognized in recent years a "concerted effort to undermine the nation's sovereignty – not only the nation's, but the state's sovereignty, as well."

He described the superhighway projects as being "close to reality" and intended for "transporting goods and people from Mexico and China."

His remarks came at an event by Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise, Inc., whose members believe the Bush administration and businesses are conspiring to open the United States' borders and effectively merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

He noted specifically the North American Super Corridor Organization and the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The Oklahoma group says NASCO is planning a multimodal transportation system across North America that would be controlled by foreign interests and intended to smooth the transport of people and goods throughout the continent.

Specifically members are concerned by a project being developed already in Texas – the Trans-Texas Corridor – in partnership with the Spanish company Cintra. That project eventually would hit the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Brogdon also has criticized the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America -- an agreement with Canadian and Mexican leaders in which President Bush, Brogdon said, proves "he is more than willing to over-step his executive authority when it came to trade policy."

"Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, 'Congress shall have the Power to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,' not the president," Brogdon pointed out. "Yet President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada called SPP that seeks to eliminate our trade and security borders and he has failed to get the explicit approval of Congress."

The SPP website, in a section entitled "Myths vs. Facts," supports Brogdon's argument, openly admitting that SPP is neither a law nor a treaty.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57929