Mahoney Open Records Bill Called Corruption ProtectionAct

Pennsylvania state Representative Tim Mahoney's bill (which was amended in the state Government Committee Wednesday, October 17, 2007), was called the Corruption Protection Act by "good government advocate and critic of the legislation," Tim Potts, founder of Democracy Rising PA...

Pa. open records bill, on fast track, becomes target for critics
10/18/2007, 6:18 p.m. EDT
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-55/1192746369179040.xml&storylist=penn

republished

http://www.openrecordspa.org/news34.html

Revision to State open-records law criticized
The Associated Press, 10/19/07 11:31 AM EDT
UPDATED: 10/19/07 11:49 AM EDT

HARRISBURG * A proposed revision to Pennsylvania’s open-records law drew some harsh criticism from public access advocates Thursday, one day after it was hurriedly pushed out of a legislative committee.

State lawmakers and Gov. Ed Rendell have touted a revision of the Right-to-Know Law as the centerpiece of government reform efforts. The bill emerged from the State Government Committee late Wednesday and could be debated on the House floor as soon as next week.

But the immediate reaction was generally negative.

The bill in its current form allows agencies to deny requests they consider “burdensome,” which Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Teri Henning said is a vague and subjective term.

Henning said there are legal problems with a provision that would generally apply the bill only to newly created records. If an existing record is not open to the public now, it probably will not be open in the future.

“If the point is to improve access, then access should be improved,” she said.“This bill is clearly not anywhere close to being ready for prime time,” said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania.

Tim Potts, co-founder of the government reform group Democracy Rising PA, called the amended bill “the Corruption Protection Act.”

“Their standard is ‘what is the least we can get away with’ rather than ‘what’s the best we can do,’” Potts said. “We don’t elect these people to give us lousy laws, we elect them to give us good laws, and this is lousy.”

Earlier this week, State Government Chairwoman Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, introduced a 21-page amendment based on months of research and negotiation. It narrowly made it out of her committee amid complaints that members and the public needed more time to digest it.

“So much for the reform process,” said Doug Hill, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, which opposes the bill in its current form. “We have actually said, privately to a number of legislators, now that we have a bill to look at, please give us time.”

The bill would make all government records beyond a long list of exceptions available to the public and force government agencies to justify denials. But its many other provisions worry some of the people who have followed the issue most closely.

“This bill creates exemptions that are so large that there’s not much left of presumption-of-access at the end of the day,” said Jamie Blaine, a former newspaper publisher who edits the www.passopenrecords.org blog. “I guess there’s always the Senate.”

The bill would establish the Pennsylvania Public Records Office within the State Ethics Commission, with an executive director appointed by the governor. The office would handle records disputes, conduct training and set fees, among other things; disputes involving the Legislature, Attorney General’s Office, Auditor General’s Office or Treasurer’s Office would go straight to Commonwealth Court.

Some raised questions about whether a gubernatorial appointee would be willing to rule fairly against executive branch agencies.

“They should be letting the ethics commission appoint the director,” Kauffman said. “The whole idea of this is to divorce the decision making from those who might politically benefit from either withholding or exposing information.”

The draft aims to accommodate people whose prior dealings with the government were based on an expectation of privacy, said Tom Andrews, spokesman for House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene.

“If we reduce the sales tax, we don’t go back and give people a refund,” Andrews said.

Larry Frankel with the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union said the draft bill came reasonably near the mark in balancing privacy with the public’s need to know. Under House rules, a final vote probably will not occur before Oct. 29.

“I think it represents a good effort — not that it can’t continue to be worked on and improved,” he said.

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/statehouse/article249114.ece

More

Open-records bill becomes target for critics
Associated Press
10/19/2007
HARRISBURG - A proposed revision to Pennsylvania's open-records law drew some harsh criticism from public access advocates Thursday, one day after it was hurriedly pushed out of a legislative committee.

State lawmakers and Gov. Ed Rendell have touted a revision of the Right-to-Know Law as the centerpiece of government reform efforts. The bill emerged from the State Government Committee late Wednesday and could be debated on the House floor as soon as next week.

But immediate reaction has been generally negative...

http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/StoryAP/10_19_Open_Records

More

Pa. open records revision doesn't go far enough, some say

http://www.post-gazette.net/pg/07292/826775-100.stm

More

Pa. open records bill, on fast track, becomes target for critics

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=259916e6-c0e3-48b7-bfa0-9f8c6eff8884&rss=50

Less - missing missing missing - the more scathing remarks from good-government advocates and critics of the Mahoney Bill, and Teri Henning's full remarks.

House panel debates parameters of open records bill
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/19/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

HARRISBURG - In a sign of just how jealously government in Pennsylvania guards the information it generates, a state House panel wrangled for more than three hours Wednesday night over a bill aimed at giving the public more access to budgets, meeting minutes, expense accounts and other government documents.


The House State Government Committee voted largely along party lines in favor of the first major overhaul in decades of the state's open records law. The full House of Representatives could consider the measure as early as next week.

Republican committee members objected to a flurry of last-minute amendments and unsuccessfully attempted to force a public hearing on a bill that has been completely re-written since it was first introduced in March.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Harrisburg-based government watchdog Common Cause Pennsylvania, agreed with GOP lawmakers who argued the public should have the opportunity to review the bill before a committee vote.

"This is a highly inappropriate way to move any legislation, let alone an open records bill," Kauffman said. "There's no need to rush this."

In addition to criticizing the process, Kauffman and others found flaws in the legislation.

Although the bill would apply to the Legislature for the first time, lawmakers added language that would keep all state and local government officials' e-mail messages private.

A previous version of the legislation would have given the public access to only e-mail messages related to spending taxpayer money.

Kauffman said the e-mail provision could have been written more narrowly to exempt some correspondence between lawmakers and their constituents.

"It's absurd to just say all e-mail is out," he said.

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association also complained that the bill includes unprecedented exemptions and permits state and local agencies to subjectively deny burdensome requests for documents and other information.

"We believe that as written, this proposal would provide less access than is available under today's Right to Know Law," said Deborah L. Musselman, the association's lobbyist.

However, lawmakers said the bill was a positive step toward ending the secrecy surrounding how Pennsylvania government spends money.

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., the prime sponsor of the legislation, heralded a provision that presumes most documents are public. Currently, the person requesting information must prove what they are seeking is considered a public document.

"We're coming out of the Dark Ages," Mahoney said. "Everyone is not going to get everything they want in this bill. It's a lot better law than we've ever had."

Rep. Deberah Kula, D-North Union Twp., agreed...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18929586&brd=2280&pag=461&dept_id=480247

Also see

Proposal exempts correspondence from public review
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/17/2007
Updated 10/18/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

HARRISBURG - Most state lawmakers' e-mail messages and other correspondence related to public policy decisions would still be off-limits to the public under open records legislation scheduled for a vote today in the House State Government Committee.


Only e-mail messages that contain detailed discussions of spending public money would be available under a proposal to update the state's open records law sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp.


http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18924529&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Also see

House panel passes open records bill
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 18, 2007

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-10182007-1425593.html

Previous posts

County Commission Race: Fayette Democrats Force or Farce?

Sorry I have to disagree, C.J.

With two Democrat Primary winners, (Vicites and Zapotosky) between them collecting some what 17,000 votes, if recollection serves, and another Democrat, Foltz, and Democrat/Independent Cellurale, and with an overwhelming voter registration edge of 3 to 1, the Democrats are poised to reclaim the majority in the county commissioners office.

They'd become a farce and not a force locally if they don't.

They're not going to throw away their one chance to regain the majority.

They'll have to plunk (that is vote for only one) for either one of the two Democratic Primary winners, Zapotosky or Vicites, or plunk for Cellurale or Foltz. They can't chance as they did in the 2003 General Election splitting votes and bypassing Primary Democrat contender Bill Lincoln to give Republicans their first majority on the board since the 1930s.

As a seasoned political junkie recently said on the Foltz program, before Foltz announced a write-in campaign, if there were 3 Democrats running, a Democrat majority would be a slam dunk as the lowest Democrat Primary vote-getter far outpaces any Republican candidate in either the Primary or General Election.

With Democrat registered Foltz in the political mix as a write-in candidate, the Democrats chances are increased, but only if Democrats "plunk" rather than "split" their votes.

The same with Cellurale. If Democrats plunk for only her, and not split a vote between a Democrat and one of the Republicans, she'd gain far more votes just by virtue of that 3 to 1 voter registration edge.

2003s General election was an anomaly because Bill Lincoln was not only disliked for himself, but also for his tight association with Fayette's Democratic Party leader, Fred Lebder.

That isn't happening this time around. Zapotosky is publicly supported by Lebder and he still received the most votes. Even from those who formerly proclaimed dislike for Lebder. Go figure.

The Vicites base dropped over the course of his 3 terms, but he still came within viability distance of Zapotosky., with only approximately 1000 votes difference.

If just the same voters vote similarly for one or the other of the pair, and don't split their votes, those two are assured the two majority seats.

What most should have learned from the 1999 election, too, when Sean Cavanagh switched from Democrat to Independent and back to Democrat, after his win - not only can there be a two-seat majority of Democrats, the entire administration could legally retain a 3-member Democrat board of county commissioners.

In other words, Foltz by virtue of his notoriety, and the Democrat voter registration swamp, could actually get more votes if voters "plunk" for him rather than either one or both of the Republican candidates.

The same could happen with Cellurale who would then be legally free to switch back to Democrat after her win.

To assure the Democrat majority, Democrats will have to refrain this time around from casting their votes for either of the two Republican candidates. Otherwise, what you said would hold true.

I don't believe Democrats are willing to chance letting the commissioners' office slip away again.

The only way they can assure winning is to plunk for one of the 4 Democrats.

Check the results in November to see what happened

http://server.lcsys.net/vote/vote.asp

C.J.

Foltz running as write-in in upcoming election
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/19/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

Added: Thursday October 18, 2007 at 08:33 AM EST
Interesting
So, I wonder who "put Foltz into the race.?"

Was it Zapotosky trying to take votes from Vicities?

This will only help Vicities and Zimmerlink, because Sampson, Cellurale and Foltz doesn't stand a chance.

Zapotosky was already guaranteed the third spot, but now maybe it will backfire and someone might step into Zappy's spot.

If the Republicans stand together and vote straight ticket for Zimmerlink and Sampson like the dems do, then the democratic vote will get split 4 ways between Zappy, Celluwell, Vicitys, and Foltz.

To paraphrase another source..."Run Bob, Run!"
CJ, Dawson, PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18928956&brd=2280&pag=797&dept_id=468520&startrow=1&maxrows=10

House legislator re-election bow-out?

Tangretti's aide will seek the House seat
By The Tribune-Review
Friday, October 19, 2007


New Stanton Councilman Scott Sistek on Thursday announced he would be a candidate for the state House seat held by Rep Tom Tangretti, just two weeks after his boss announced he would step down at the end of 2008.

Sistek, 48, has worked as Tangretti's legislative assistant since 2005.

"I want there to be a seamless transition, from Tom Tangretti's 20 years in the Legislature to my tenure," Sistek said...

...He said his platform would mirror Tangretti's current agenda of pushing transportation improvements in the region, property tax reform for the elderly, enhanced health care programs and legislative reform.
That latter issue is one Tangretti has recently taken head-on, criticizing House Democratic leadership about an ongoing grand jury probe by state Attorney General Tom Corbett over whether legislative bonuses to staffers were linked to campaign work they performed.

Sistek yesterday did not shy away from Tangretti's statements.

"I think we need to try to bring the dignity of a legislator back to Harrisburg," Sistek said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_533412.html

Will Write-in Candidate Bob Foltz alter pro KOZ position?

Will radio talk show host Bob Foltz who will seek selection as a Fayette County commissioner in the November 6th General Election as a write-in candidate, take a different position on Keystone Opportunity Zones than he has in the past?

In the recent past few years, from 2002 to 2007, dozens upon dozens of calls had been made to Foltz's Let's Talk program concerning Keystone Opportunity Zones.

In fact, I had been a guest on Foltz's program at least twice to talk specifically about Keystone Opportunity Zones. Once with co-guests Mike Ellis, former editor of the Herald-Standard, and Paul Sunyak, current editorial board editor of the Herald-Standard.

Foltz was presented with material supporting my opposition to KOZs during these guest appearances on his radio program.

So Foltz is not unaware of the objections to KOZs for at least a five year period.

Foltz was presented with documentation about the unfairness of KOZs, the unconstitutionality of KOZs according to the PA uniformity clause as well as numerous calls to his program when the matter of expansion of KOZs arose in 2002 and 2004.

Foltz also received more recent calls to his program when state Representative Timothy Mahoney was a guest on his program. See post: Keystone Opportunity Zones Unfair Agrees State Representative Tim Mahoney

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/09/keystone-opportunity-zones-unfair.html

So, Foltz is not unaware of the sentiment on the part of many, including state Representative Tim Mahoney, that KOZs are unfair.

Yet, throughout, the radio talk show host has not altered is position favoring KOZ for economic development, and particularly, having no objections to housing developments in KOZs.

When the current county commissioner administration was approached by Fay Penn Economic Development Council to alter zoning to allow for more residential houses to be built in an existing KOZ, two of the three commissioners opposed the request.

During calls to Bob Foltz at WMBS 590, Foltz revealed he supported the zoning and didn't have a problem with Keystone Opportunity Zones.

Foltz kept repeating - it's already a KOZ, it's already a KOZ, for heaven's sake, it's already a KOZ.

Foltz simply never got the point.

KOZ's are unfair and unconstitutional.

The commissioners have it in their power to make an attempt to revoke the status of KOZs in the county. To date, among those holding office who don't support KOZs for housing developments - current board chairwoman Angela Zimmerlink, and commissioner Vincent Vicites - neither have made that effort.

KOZs in Fayette remain while annually other houses and businesses not located in a tax free KOZ face potential loss of such for failure to pay local property taxes.

The local property taxes also are what are utilized by the three taxing bodies school district boards, county commission board, and municipalities, to pay off any bonds floated, or any loans which need repaid.

Fayette County commissioners in 2000 passed a bond issue and a loan pool to the tune of some 22 million. Just before that KOZ was adopted (1999) by school district boards, municipalities, and former county commissioners which included Vincent Vicites.

The KOZs were to run for a 10-year period.

Since that time, state legislation expanded KOZs and required authorization from the same boards. Again, on the county level, Commissioner Vincent Vicites authorized the expansion to take effect locally. The expansion altered the zones from a ten year period to a twelve year period. And more grants from state taxpayers were handed out over a longer period of time as a result.

When the KOZ was adopted back in 1999, the program was not promoted by Fay Penn to include housing (though the original legislation allowed for housing in KOZ.)

The former board of commissioners by a majority vote which did not include Vincent Vicites, in 2002/03 passed a zoning request to locate a golf-course and housing development for property that had been selected by Fay Penn for KOZ status three years earlier. (majority vote by Ron Nehls and Sean Cavanagh)

To his credit, Vicites did not support at that time KOZ for housing developments.

The issue arose again for the same property located in Springhill Township during 2005 with the current board of commissioners. Joseph Hardy supported the expanded zoning for the existing KOZ while Angela Zimmerlink and Vincent Vicites opposed the zoning expansion.

Bob Foltz was and has been well aware of the entirety of the issue after all of the calls to his radio program by myself and a couple of others who had opposed the KOZ designations from the beginning.

Foltz continued to support the KOZs, even for housing developments during the 2005-06 time period. To date, he has not reversed himself on his own stance even after a candidate he supports for the position of county commissioner, Vincent Zapotosky, appeared in a paid political announcement and noted to a caller that he opposed (now) housing developments in KOZs.

Also, a major event regarding KOZs arose with the current board of commissioners in 2004. The Fayette County Business (formerly Industrial/Business) Park had also been selected for KOZ status, some at least 100 acres back in 1999.

Fayette County Redevelopment Authority began promoting the Park as a business park shortly afterwards, and by 2004 were attracting interest from outside corporations. However, the South Union Township supervisors opposed KOZ designations for businesses. They rightly highlighted the KOZ status for the Park had been promoted for industrial development, not business development.

As a result of their opposition, the Redevelopment Authority agreed to have the KOZ status removed to allow for the entirety of the undeveloped acreage to be rezoned from industrial to commercial/business, with the authorization of the township supervisors.

The county commissioners, with the other two taxing bodies, then revoked the KOZ status, and that status was decertified.

So again, Foltz has observed history unfolding and has heard all about the objections to KOZs for many years.

Still, when Foltz had an opportunity while a radio talk show host to alter his position on KOZs, he DID NOT do so.

Now, as Bob Foltz seeks public office, he may appear to be wavering on his support for housing developments in KOZs, and/or KOZs all around.

As you would anyone else who alters a position, hold Bob Foltz as accountable - if he does so during any interviews or public candidate forums - for changing his position on KOZs.

We might not find out unless we are permitted to ask him a question if indeed he mounts a more public campaign for the office than he has to date.

It's unlikely he'll be interviewed by the Herald-Standard at this late date, but he may be. Even so, it's unlikely he'll face any question about his position currently on KOZ and his support of housing developments in KOZs.

It's up to you to hold them all accountable. Not just the ones you don't like.

(Net the Truth Online)

DESPERATELY SEEKING SLOGANS.

If the quality of potential bumper sticker slogans is any indication, Democrats could be in trouble during the 2008 campaign.

The online information service NewsMax.com reported last week that noted Democrat political consultant James Carville recently sent out a mass e-mail on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The e-mail solicited suggestions for a bumper sticker slogan the party can use throughout next year's campaigns. The slogan will be featured on the DSCC's Web site, on campaign literature and "on the bumpers of jalopies from coast to coast."

The e-mail to presumed Democrat supporters states: "We need a turn of phrase that jumps out and tells you right off the bat what this election is all about."

Carville then offered a few potential slogans that went a long way in explaining why he is desperate for alternatives:

• W Is Out Send the Right Wing With Him

• No Republican Left Behind In D.C.

• What Have Republicans Done for You Lately

• 2006 Was Just the Beginning More Dems in '08

Color us unimpressed.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/whispers/s_524203.html

Radio Talk Show Host in the Politcal Mix for Top County Office

The posting has been copied to Wakeup

http://dirtline.tripod.com/wakeup/


WMBS 590 radio host of Let's Talk, Bob Foltz has had to leave his position at the radio in order to seek office for county commissioner as a write-in candidate in the November 6 General Election.

It's not surprising that Foltz had to step back from the position within a mere few days of the rumor of his write-in candidacy surfacing during calls to his program on Monday and Tuesday.

Wouldn't it be absolutely head-spinning if Foltz, a registered Democrat, with a widespread local following, won the third spot with the other two Democrats, knocking out two Republican candidates, and the one Independent candidate?

Voters in the General Election race for commissioner have the option to select two candidates among the 6 now running for the 3-member board of county commissoners.

Such would be head-spinning, but not surprising in the known Democrat stronghold.

A week or so before the announcement, when the focus was on the Republican Party's scrambling to replace incumbent county commissioner Joe Hardy when he bowed out of the General Election, a caller to Foltz's radio program said Fayette is overwhelmingly Democrat. Foltz agreed, with the Republican voter-registration outnumbered by a three to one ratio, it isn't surprising.

The caller said if 3 Democrats were running it would be a slam dunk for the Democrats.

Guess what, there are actually now basically four Democrats running.

Independent candidate, Marilyn Cellurale, while not seeking a nomination in the Democrat Primary, changed her voter-registration from Democrat to independent after the Primary.

The two Democrat Primary winners were Vincent Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky.

Republicans in the county are not only outnumbered by actual voter registration, the party naturally remains composed of many former Democrats. In fact, some candidates for public office have regularly switched from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat. Oftentimes it seems like political musical chairs.

The 2003/04 county commissioner elections saw two Republicans taking the majority for the first time in decades. That may have been an anomaly then, and it is yet to be seen whether Charmaine Sampson and Angela Zimmerlink, the two female Republicans, can pull enough Democrats behind the pair to sweep back into the majority.
But the entry of Foltz into the mix in the countywide Democratic stronghold may change things toward the Democrats.

Foltz has voter registration in his favor. As does Cellurale.

The Democrat Primary winners may be at odds with each other, but the Democrat Party base isn't stupid. They want a return to a Democrat majority in the county. With Foltz a registered Democrat, with high name recognition, it would not be surprising if many Democrats cast a vote for Foltz rather than either of the two Republicans or Independent, or one or the other vying Democrat Primary winners.

Foltz has more to his benefit to pull out a "longshot" to win one of the three county commission spots.

With a couple of long-time political savvies, he's recently formed a local non-partisan political organization called We the People of Fayette County. (Course, how can the group now be considered non-partisan with a write-in (Democrat) candidate as one of its founders?)

The group already promoted a meet the candidates night, any and all candidates are invited to attend to introduce themselves at the local Polish Club for late October. (Checking date)

Now that Foltz is an announced "write-in" candidate, he'll have an opportunity to be among the candidates who attend the meeting and introduce themselves for a 5-minute period.

Should the other commission candidates also show, the meeting should be one of the most well-attended of all the local candidate forums coming up.

Come November, it will be interesting to see how Democrats will swing the county, all Democrat, or a split...

With a 3 Democrat 1 Independent (Democrat) to 2 Republican advantage, dare anyone place bets?

(Net the Truth Online)

the following does not mean an endorsement. Merely internet finds.
Cellurale for Commissioner

Charmaine Sampson

Vincent A. Vicites

Vincent Zapotosky Chamber membership info
http://www.faycham.org/member/Alphlisting/membersWXYZ.htm

Angela Zimmerlink

Foltz running as write-in in upcoming election
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/17/2007 09:00:07 PM EDT
Local AM radio talk show host Bob Foltz announced Wednesday that he is running a write-in campaign for the position of Fayette County commissioner for the upcoming municipal election.

With the announcement, Foltz will have less than three weeks to campaign before the Nov. 6 election, and because he is a candidate, he will no longer host a daily radio show and get free publicity.
Foltz, a registered Democrat, confirmed Wednesday that he seeking the job and was informed by his station manager that as a candidate, he cannot be on the radio. Up until Wednesday, Foltz hosted a daily radio show, "Let's Talk," on WMBS 590 AM of Uniontown.
The names of five candidates, including two Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent will be on the Nov. 6 ballot. Voters wishing to cast a ballot for Foltz will have to use the dials on the electronic voting machine to spell out "Bob Foltz."
The Woodlawn Avenue, Uniontown man said he isn't seeking the position because he is against any of the five candidates already running. "I am pushing to do the best for Fayette County that I can do," Foltz said...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18928956&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Now it's 6
5 to run for Fayette county commissioner seats
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, August 3, 2007

A Fayette County businesswoman has entered the race for county commissioner as an Independent candidate.
Marilyn Cellurale, of Lemont Furnace, filed nominating papers with the county election bureau on Wednesday, the last day to file. She listed her party as "Cellurale County Commissioner."
Cellurale, owner of the family-run Cellurale Garden Center on Route 119 South in Dunbar Township, could not be reached yesterday for comment.
She becomes the fifth candidate seeking three seats on the board. The others who are running are incumbent Republicans Angela Zimmerlink and Joe Hardy, and Democrat Vince Vicites.
The only other challenger to the three incumbents is another Democratic candidate, Vincent Zapotosky...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_520486.html
Fayette Election results unofficial
Election Day edition
May 15, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
With 91 percent of the vote counted, unofficial results show Mr. Hardy with 2,971 votes, behind fellow Republican Angela Zimmlerlink, with 3,093 votes. On the Democratic ticket, Vincent Zapotosky has garnered 8,558 votes, followed by Vincent A. Vicites, with 7,621 votes.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07135/786224-366.stm

PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

As we noted here yesterday in Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions, a review of Pennsylvania state representative Timothy Mahoney's (House Bill 443) reveals the legislation opens the public records door a bit, then slams the door in the faces of citizens and the press seeking any and all material produced from government officials (public servants.)

The bill contains a long laundry list of exemptions, (over 40 as noted in Kori Walter's article Proposal exempts correspondence from public review ) and as we highlighted, including exclusion of emails not directly containing references to funding, etc...

We called the media on the carpet, specifically for not doing its due diligence when they had Rep. Tim Mahoney in public at a press conference on Monday.

The Press did not press Rep. Mahoney to publicly and totally explain his bill's exemptions after he commented at the Monday press conference "we don't need more investigations."

Now you see what happens, don't you. Rep. Tim Mahoney just isn't available to comment to a reporter seeking further explanation of his bill.

But, Rep. Mahoney should be available to you, the citizens who not only own this country and this state, but who are the bosses of elected public servants.

And to borrow a phrase from Kori Walter, (made the statement during a phone call on a local radio program when I called in and asked his opinion on Mahoney not taking immediate action on Keystone Opportunity Zones when he agreed KOZs are unfair, not uniform according to the PA Constitution, and unconstitution Keystone Opportunity Zones Unfair Agrees State Legislator Tim Mahoney )

THE CITIZENS SET THE AGENDA (Kori Walter, Let's Talk, WMBS 590)

And in this case, the citizens of Pennsylvania want real open public records. The citizens really really do. We do not want the open records door opened a bit, then closed in our faces.

Contact Rep. Mahoney. If Rep. Mahoney hears directly from the disenchanted in his own 51st legislative district - he will have no excuse not to listen to you over whoever is advising him of what "should be" the contents of his bill.

demand your agenda be implemented, not the legislator's half-effort.

Know the facts.

Demand all or nothing. Full open records or nothing at this time.

Demand Rep. Mahoney redo House Bill 443.

State Representative Timothy Mahoney website and contact info

Hon. Tim Mahoney
66A Lebanon Avenue
Uniontown, PA 15401
(724) 438-6100
Fax: (724) 438-6104

Hon. Tim Mahoney
1402 Memorial Blvd.
Connellsville, PA 15425
(724) 626-1164
Fax: (724) 626-1165

Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786

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

http://www.pahouse.com/Mahoney/

It isn't too late to make your demands known. The bill has to go through the legislative process and can be amended and revised before it is adopted.

Pennsylvania State Government Committee

Members Contact Info

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_sc.cfm#36

Fayette County 52nd District Representative Deberah Kula, member of committee contact

Hon. Deberah Kula
1251 University Drive
Dunbar, PA 15431
(724) 626-2761
Fax: (724) 626-2707

Hon. Deberah Kula
1 Etze Avenue
Municipal Building
Mt. Pleasant, PA 15666
(724) 547-4057
Fax: (724) 547-0399

Hon. Deberah Kula
104A East Wing
PO Box 202052
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2052
(717) 772-1858
Fax: (717) 780-4784



http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?id=1094

(Net the Truth Online)

Proposal exempts correspondence from public review
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/17/2007
Updated 10/17/2007 12:16:00 AM EDT
HARRISBURG - Most state lawmakers' e-mail messages and other correspondence related to public policy decisions would still be off-limits to the public under open records legislation scheduled for a vote today in the House State Government Committee.

Only e-mail messages that contain detailed discussions of spending public money would be available under a proposal to update the state's open records law sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp.

Mahoney's legislation would assume most government documents are public and expand the open records law to include the Legislature, which had been exempt.

But an analysis of the bill provided by the state government committee listed about 40 exemptions.

While Mahoney has spent months touting legislation to expand public access to government documents, at least one Capitol watchdog said proposed revisions to the state's open records law would not go far enough in lifting the veil of secrecy shrouding state and local government...

Another controversial provision deals with opening up past records to the public.

The proposal expected to be sent to the full House of Representatives today would not allow access to any records not covered under the current law...

...Mahoney has said he does not support opening up access to past documents because the state has enough investigations and doesn't need anymore.

However, he did not return phone calls seeking comment on Monday...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18924529&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

More

Lawmakers pledge expanded access to records
Tribune Review Richard Robbins
Friday, October 12, 2007


State Senate Democrats vowed Thursday to pass an expanded Right-to-Know Law by the end of the year in an attempt to win back public confidence in state government after a series of abuses involving backroom deal-making and hidden expense accounts.
Sen. Richard Kasunic, a Fayette County Democrat and chairman of his party's policy committee, said the public is demanding "more accountability and transparency" from state and local governments.

"We think the public has the right to access public records," Kasunic said at a policy committee hearing in Uniontown on open records legislation. "We are very serious about this. It is our intent to make sure we have one of the best open records laws in the land."

Without specifically saying so, what some lawmakers have in mind is allowing the public to draw back the curtain on information that for years has been under wraps in Pennsylvania. These range from the bonuses and salaries paid to legislative aides to the expenses run up by members of state and local authorities and the decisions and actions of state-related universities.

Presumably, anything not specifically exempted would be open to public scrutiny under any new legislation.
Kasunic said an open records bill could be on Gov. Ed Rendell's desk sometime in December. Asked about this prediction after the hearing, Sen. John Wozniak, of Johnstown, shrugged his shoulders. "I don't know. I'm not in charge. It would be nice."

Sen. James Ferlo, the author of one of two Senate bills aimed at broadening the public's right to know, said, "It's time for us to clean up state government."

Ferlo, a Pittsburgh Democrat, touted his bill, which he said would reverse years of practice in Pennsylvania and make public access to government records a right, not a privilege dispensed by state government bureaucrats or elected officials.

"As it currently stands, the person seeking access must prove that he or she has a right to that access," Ferlo said in prepared remarks to the policy committee. "In most states, however, the burden is on the agency to show that specific information is not public under the law."

"Providing access to public records is an essential function of government agencies and an integral part of the fundamental duties of public officials and employees," Ferlo said.

Ferlo's bill would create an Office of Access to hear appeals from citizens and others denied access to public records. He said the office should be funded to the tune of "$4 (million) to $5 million."

The Ferlo legislation is one of three open records bills before the General Assembly. The chief sponsor of a second Senate bill is Sen. Dominic Pileggi, a Delaware County Republican. Fayette County Democrat Tim Mahoney has introduced legislation in the House.

Ferlo said the Pileggi bill was "fundamentally flawed" because it does not presume the public's right to know.

The Web site of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said Pileggi has "pledged to revise" his bill to include language similar to Ferlo's. Pileggi was not immediately available for comment.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_532243.html

Touch screen voting machines technological limitations

Electronic ballots change order of candidates' names
Thursday, October 11, 2007
By David Guo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As is customary, candidates for races in Allegheny County soon will be sent a sample of what the Nov. 6 ballot will look like. A warning: Don't toss it out with the junk mail.

Because of technological limitations in the new electronic voting machines, some candidates may be surprised by their ballot position.

The quirk in ballot position is particularly apparent in this year's school board race in North Allegheny, a predominantly Republican area where a newcomer who won only the Democratic nomination will be listed above four GOP incumbents who won both parties' nominations.

Mark Wolosik, Allegheny County elections division manager, acknowledged the electronic ballots may cause more inquiries than usual. This is the first time touch-screen ballots have been used in a general election involving candidates nominated by both parties for school board, magisterial district judge and Common Pleas Court seats.

Instead of being listed across the ballot, as they were with the old lever voting machines, candidates' names are listed up and down. Also, their names appear only once on the electronic ballots, rather than once for each party that nominated them.

Mr. Wolosik explained why the county decided that candidates for each race should be listed in a single-column laundry list, rather than the familiar grid in which candidates from the same party were listed side by side, spread across the ballot.

"The system that we bought doesn't have the capacity to prevent a voter from voting for a candidate twice if they're listed twice," he explained. With the old system, a locked lever would prevent someone from voting twice for the same candidate.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07284/824362-181.stm

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

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

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...