Friday, January 04, 2008

Commissioners Aware Paper Ballot Optical Scan Issue

Update: We'll be attending the Special Meeting Monday, Jan. 6, 2008, to be held starting at 12:30 PM (organizational followed by salary board, then special) at the 911 Building in Uniontown. Watch for our upcoming report on this important issue.

Note: Neither of the local newspapers have reported the agenda schedule for the Special meeting, or whether the voting machine issue will be considered during the Special meeting.

(Net the Truth Online)

Apparently in a move to address long lines at the polls the last few elections where Hart Intercivic's daisy wheel eSlates were employed, at least one of the Fayette commissioners is considering adding more of the same electronic voting machines to the county's current array of 268 units.

The 2008 board members were sworn into office Friday, Jan. 4, and will reorganize on Monday at 12:30 PM. Following will be a Salary Board organization meeting and business meeting. Following that will be a special commissioners' board meeting.

Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink stated on a radio talk program that she felt the board needed to act by Monday or Tuesday on the purchase of additional inventory in order to have them delivered and in place by the April Primary.

Zimmerlink indicated she supported purchasing the same eSlates, around 50 to 55 units.

Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites Saturday, apprising of a post to the message board of VotePA including link to post.

Saturday, January 5, 2008
Dear Commissioner Vincent Vicites

Re: Fayette acquisition additional voting units to alleviate long lines at polls

The following is a message board communication I have posted to the voting integrity organization based in PA known as VotePA.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/3514

The post includes email I sent to both you and Commissioner Zapotosky on Friday. Commissioner Zimmerlink had already expressed her decision to acquire additional eSlates, rejecting the paper ballot eScans. (During WMBS guest spot with Bob Foltz, Friday)

I thought I would apprise you of my VotePA post, as hopefully you and Commissioner Zapotosky will receive input from the organization members prior to the Monday special commissioners' meeting where you might consider adding voting machines units in time for delivery for the April Primary.

I strongly urge you to choose to give Fayette voters the same choice Lancaster County has employed for two-election cycles. Hart InterCivic's eSlate, for handicapped accessibility, and Hart's paper ballot eScan. Both systems comply with Help America Vote Act and state requirements for accessibily, privacy, and second chance voting. At the very least, commissioners should have the benefit of knowing how Lancaster's elections went using the eSlate and eScans in comparison with Fayette's use of only the eSlate.

It is unfortunate that commissioners may be pressed to make a decision Monday - possibly to sign vouchers for the additional machines under contract with Hart InterCivic - before Commissioner Zapotosky has time to set up office email and maybe make a few phone calls to Lancaster County. I have asked also that a town-hall style meeting be held to bring in experts such as VotePA activists and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a Philadelphia-based computer expert I've referenced in previous communications to the Fayette board of commissioners.

It seems to me that some arrangement could easily be made with Hart InterCivic to employ one eSlate, handicapped accessible, unit per precinct and swap additional machines for the paper ballot eScans. It seems there wouldn't be any financial loss to the county to swap with the same vendor. Fayette would then have one eSlate per precinct and at least one eScan per precinct. We may not need 3rd or 5th units as it seems Lancaster County has not needed, only backups in emergency cases.

As I must also reiterate, the paper ballot with the optical scan is the only voting system to currently provide a true paper record. To many, having their vote recorded securely, accurately, and transparently, is important enough to wait any length of time in long lines.

Thank you for your time.



Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites was sent after the WMBS radio program comments made by current Fayette Chair.

Friday Jan. 4, 2008

Dear Commissioner
As you are aware, I have had a long-standing interest in the election process and voting procedures. Over the years, I've conducted research on the variety of issues concerning the Help America Vote Act, the use of Direct Recording Electronic voting machines, and the use of paper ballots with optical scan readers.

When the board of commissioners determined to adopt Hart InterCivic as the vendor, I emailed the then-board with a recommendation to purchase both Hart's electronic DRE eSlate and Hart's paper ballot system with the optical scan reader, known as eScan.

During that time period, I became aware of several voting related organizations which recommend a paper ballot optical scan over the direct recording systems.

I also had the opportunity during the past two elections to be appointed as an election judge for Uniontown Ward 3. I underwent the training on the eSlate machine, and handled the judge of elections position with interest.

There were instances with long lines and during the last Primary, I requested an additional machine which was supplied. Even with a third machine for that precinct, come the General election, there were still long lines. One woman left after several minutes, she'd completed the process, but she was in tears. We also had one expired access code. A handful of people signed in, left, and some never returned.

It isn't, in my estimation, just a matter of unfamiliarity with the new electronic machines that presents a problem for the voters. The eSlate dial daisy wheel makes it necessary for the individual to turn and highlight each letter in order to do a machine write-in. That alone takes someone a few minutes if doing more than one write-in.

I've assessed that even if voters take only the recommended three minutes to complete the process, in one hour, then, only 20 people can vote per voting machine (eSlate). Should Fayette face a lengthy ballot or list of candidates, and a higher turnout rate, even with additional eSlates, the situation of long lines and frustration will still occur.

Lancaster County adopted both the eSlate and the eScan for their voters and have successfully met the requirements of the Help America Vote Act and state requirements with them.

For our county, since the past elections have been fraught with long lines at the polling place, it is understandable the board of commissioners would want to purchase additional machines.

My question is why not implement, as Lancaster County has, the paper ballot eScans for placement as well in each of the polling places?

Before a decision is made, why not contact the election bureau and/or commissioners of Lancaster County to determine how their voting systems work well together?

I urge you to consider implementing the paper ballot with optical scan voting system, Hart InterCivic's eScan along with the eSlate. Surely, some arrangement can be made to leave one eSlate in place per precinct as that meets the requirement for handicapped accessibility, and swap the second and third machines for the paper ballot optical scan - eScan.

A primary benefit of the eScan is of course the paper ballot. The paper ballot provides a paper record in the event of any disputes or lawsuits that might arise, and in the event a recount is needed.

As well, the time it takes to do a write-in on the eSlate is far more lengthy than on a paper ballot. Many people at the polls either weren't aware of the feature for the write-in process, or they simply chose not to do a write-in because of the difficulty and time consumption.

On a paper ballot, write-ins are less time consuming.

The eScan also presents the voter with the option to review a paper ballot before it is cast, and importantly, make any alterations, corrections before casting the ballot on the optical scan machine.

I have added informational material which I hope you will review. Please call if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214


Pervious post included the following

Herald Standard article clip

Fayette budget holds tax rate steady
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
01/01/2008
Updated 01/02/2008

...Following adoption of the budget, Zimmerlink spoke about the need to purchase additional electronic voting machines in advance of the April presidential primary. She said when the commissioners initially purchased the 268 machines following a federal mandate that deemed lever machines illegal, at the time they believed there were enough machines for the county's 103 precincts.

However, in the four elections since purchase of the machines, Zimmerlink said the number of negative comments has increased. Following the November election, numerous individuals complained about the long wait time at some precincts.

Zimmerlink said after speaking with a representative of Hart Intercivic, she asked Vicites and commissioner-elect Vincent Zapotosky to respond about purchasing new machines, but then did not get a response.

"I think we need to make a decision on the purchasing of machines," Zimmerlink said.

Following Zimmerlink's comments, Vicites said he is prepared to purchase more machines.

"We put money in the budget. I think we have to get more machines. A presidential year always has a higher turnout," Vicites said.

Zimmerlink said the commissioners put a minimum of $170,000 to use for additional voting machines.

Both Zimmerlink and Vicites said additional outreach is needed to teach voters how to use the electronic machines. Zimmerlink said she wants to make a decision soon about purchasing more machines, although she acknowledged that Zapotosky couldn't really take action until taking office on Jan. 4...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19159657&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6


Tribune Review article clip


Fayette County holds line on taxes
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Fayette County commissioners on Monday passed a budget for 2008 that holds the line on taxes...

Commissioners included $170,000 in the budget for electronic voting machines, said Angela Zimmerlink, commissioner chairwoman.

Zimmerlink said her research has shown that 45 to 55 machines are needed to help reduce waiting times at polls. She added that voting lines will be cut by continuing public demonstrations of the devices and training poll workers.

Zimmerlink said she wants the board to approve the purchase during the next several days to expedite delivery.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_545372.html


Related

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

2012 Cold Spell

Russian scientist says the earth's warming is at an end and will begin cooling. By 2012, according to a Fox News report around 6:30 PM EST, the scientist says the earth will see a cold spell.

We will have to wait and see whether this is an Internet hoax and Fox is just now getting this news. Finds below are dated Feb. and March 2006. Another's dated 2005. So this is old news. If it is news.

My thoughts almost exactly 2012 Mayan calendar potential redesigning of the earth, not necessarily and end to the world...

08-March-2006, 10:52 AM
novaderrik
Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ashby, MN, USA
Posts: 1,592

hmm...
2012..
the year the Mayan calender resets itself and the world "ends"..
coincidence... or
NOT...

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/38978-russian-expert-predicts-global-cooling-2012-a.html


More
Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling From 2012
http://www.divinecosmos.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6817.html

Wally Miller Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:56 pm

Guest
We only have 6 more years of the GW chicken littles and in 2012 - Al
Gore's head may explode.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012
Created: 06.02.2006 17:18 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:24 MSK

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about140269.html


Global Cooling endorsed,
ABD 'Freezelock' affirmed
Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012.
Affirms ABD 'Freezelock' scenario (PR # 469, 17 Nov 05).

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/479.htm

Google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=russian+Absudamatov+earth+cool+2012&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

More

http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.html

RECORD SNOW-MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING

http://environmentallegal.blogs.com/sholzer/2008/01/record-snow-mus.html

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Film Review Broken

The film Broken captures your town, my town, everybody's town in the good old USA.

Broken is all of us, bits and pieces, like a mosaic (cliched? weallareflawed that makes us cliches until...).

You tube soundtrack "Broken" Heather Graham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ct73qTMKE


Review

The main character, Hope, whoever, embodies a bit of all of us, no matter our individual choices in life, we make them and things begin to happen. We don't make them and nothing happens. OK, something happens, but not what we really want.

Aspiring songwriting and singing career is Hope's choice in this glimpse into the fictional but surely true story based on some artist's, or a composite of many artists', real lives.

Strumming along on her whatever guitar positioned pretty much over all but her face she's so tiny with the belief in herself that she has true talent and one day will make it as a musician if she moves from wherever (Ohio) to LA, (dreamland) Hope, whoever, rents an apartment wherever in whatever part of town which is a magnet to the "struggling" people who reside in such rotting wood, chipping paint, dripping faucet, rundown places.

Somehow, somewhere, Hope meets a man who she will resemble soon enough, if she allows his mesmerizing yes-i-love-you-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah charismatic influence to take over her soul and her life.

She succumbs to his temptations and charms. There are seven-sides of negativity. Boyfriend, who she met on a beach, all alone, there, then, he shows up, eventually succeeds in cajoling her to shoot up with whatever, however it's done.

Sometime and somehow, Hope gets a job, in a diner, oh what is the name of the diner, it should be a real place, will have to look. (OK, there, as I'm writing I'm watching Broken again, I'll look for it.)(I'm also reading the blurb on the back of the rental DVD, unlike other reviewers, obviously, geesh that's where the 7-sided negativity inspiration came from.)

Oh, Hope whoever's new boyfriend's name now she's in LA (dreamland, cliche) is Will (and in the movie, there is a line, not many will catch it - where there's a will, there's a way). Clever that, to name the character Will and have a line like that - it's a hint people, it is, of what's to unfold and happen in the film.

Where there's a will there's a way. Where there's a dream there's the possibility of a reality. (I came up with that my self.)(It's deep.)

Even though you believe in yourself, you know you are gonna succeed, one day, you will find a way because you have the will power, you slip and you fall flat on your behind, or on your head. The point is, you fall.

You make choices, but you don't think you do, you think something else out there is out to get you, only you, everybody else is to blame, everybody except you.

You sink deeper into cliched "failure."

Maybe for days, maybe for months, maybe for years. Maybe until the last gasp of life's breath you take. Even then, though, there is hope.

In Hope's case, she slipped into drug-induced stupors brought on by dreaming and shooting up whatever, however, and dreaming in, of, dreamland's promise of choices. Her first time, Will used a belt to wrap around Hope's arm. He did it to her, his fault she got hooked.

Later in the film, after Hope gives him the boot, Will returns to her door, wanting back into her life. Hope blames Will for her self-degradation. You're not good for me.

Hope allowed Will to take over her life and her very being. She didn't realize this until, well, I don't want to spoil everything for you. Plus, I'm not really sure what exactly prompted Hope to take another look at her life and her self and her soul.

Because in the beginning, she is shown leaving somewhere, where oh where was she? She is seen after obviously capturing that motivation necessary to make a change.

A change in one's self, to one's self, by one's self, for one's self.

So when exactly Hope woke up remains a mystory to me. If you really catch how, when, and where let me know because I think you're on to something important about this film.

Every real, really real, waking moment with Will was the same routine. Well you know what, you get the idea. He promised she would make it as an artist. She wanted him to be her "muse." He videotaped her humming and mouthing her song, yes, her song, keep that in mind. But the song had been incomplete, she had been struggling after all, remember.

Her dream-of-a song criss-crossed and spanned the entire film. Bits and pieces of her song in the diner, on the rooftop, in the diner again. The name, the name of the diner, pa-leese. It's not a place you dream about.

Talking to customers, asking what they wanted, conversations overheard.

Diner characters she saw every day but didn't really see, yet. People she met who smoked uncaringly about others around them blowing the smoke out in perfect circles like you see in the movies not even caring about any youngsters in the room with family and the potential of second-hand smoke and cancer.

I was in an Applebee's the other day and yes they have smoking smack right in the middle of the room, at the bar. Uncaring, until...

Persons who should have been of interest, but weren't. Hope encountered them. Dregs of the earth, cliched everywhere we go, no matter what part of town, wherever. Hope, whoever, sat down with them, dealt with them, accepted them.

She asked a bedraggled really "older" looking woman if she was okay. Coffee? More, on the house. Your last dime is no good here. Down on your luck. Can I help YOU? She looked at herself through the woman's eyes, as though the woman would see Hope staring back at her if she looked in a broken mirror on the sloppy filth-encrusted bathroom wall, or the one behind the room-length counter.

Her story - whose story? which one's story? - became a story in and out of the diner. She had to make a living, until she succeeded and was worth a million dollars.

Hope was given easier choices than being a wait-ress in a diner (get it "wait" ress - not knocking waitresses and busboys - some are awaiting that break).

A producer and scriptwriter seated in the diner discussed a script that was being written as they spoke right there in the diner.

Hope neared their table, and the writer motioned her over.

What do you think he asked?

You do have to watch the film, I'm not going to spoil everything. The producer raised questions about the script. Is it finished? Nope. Have any backing. Nup. Hope said it sounded like her life. An ex-boyfriend, look at me, she said, do I look like the kind of woman who would...

There were users of whatever trying to make a deal right there in front of everybody else without a thought or care about anybody else, until Hope's life was threatened.

Then there was a Madam who was supposed to be the act-ress Linda Hamilton.

Now really, as I was listening to the song in the end, I was shocked in the credits to see Linda Hamilton's name pop up.

Other reviewers note she's in the film as the Madam. So it must be her.

I'd have never guessed after a first look at the film. Hamilton didn't look like Hamilton at all. Not even a glimpse of the actual actress Linda Hamilton was in that character. Madam, whoever.

And I thought afterwards, why didn't Hamilton stand out for identification?

Well, you have to watch the movie, I'm not going to spoil it all.

Those characters gave her whoever, Hope, whoever, something. A gift that goes on giving?

A way. One - or more than one- over time - she could have rejected.

It wasn't just Will who gave her the way, it was everybody she met, everyone she greeted and served, at first not caring a spittle about any of them, not caring about herself, how could she care about them.

She began to care about her self. She'd be forever lost wherever if she didn't. She would be Will and not herself unless she cared. She would be the mother she rejected unless she cared. Her soul was in peril, she recognized.

In caring about herself she had to see others and let in others. No matter who they were. Of course, she had to distance herself from the bad and perilous influence of Will, the negativity of Will. Had Will changed, for real, one day down the road taking a different path, she may perhaps have chosen to allow him into her life again.

For now, Will was the bad, and she needed the good, the positive.

Her life wasn't the only life in real danger with Will and after she rejected Will and signed a restraining order against him.

Everybody's life was meaningless to one person, Will, as you'll see evidenced when he points the weapon at everybody else, except himself, even the person he said he loved from the outset, Hope, whoever.

Then, everybody's life became meaningful to one person. Hope.

It's only when one realizes that we're all in this together, we have to care and to give, or we won't receive squattle until we care about somebody anybody else without thinking about what's in it for us.

That's what Hope, struggling to find her self, found.

Hope found herself and in doing so Hope found her own voice.

Her bits and seeds of a song bloomed as her story unfolded in the diner, wherever, whatever its name.

Listen to the entire song in the end. The song proves Hope woke up. When, oh when?

By then, Hope had to make a choice to preserve her own life, for real. Not many have to make that choice of physical self-preservation. Oh, did you catch that.

Yes, Virginia, we do have to make a choice of physical self-preservation.

We do have to make a choice as Dr. Phil would say, to be our self. Our authentic self. Self, Matters.

Hope's life mattered, her self mattered. Hope found her self, lived her self, and wrote a song about her self and all whoever from wherever she became along the way, or was along the way, and will always remain after the way is found.

Hope became a little of all of the people she met or was because after all we're pretty much all the same.

Hope didn't disappoint herself. She separated parts of herself into another whole, brought them all together in not a new her, but a real her.

Another line in the film something like I might not succeed, I might fail, but at least, I'll know I tried.

Hope's song.

Broken... Hanging

Listen.

Tree

Listen to it unfold as if it's your song.

A different way, different set of choices perhaps, but one that you choose and you shape yourself.

Only one quibble. Just the one. OK I don't like the closed eyes while singing either. Two. And Will was a tad overweight who would fall for him. Three.

In the beginning, Hope videotapes herself as she's about to leave wherever, Ohio. (Small town where she isn't making it. Ah, Cleveland, she says, if you listen closely to that sort of thing or go back and find out where she came from.)

What is it they say. Today is the first day of the rest of my life. Goodbye Cleveland. Everybody's been telling me not to go, not to follow my dream. But I gotta get out of here. Cause I see my Mom and I figure if I end up like that I might as well be dead already. I've been dreaming of this my whole life. I'm gonna miss everyone but if I don't go I'll always wonder what might have been. And even if I fail at least I did it I tried. But I'm not going to fail. I'm gonna make it. I'm gonna be worth something some day. A million dollars.


(Hope, Broken)

Hope, you didn't have to leave Cleveland. You just had to find yourself. Be yourself. Accept yourself. Love yourself. Be all that you are. Cliched and everything.

Hope, even if you didn't make it by societal standards, you became you, you are worth everything, the real you is worth much more - so much more - than money.

You'll know who(m) Hope considers her Mom-me to be, where Hope found herself, the name of the diner, haha thought I'd tell you that, didn't you, after you see...

Broken.

A 10 star film if you hear it.

Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFQXrbG7so&NR=1

Net the Truth Online

Disagree strongly

Movie review: 'Broken'
‘Broken’ apt name for a metaphoric clunker
By Jessica Reaves
October 17, 2007

http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-broken/233445/content

Strongly disagree. Hope finished crafting her song - Hanging Tree - by the end so she succeeded in telling a story, maybe her own story, or a compilation of stories, to get there. She wasn't a midwestern woman, in the opening of the film, Hope says goodbye Cleveland. Cleveland is a large city in Ohio. She wasn't naive, either, or she wouldn't have caught on that Will was bad for her... (Net the Truth Online)

On DVD this Week: 'Broken' starring Heather Graham and Jeremy Sisto
Posted by Link November 18th, 2007

Was Hope really a waitress at the diner or just another hapless junkie waiting for the next score. It’s pretty obvious that it’s the latter and such storytelling incites one to re-watch this dark and intriguing tale.

a naive Midwestern woman

http://www.buzzfocus.com/2007/11/18/on-dvd-this-week-broken-starring-heather-graham-and-jeremy-sisto/

Reviewer didn't get it at all (Net the Truth Online)

http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/movies/05brok.html

What was real and what was her imagination...

http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080102101826AAybwZa

Graham plays rocker

http://divawatch.com/2007/09/heather-graham-plays-rocker-in-upcoming.html

John McCain: His Bull-ishness

Every time John McCain speaks he reveals the lengths he is willing to go to win the presidency of the United States.

He's also aligned himself with former Democrat turned Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman to the point of no-return.

McCain supporters are tagged McCain-iacs.

He crafted the McCain-Feingold legislation which guts our first-amendment rights of free speech. Guess McCain-iacs don't care about that.

Reason Magazine clip

John McCain's War on Political Speech
How the Arizona senator and other campaign finance reformers use the law to muffle critics and trample the First Amendment.
Bradley Smith | December 2005


...For other "appearance of corruption" examples, we need look no further than the father of campaign finance reform himself, Sen. John McCain. In 2001 the Brennan Center, a group that advocates campaign finance reform, held a large fund-raising dinner whose honored guest and speaker was the "straight-talking" senator from Arizona. Several big corporations--many with interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Sen. McCain was then the ranking minority member--sponsored the event. These sponsors included such companies as Coca-Cola; the investment firm Bear Stearns; many top law firms with lobbying practices in Washington; cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris--yes, Big Tobacco; and even Enron, which as we know is the most evil corporation in the history of the world. The event grossed an impressive $750,000.

Now what does the Brennan Center do? Well, the Brennan Center lobbied extensively to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, an issue that Sen. McCain once declared was of "transcendent importance to me." (An interesting choice of words, since transcendent, if you look it up in the dictionary, means "beyond human comprehension.") The Brennan Center also provided legal services, pro bono, to defend the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill in court.

So let's put this together: The Brennan Center invites Sen. McCain to speak and then approaches a large number of corporations, perhaps saying something like, "Sen. McCain--the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, before which your company has a great deal of business, and a possible future presidential candidate--is coming to speak. Would you care to sponsor a table?" And Enron and Coca-Cola and Philip Morris just suddenly decide that they are very interested in campaign reform and kick in some good old soft money, which the Brennan Center uses to lobby and provide free legal services for an issue of "transcendent importance" to none other than Sen. McCain. Appearance of corruption, anyone?

Wouldn't suggesting that corporations support the Brennan Center to provide legislative support to Sen. McCain on the issue that made his national reputation carry the same potential for blackmail and favoritism as corporate donations to political campaigns? Yet there is no suggestion that we should have broad prophylactic prohibition of that kind of fund raising--despite the fact that doing so would not only address this very real "appearance of corruption"; it would do much less to infringe on the free speech of the citizenry than McCain's treasured campaign finance restrictions...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36322.html


At least so far, the Internet remains unregulated in that area. But beware, McCain supports such regulation there too, doesn't believe the net should be exempted...

Has McCain equivocated on the issue of so-called comprehensive immigration reform? When you hear that phrase you know it's code for "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

Other sites have doggedly tracked McCain for your information. Be aware.

Video: John McCain says he “never supported amnesty
December 30, 2007

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/30/video-john-mccain-says-he-never-supported-amnesty

clip

The First Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


And that's precisely what it means.

Accordingly, I believe we can all get behind these following points:

Freedom of speech and the press is of critical importance to the preservation of both individual freedom, and the free character of our nation.

It is a traditional American Liberty that we guard jealously.

This Freedom is directly and unambiguously protected by the Bill of Rights.

Our Blogs are the way we choose to directly manifest that freedom. They are our sacred 21st century soapboxes, and we view them as being completely protected.

The Infrastructure that enables blogs is the instrumentality of that freedom, and is therefore also protected.

The universal criticality of this transcends partisan consideration.

Therefore, We, the proud members of the McCain-Feingold Insurrection, will continue to excercise our right of free speech through our online venues as we see fit, without limitation.

We shall vigorously defend our right and ability to do so going to such lengths and using such means as the situation and our individual consciences dictate.

posted by geekWithA.45 at 6:25 PM


http://mccain-feingold-insurrection.blogspot.com/


Related

Reactivating Liberty
George Will
Thursday, June 28, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/will/s_514726.html


A Setback for McCain-Feingold?
Tuesday, Jun. 26, 2007 By REYNOLDS HOLDING

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1637305,00.html

clip

5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads
Ruling on McCain-Feingold Law Opens Door for Interest Groups in '08

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, saying the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's prohibition against the use of a candidate's name in such ads in the days before an election was an unconstitutional infringement on the groups' rights to advocate on issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html

Campaign Law Dogs McCain

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/2007_04.html

Hillary Clinton Her Slipperyness Part 100 K look into my mouth

What a doozy of a quote by Miss Take Me or Leave Me Hillary Clinton on a stage usually used to auction cattle in Iowa. Fox 'n Friends picked up on the comments, but surprisingly, Steve Doocy, the more humorous of the anchors, made absolutely no fun of her remark, which surely should go down in history as the most quoted quote second only to "it depends what the meaning of is, is" made by her husband, former President of the USA.

Seriously now folks, who could vote for a woman who stayed with a man who cheated on her innumerable times solely for the goal of attempting to make a run herself for the presidency some day. Even if by some stretch of the imagination a misguided majority of voters put her in the White House, who on this earth actually doesn't believe she will kick Bill out next day?

She's already playing the game right in your faces. She's made the statement if she doesn't come in first place in Iowa she's advising her supporters there to vote for Edwards over Obama as she'd do better afterwards with Edwards in the lead than Obama.

Well duh, if Obama comes out first in Iowa that's a clear message that the Clintons are simply not acceptable enough to a Democratic base that wants a clear liberal as their candidate and not someone who makes statements like "look into my mouth."

What a gaffe. A Youtuber already picked up on the image that evokes. Really, diehard Clinton supporters need a wake up shot - one that will make them take a second look - shake their heads - and wave bye bye bye.

Newsweek
Taking the Lead: After years of counseling Bill, she is now in charge
By Sally Bedell Smith
Dec. 31, 2007-Jan. 7, 2008 issue

At a recent campaign stop at an Iowa livestock auction, Hillary Rodham Clinton told voters, "I know you're going to inspect me. You can look inside my mouth if you want." It's not often that a candidate for president issues such an invitation, but Clinton is doing whatever she can to emphasize that she can withstand scrutiny of her long experience in politics. For months she has been saying that her years as First Lady give her an edge over the other candidates, making her "ready to lead from day one."

Is Hillary Clinton truly as "experienced" as she makes herself out to be—and is the experience she gained as First Lady the kind that matters in choosing a president? The answer is not to be found by looking inside her mouth. But it is worth taking another look inside the eight years she spent in the White House.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81600


New York Observer
Hillary, 'Pumped,' Tries a New Look in Iowa
by Jason Horowitz | December 17, 2007

...After disembarking from what her campaign is calling the “Hillicopter,” Mrs. Clinton mounted a stage built around a pen used for auctioning livestock, and covered with bunting and bags that said “Beef: a Steak in the Future.” The smell of livestock was overpowering.

It could have been awkward, but to Mrs. Clinton’s credit, she played right along.

"I've been to cattle barns before and sales before, in Arkansas, but I've never felt like I was the one that was being bid on," Clinton told the crowd in the auction barn, many of whom wore cowboy hats. "I know you're going to inspect me. You can look inside my mouth if you want. I hope by the end of my time with you I can make the case for my candidacy and to ask you to consider caucusing for me."

http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-pumped-tries-new-look-iowa


Buffalo News

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/240198.html

Iowa Caucus Watch Vote Scam in Progress

The Iowa caucus process was smooth, wouldn't all agree. No automated electronic voting machines were used to vote. By my watch, CNN and Fox News networks called Huckabee the winner virtually simultaneously at 8:56 PM!

Around 9:29 Obama was declared the winner by Fox News. Switch to CNN same, with vote total by Obama's name = 580 votes!

That's right. Obama called the winner with 580 votes and Huckabee called the winner with 14,045.

Fascinating to watch the newscasters looking at the percentages and the results in real time they had to keep checking and inquiring were these from the "entrance" polling stats or the raw vote totals, they would pose the question aloud.

Can you believe it? Of course, the results later on in the evening increased in numbers.

But the important point is the winners had already been declared quickly and according to the news reporters based on their information from entrance results and raw vote numbers.

ABC news also kept the rundown going in real time. And posted the results simultaneously to the cable networks.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA

Discussion also centered on the huge increase in first time caucus goers. Doesn't that raise anyone's eyebrows? According to one reporter, first timers for the Democrats were some 56 percent.

In addition, the process there included new registration right then on the spot. An Independent registered voter could walk in and declare himself a Democrat. A Republican registered voter could walk in and declare herself a Democrat.

Then there's the requirement of "viability" in the caucus room. A candidate had to mount at least 15 percent or face exclusion.

It really does seem as if it was a Party Game. Almost like musical chairs.

Who knows who really won in Iowa anyway?

Js throws in some numbers about the Republican voter turnout. It would be interesting to determine whether there may have been an actual decline in registered Republicans who showed up and then actually voted as a Democrat for purposes of skewing the Democrat results. In other words, if there was a higher percentage than in the past of Republicans who arrived to vote, and 70 percent or more were evangelicals, there may have been some jockeying going on to influence the Democrat caucus with party switches.

Also, how was there any control over who registered to vote that evening? Given the Motor Voter Act and the hesitancy to ask anybody for proof of voter residency or citizenship status when voting it's possible the increases in voter turnout weren't even pre-registered Iowa voters.

The likelihood for election fraud being committed in the reporting of votes cannot go unnoticed either.

Declared winner with less votes than people watching reruns of the X-Files that night - doesn't say much for that process.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/iowa-caucus-watch-vote-scam-in-progress.html

Update Numbers available across the internet

By 8:56 PM CNN called Huckabee the clear winner of the Iowa Caucus... that was fast. Maybe voting without the electronic voting machines and in small groups, works. Hmmm. The registration system has to be tightened, though...

Fox News calls winner of Democrat Caucus Barack Obama with what 580 votes? 9:29 PM

CNN calls Barack Obama the winner.

Net the Truth Online

Looks like they are all getting the same numbers from somewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA

Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 3, 2008 - 9:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 75%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 618 36% 0 Winner
Edwards 530 31% 0
Clinton 527 30% 0
Richardson 33 2% 0
Biden 17 1% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 3, 2008 - 9:11 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 40%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 14,045 31% 0 Winner
Romney 10,084 23% 0
Thompson 5,950 13% 0
McCain 5,194 12% 0
Giuliani 4,901 11% 0
Paul 4,379 10% 0
Hunter 168 0% 0

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA



Isn't this the silliest way to conduct selection of political party candidates? The entire system is ripe for election and voter fraud and abuse.

The morning guest on Fox 'n Friends noted individuals can actually show up at the door, doors open at 7 PM, and register of one political party or the other.

Guess one does have to show they are a resident of the state, but maybe not due to the federal imposed Motor Voter Act and all the controversy over illegal aliens having to prove they are citizens before obtaining a driver's license.

so hey, anybody from any state can make the trek to Iowa, say they are planning to reside in Iowa, in the process of moving, choose an apartment address, (maybe just fork over a month's deposit, or maybe simply obtain a post office mail box), and show up at the caucus.

Then, at the caucus participants actually get to vote more than once. That's right. If candidates don't get at least 15 percent of the gathered votes, they are out of contention. The voters present get to vote again, for another choice.

Unbelievable.

Update 7 PM EST: And the vote fraud begins. Caucus goers are arriving. Republicans will take a straw poll, says Wolf Blitzer on CNN's live broadcasting.

Democrats do things a bit differently. We won't get raw vote totals, they only use the percentages, says Blitzer, unaffected by what that might mean.

Oh such fun. No wonder Black Box Voting is hopping.

Who will tabulate the party caucus results? BBV discusses in depth.

It's meaningless, though, isn't it. Independents can show up and register as one or the other, and have a say in the selection.

And according to CNN, a registered member of a party can show up and change party registration right there on the spot, thus voting for a candidate of the other party.

Oh that should put a twist in things.

What a game. Not only that. The candidates have strategized should it appear they are not going to get this viable 15 percent, they are telling their supporters in the caucus to support an opponent, one they think they can beat in the next state, and the next.

Again, silliest way to conduct an election.

CNN reporter is noting that over 50 percent of the Democrats who showed up are new caucus goers.

Fox News noted in a chart the number at 56 percent first time caucus goers.

Well, what did we speculate. Are they actually residents of Iowa?

Fox News is having fun determing which election ticker chart is the Republican Straw Poll, which chart is the raw actual vote, which chart is real numbers.

Really, nobody will know anything for sure at the end of this weird process.

Juan williams on Fox News stating that Iowa is 95 percent white residents.

It will be interesting to find out if the number of registered voters, and the projected turnout, equal the number of voters who actually voted during this process.

Net the Truth Online

Real Clear Politics people were featured on Fox News coverage

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

CNN Transcripts galore

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2008.01.03.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html

Black Box Voting Forum Discussion on Iowa Caucus
In Iowa, neither party has been releasing the precinct results that provide the underlying verification for the totals they announce -- a procedure so top-heavy it should come with a laugh track. Black Box Voting and many Iowa citizens have been expressing concern, and urging the release of the data for the 1,900 precincts to back up the announced total.

While it's true that each precinct vote result assigns delegates according to the vote, and those delegates go to a county convention to cast votes (though this is nonbinding), in fact the delegate votes never match the original caucus results, because the county convention is held months after the caucus, and in 2008 will take place after Super Duper Tuesday. Many candidates drop out by the time the convention rolls around, and votes are readjusted.

Caucuses are not subject to freedom of information through public records, because technically the parties are private corporations and do not have to release their documents. Therefore, the caucuses have some built-in impediments to transparency.

Black Box Voting has been raising questions and seeking answers. We've been mailing letters to our Iowa constituents, blogging, and distributing questions and concerns through the voting rights circuitry.

Here's what we've learned so far, revealing some good news and citizen action still needed to prod one of the parties into publicly accounting for its results.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71028.html?1199244110


Black Box Voting Watch Reports



1-3-08: What to do! Iowa Caucus instructions for everyone
You don't live in Iowa? Doesn't matter. Pitch in!

IF YOU ARE NOT IN IOWA: During the event: Monitor Democratic Web site http://www.iowacaucusreults.com and capture screen shots at regular intervals. Republican county results will be posted at http://www.iowagop.net -THIS JUST IN: Republican precinct results will be posted at end of the night. Observe whether there are any results that go up or down or change after they have been posted.

If you spot anomalies, propagate documentation (like screen shots) to 3-5 places (relevant web sites, appropriate email lists).

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71119.html?1199404367

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71105.html?1199386745

DISCUSSION AREA
Iowa forums at Black Box Voting

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/143/143.html

Useful Info Iowa Caucuses

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/143/143.html

Basic facts on the Iowa Caucuses
Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_el_pr/iowa_caucuses_q_a

Previewing the Iowa Caucuses
Christopher C. Hull
Author, "Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents"
Thursday, January 3, 2008; 11:00 AM

Former majority staff director of the Iowa Senate Christopher C. Hull, who recently wrote " Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents," was online Thursday, Jan. 3 at 11 a.m. ET from Iowa to answer readers' questions about the caucuses, how they work, and how he sees them playing out Thursday night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html

Op-Ed Columnist
The Slice of the Sliver Speaks
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: January 3, 2008

As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation’s kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it’s very cold — even though it’s Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl — the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/opinion/03collins.html?ex=1357102800&en=b022adc78a540174&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

TailRank Forum

http://tailrank.com/4477491/The-Slice-of-the-Sliver-Speaks

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Commissioner denies citizens paper ballot optical scan

apparently in a move to address long lines at the polls, at least one Fayette commissioner is willing to only consider adding more of the same electronic voting machines to its current array of Hart InterCivic's eSlate.

Unfortunately, the current board may not even wait for the new board to take office, which reportedly occurs locally on January 7.

That would be a disservice to the local public since one new board member, Vincent Zapotosky, has expressed an interest in at least reviewing the two voting systems employed by Lancaster County.

Commissioner Vincent Vicites has not yet announced his leanings.

Lancaster also purchased Hart InterCivic's eSlates, but also added the paper ballot with optical scanner, known as eScans.

Mr. Zapotosky had been apprised of the Lancaster situation after his election to office of commissioner, and when a guest on a local radio talk program noted he would look into the paper ballots with optical scan readers.

Let's hope he has a chance to weigh in on this important issue. At least he and other commissioners could contact Lancaster County to determine how their dual system worked. A town hall style meeting could also be held wherein such experts as Rebecca Mercuri could outline positions on their support of the paper ballots with the optical scans.

commissioners don't need to rush into purchasing more eSlate machines before they have all of the available information concerning the eScans. They are not rejecting Hart InterCivic and going with another vendor which would likely take more time to obtain the units.

One detraction of the eslates is the write-in process. If a voter wants to write-in a name which is not on the ballot, the voter must type in each letter of the name. That alone for just one office takes a minute or two.

If voters take only 3 minutes to accomplish the process of voting on the electronic eSlate, that allows only 20 voters per eSlate an hour.

An additional eSlate per polling place may not solve the problem of long lines, especially if voters wish to do write-ins for more than one office and there is higher voter turnout as well.

The board should consider too that the paper ballot with the optical scan provides a paper record with the paper ballot.

In the event of a close election and a dispute, the paper ballot provides an actual paper record, not a print-out from a digital image.

Herald Standard article clip

Fayette budget holds tax rate steady
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
01/01/2008
Updated 01/02/2008

...Following adoption of the budget, Zimmerlink spoke about the need to purchase additional electronic voting machines in advance of the April presidential primary. She said when the commissioners initially purchased the 268 machines following a federal mandate that deemed lever machines illegal, at the time they believed there were enough machines for the county's 103 precincts.

However, in the four elections since purchase of the machines, Zimmerlink said the number of negative comments has increased. Following the November election, numerous individuals complained about the long wait time at some precincts.

Zimmerlink said after speaking with a representative of Hart Intercivic, she asked Vicites and commissioner-elect Vincent Zapotosky to respond about purchasing new machines, but then did not get a response.

"I think we need to make a decision on the purchasing of machines," Zimmerlink said.

Following Zimmerlink's comments, Vicites said he is prepared to purchase more machines.

"We put money in the budget. I think we have to get more machines. A presidential year always has a higher turnout," Vicites said.

Zimmerlink said the commissioners put a minimum of $170,000 to use for additional voting machines.

Both Zimmerlink and Vicites said additional outreach is needed to teach voters how to use the electronic machines. Zimmerlink said she wants to make a decision soon about purchasing more machines, although she acknowledged that Zapotosky couldn't really take action until taking office on Jan. 4...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19159657&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6


Tribune Review article clip


Fayette County holds line on taxes
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Fayette County commissioners on Monday passed a budget for 2008 that holds the line on taxes...

Commissioners included $170,000 in the budget for electronic voting machines, said Angela Zimmerlink, commissioner chairwoman.

Zimmerlink said her research has shown that 45 to 55 machines are needed to help reduce waiting times at polls. She added that voting lines will be cut by continuing public demonstrations of the devices and training poll workers.

Zimmerlink said she wants the board to approve the purchase during the next several days to expedite delivery.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_545372.html


Related

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

Keep Brain Cells Alive

Just had to post this find which points to the next find... We remember Dan Sullivan from a discussion held locally on taxation - if I'm not mistaken - the stadium tax... obviously he's still keeping many brain cells alive...

Monday, December 31, 2007
Why is there no Socialism in the United States
From Dan Sullivan.

Werner Sombart, the most influential socialist of his time, came to America in the late 1800s to investigate why American workers had rejected the socialist approach. He published his findings in a series of essays called, "Why Is There is No Socialism In the United States?" and put them in book form in 1906.

I have written a critical synopsis of Sombart's findings, with extensive quotations. It is online at:

http://savingcommunities.org/docs/sombart.werner/nosocialismus.html



http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-there-no-socialism-in-united.html

Veterans Disarmament Act Coming Soon

"Hand over your gun/s."

"We trusted you with a gun overseas, but now we're going to strip you of your right to own a gun."

During a phone interview with host Chris Moore on Pittsburgh's Honsberger Live programming, Erich Pratt, of the Gun Owners of America, says federal legislation will in reality take away the second amendment right of gun owners who are veterans and are diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder...

More as we find additional resources on this issue. An equal problem to that of denying a category of citizens a right (by the way which is inalienable from the individual, that is, inseparable from the individual), is that of the federal government intruding into private health matters of an individual.

Where does Congress find the power delegated to them in the Constitution to determine who is either medically, physically or mentally, "fit" or not to own or possess a gun? How about spiritually?

That power isn't to be found in the Constitution.

It isn't a stretch to think that Congress one day in the future might determine that atheists shouldn't possess guns because they have determined surely atheists commit more crimes than Christians.

Gunowners of America site

http://www.gunowners.org

Problems With The New Federal Gun Control (HR 2640 & S 2084)

http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

Leahy-Schumer Senate bill 2084 and counterpart HR 2640

http://www.gunowners.org/a102607.htm

Voice Vote

http://noworldsystem.com/category/veterans-disarmament-act/

World Net Daily article find

Gun owners 'get stabbed in back'
'Veterans Disarmament Act on way to president'
Posted: December 23, 2007
WorldNetDaily.com

Congress has given gun owners in America a Christmas gift: a blade in the back, according to officials with Gun Owners of America.

The organization said the plan supported by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and others, and known as the Veterans Disarmament Act by opponents, is being forwarded now to President Bush.

While other gun groups have endorsed H.R. 2640, a comprehensive plan to expand the powers of the Brady Bill gun restriction plan, Gun Owners of America has opposed it vigorously, and described its provisions for banning individuals, especially veterans, from owning guns as unreasonable.

"The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a 'prohibited person' on the basis of a 'medical finding of disability,' so long as a veteran had an 'opportunity' for some sort of 'hearing' before some 'lawful authority' (other than a court)," the organization said in a new criticism of the plan. "Presumably, this 'lawful authority' could even be the psychiatrist himself," the organization said.

"Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The 'lawful authority' doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney – much less an attorney financed by the government," the group said.

Gun Owners of America earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also were joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

The Schumer scheme would update federal law in the United States concerning the ownership of guns, and restrictions on those who can own firearms. A decades-old law creates a ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been adjudicated to be mentally defective, Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners, told WND. It was intended to be used in cases when a person is declared innocent by reason of insanity in criminal cases.

However, the proposed update would allow that "adjudication" to be determined not only by a court but by any competent authority, which could include a Veterans Administration psychologist, any panel of psychologists or a wide range of other possible "competent authorities."

It also would automatically include people on a federal no-gun-ownership limit who have been diagnosed with some behavior-related childhood conditions, and in a provision that is especially objectionable to the Gun Owners organization, any veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder...


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59341

Pennsylvania Open Records Scam of New Year?

Will the dash by the Pennsylvania state legislature and re-elected for a final term governor to provide "something" for we the people quickly on an out-of-step right-to-know open records policy be the latest in a series of abusive scams?

Both chambers of the PA General Assembly are considering something on the table - word is by January or February

Push for passage of open-records bill

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2

- and something will be passed, most likely.

But what will it be? Another scam like the rebuke (after a major outcry by the citizenry) of the payraises our representatives voted themselves in the form of unvouchered expenses back in 2005? What happened with the payraise? Oh, the annointed voided them - again due to public outcry and crystal ball handwriting-on-the-wall tight, close election "returns" - but then they turned right around afterwards and "kept" the increase to their "pensions" the payraise automatically set.

While many have stated they've donated the increases in the "salary" to charity, were those one-time deals and what have they done with the increases in pensions, and what will they do later, after they retire or are booted out of office.

Not a whimper from the new crop of some 53 freshmen legislators who were largely elected to forestall and stop such shenanigans.

Instead, many "veteran" legislators such as Rep. H. William DeWeese will see a climb even further into the upper upper socioeconomic class come either retirement or replacement at the polls come the next election.

As for the newcomers, their pension numbers went up, too.

The push for open records could be another such gimmick. In fact, it's all seeming like a version of the good cop bad cop routine - in this case - parts of the House version are good, parts are bad, and parts of the Senate version are good, parts are bad.

Keep in mind, the Senate version and House version must eventually match. So what will be kept, what will go, and what will Pennsylvanians actually get? True open records or something else?

House Bill 443 presented in the General Assembly last year by Rep. Timothy Mahoney was initially rightly touted as a freshman maverick's effort to change the status quo.

Little arm-twisting was needed to convince leadership which remained after the election to support an update in the public records laws, which historically have not applied to the General Assembly, since more than a couple of the long-term leaders were kicked out of office.

Such as DeWeese became converted champions of open records revamping - for the 21st Century, of course. For a new, reform-minded Pennsylvania, of course.

When the details of the Mahoney bill were revealed, however, watchdog commentators across the state became more than wary. One tagged the bill the Corruption Protection Act because it didn't apply to opening up "past" public records, and after its further alteration in the state government committee where additional amendments were applied.

Critics including us were vocal across the internet, in opinion pieces, even largely supportive print news media ventured a few jabs when legislative emails became a category "closed" to public inspection.

The Newspaper Association of Pennsylvania pulled its support from the Mahoney bill entirely.

See our previous informative post which has gone unnoted in print newspapers across the state and locally.

PA Newspaper Publishers Association Retract Support for Open Records (Corruption Protection)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-newspaper-publishers-retract-support.html

The wheels are still moving to bring Pennsylvanians some form of open records legislation. But what will it actually do?

Do we want it all accessible to us in one fell swoop, or are we willing to settle for bits and pieces?

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Senate passed Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester.

the bill reverses the longtime presumption that most records should be closed to the public and news media. The new presumption is that most records are open, unless an agency can make a valid case for not releasing them. But there is no such openness for records of the Legislature or judicial branch of government...

the bill requires the Legislature to provide 17 different kinds of records, including all financial records, committee meeting minutes, recorded votes and audits of the Legislature.

His bill is based on what is done in New York state, which has been ranked among the top three states in the United States by the University of Florida's Citizen Access Project, which monitors public access laws, he said.

The bill exempts e-mails and letters between legislators and constituents from release.

Executive branch agencies whose records would be presumed as public include the governor's office, attorney general, state treasurer, auditor general, and independent and state-affiliated agencies such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, State System of Higher Education and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Also, the top 25 salaries of officials at state-related schools would be public.

The Senate bill contains 28 exceptions, or types of information that don't have to be released, including homeland security, national defense, computer hardware or software, a person's Social Security number and medical information, a company's trade secrets, autopsy reports, certain real estate appraisals, labor negotiation strategy and criminal investigations.

Ms. Henning said some exceptions are too broad, such as noncriminal investigative information.

The Senate bill has another important provision: creating a new state agency to oversee the process of granting access to records and to hear appeals if access is denied. The Open Records Clearinghouse would appoint appeals officers for each executive branch department and provide training in the new law for employees of all executive branch agencies and local governments...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm


Here's the glowing this is just great Senate rundown

Senator Pileggi's Open Records Bill Approved by Senate; SB 1 Moves to House for Consideration

http://www.pasenategop.com/news/archived/2007/1107/pileggi-112807.htm

Senate Bill 1

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0001&pn=0772

The P-G article says the Mahoney bill reassigned as House bill 2072 was adopted by the State Government Committee November 28, 2007.

The P-G article

Meanwhile yesterday, the House State Government Committee voted 27-0 for its own version of an open records law, House Bill 2072, proposed by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fayette. It's similar to the Senate bill, but has at least one major difference. It treats all four government groups -- executive branch, legislature, courts and local agencies -- the same, presuming that most records are open. The House wouldn't exempt the Legislature and the courts from this stricter standard, as the Senate bill does...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm


Hold on a minute now. With either legislation, we still have to convince somebody that what we want IS A PUBLIC RECORD. There are still "exemptions."

The process might go a bit smoother, with some records already highlighted as accessible and the presumption "those" records are open, but there are still exemptions and we will be denied access to those. There will still be somebody else who will tell us this record is okay for you to see, but this one isn't.

Not only that, the Pileggi bill which passed the Senate with all but one lone nay vote doesn't fully apply to our illustrious champions of open records.

Can you believe it?

Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, voted "yes" on the bill, even though he didn't like the fact that it doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm


Seriously, Pennsylvanians, wake up and smell the scamoffee. The bill "doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies."

The one liner is there in black and white thanks to at least one state Senator, Jim Ferlo, but even with that, Ferlo voted yes on the bill.

Go figure.

All to appease us, that's why anything anything will pass even though it's a fraud.

Pennsylvanians surely don't want another scam, do they?

Maybe they do.

Maybe they will settle for more of the same scamsters? Different hair, eyes, noses, mouths, same two faces?

Notice what's the definition of "record"

"Record." Any document maintained by an agency, in any form, whether public or not.

Now notice what's the definition of "public record"

http://www.pa-newspaper.org/web/2005/10/right_to_know.aspx

Get it, yet?

The elected representatives can deem anything "they" want to come under the term "public" "record" and anything they don't want such as records created in the "past," or electronic mail with somebody's real name on it or in it, or even a fake name... well you get the idea.

And then there's our Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Settling for less to get something, anything in 2008 so they can tout their efforts paid off.

And then there are even the intrepid reformers and organizations pressing for open records for Pennsylvania. Settling for less to get their organization credit for pushing so-o-o hard for change to an antiquated open records policy.

Still, among them, many support the Pileggi bill even though it doesn't fully apply to the legislature and judicial branches of state government. Go figure.

Some appear to support the effort with further recommendations.

Still, there are issues to be hammered out. The law should be retroactive. It should encompass legislators' e-mails, with some protections for privacy, such as personal information that could lead to identity theft. (However, phone numbers and birth dates don't meet that criteria.) The open records office, which would handle inquiries and complaints, should be part of the state Ethics Commission, where it is likely to be a more independent watchdog than a bureau in another department.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2


Even though the Mahoney bill applies to the legislature, there are those pesky directives - nope - you can't see past records (which weren't covered previously), you can't see legislative emails.

The broader access would apply to past, present, and future executive branch and local government records because those parts of government were covered by the state’s current open records law. The expanded access to legislative and judicialrecords, however, would only apply in future cases, since they are not covered by the current law...

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rQgh4T5Uu8kJ:www.publicaffairsmgt.com/pubs/CapitolCommentary.pdf+pennsylvania+open+records+senate+bill+exemptions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=32&gl=us


And establishing an agency under the state Ethics Commission which has been historically silent on any past legislative infractions is a bit like letting Pirates of the Caribbean "Jack Sparrow" guard your yacht's hidden vault.

Guess who appoints members to the Commission, he he.

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/ethics/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=127907

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/ethics_commissions.htm

Maybe we shouldn't elect judges either, we should just let the state legislators pick them from among those on their "good" boys list.

Note there's no conflict-of-interest with former state representatives appointed to the Commission by incumbent legislators.

Really now, isn't this transparent. The House retains some good and some bad and the Senate retains some good and some bad. Like the good cop and the bad cop - they banter back and forth.

What will be presented to us in the end? Something many will settle for because hey, it's better than nothing. It's a start, according to Rep. Mahoney.

If it isn't right, it's a start that shouldn't finish.

As for the Express Times editorial's ending:

The House and Senate are within a few heartbeats of agreement. The House sent an unambiguous message when it cast a unanimous vote on this. Still, there's no telling what palliatives might seep in when leaders or conferees put the final grind on the sausage.

This is a watershed moment for all Pennsylvanians -- especially those who don't have the time and energy to follow the workings of the ruling class, but care deeply about the policies, taxes and regulations that trickle down and affect their lives. The next few weeks is a good time to draft an e-mail, write a letter or place a phone call to one's senator and House member.

Ask them to open things up.

Ask them to go the distance.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2


Unless open records "reform" includes all records (of course exempting "private" social security numbers, and obviously private information and material regarding state or national security - though who knows what all that might include) it is a sham.

Calling it anything more is a disservice to the public.

And citizen owners of the state of Pennsylvania set the agenda. It is we who tell them open it all up or go back home. We're tired of the same old, same old, even though there are a few dozen new faces.

Don't ask, tell.

Reprinted here for discussion purposes only.

House, Senate advance versions of open records law
Thursday, November 29, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Citizens groups and General Assembly critics often cite a 2002 study that branded Pennsylvania's open records law as the 48th worst in the nation.

State legislators hate hearing that statistic, so both the Senate and a House committee took action yesterday to improve the situation.

Senate members voted 48-1 in favor of Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester. He said the bill, which now goes to the House, will make many state and local government records more accessible to the public than they are now.

"Pennsylvania needs a strong open records law to encourage transparency in government and increase the public's confidence," said Mr. Pileggi.

Legislators know that procedural changes are needed to counteract two years of public complaints over the now-repealed pay raises they gave themselves and the large bonuses given last year to legislative staffers.

"The word 'reform' has been uttered often over the past year," said Mr. Pileggi. "There is no reform that comes close to matching a good open records law."

He dealt with several outside groups in fashioning the bill, including Common Cause/Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

PNA legal counsel Teri Henning said that while the bill isn't all she'd like, "it's a positive step for Pennsylvania in terms of access to open records. It's an improvement and not an insignificant one."


Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, voted "yes" on the bill, even though he didn't like the fact that it doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies.


For those latter two groups, the bill reverses the longtime presumption that most records should be closed to the public and news media. The new presumption is that most records are open, unless an agency can make a valid case for not releasing them. But there is no such openness for records of the Legislature or judicial branch of government.

For that reason, Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, was the lone "no" vote.

"He didn't feel the bill went far enough," said spokesman Gary Tuma. "If we're going to strong open records law it should apply broadly."

Mr. Pileggi said the bill requires the Legislature to provide 17 different kinds of records, including all financial records, committee meeting minutes, recorded votes and audits of the Legislature.

His bill is based on what is done in New York state, which has been ranked among the top three states in the United States by the University of Florida's Citizen Access Project, which monitors public access laws, he said.

The bill exempts e-mails and letters between legislators and constituents from release.

Executive branch agencies whose records would be presumed as public include the governor's office, attorney general, state treasurer, auditor general, and independent and state-affiliated agencies such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, State System of Higher Education and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Also, the top 25 salaries of officials at state-related schools would be public.

The Senate bill contains 28 exceptions, or types of information that don't have to be released, including homeland security, national defense, computer hardware or software, a person's Social Security number and medical information, a company's trade secrets, autopsy reports, certain real estate appraisals, labor negotiation strategy and criminal investigations.

Ms. Henning said some exceptions are too broad, such as noncriminal investigative information.

The Senate bill has another important provision: creating a new state agency to oversee the process of granting access to records and to hear appeals if access is denied. The Open Records Clearinghouse would appoint appeals officers for each executive branch department and provide training in the new law for employees of all executive branch agencies and local governments.

Meanwhile yesterday, the House State Government Committee voted 27-0 for its own version of an open records law, House Bill 2072, proposed by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fayette. It's similar to the Senate bill, but has at least one major difference. It treats all four government groups -- executive branch, legislature, courts and local agencies -- the same, presuming that most records are open. The House wouldn't exempt the Legislature and the courts from this stricter standard, as the Senate bill does.

Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254.
First published on November 29, 2007 at 12:00 am
..

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm


Public-access bill passes Pa. Senate; clash with House foreseen

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20071128_Public-access_bill_passes_Pa__Senate__clash_with_House_foreseen.html

Pittsburgh Tribune Review clip

Pa. Senate OKs change to open records bill
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Wednesday, November 28, 2007


HARRISBURG -- State Sen. Jim Ferlo said Tuesday he voted against an open records provision because it fails to put the Legislature under the Right to Know law.
"To me it is a shell of a bill," said Ferlo, D-Highland Park.

The Senate voted 46-3 in approving an amendment to an open records bill -- S.B. 1 -- sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County. Supporters said it was largely a technical amendment. It clarifies, for example, that police blotters and traffic reports are public records.

The bill will be considered for final passage today. It would need House approval.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_540016.html


Sunday, October 28, 2007
Senate Open Records Reform: Good, But Can Be Better

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/newsreleases/senate-open-records-reform-good-can-be-better



Open Records PA site includes info about Senate and House versions and links to bills

http://www.openrecordspa.org/

Open records reform: Pa. in a crisis of access
By Teri Henning

http://spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/archive/2006/12/12/3695.aspx

Student Voices opinions

http://www.student-voices.org/Pennsylvania/SpeakOutDiscussion.aspx?Id=647

editorial clip

Philadelphia Inquirer
Posted on Mon, Dec. 17, 2007
Editorial | Open-Records Law

Despite the recent improvements, aspects of the legislation still need to be fixed.

For example, lobbyists could be exempt from record requests under an overly broad section that protects legislators' constituents from invasions of privacy. Taxpayers should be able to better watch the influence peddlers.

Enforcement must also be beefed up. The House unfortunately rejected a "three strikes" provision that could have punished elected officials and government bureaucrats who repeatedly stymie citizens' access to public records.

And a provision should be scuttled that exempts birthdates from disclosure. Legislators cite concerns about identity theft. But there are already many public documents containing this basic information, and it's a standard piece of data for people - including journalists - to verify someone's identity.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071217_Editorial___Open-Records_Law.html

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Hillary Clinton: Her Slipperyness Part 50

Hillary Clinton, Her Slipperyness, (tagged due to CNN host who noted such Wednesday on Tucker) spins during the debate among candidates vying for the Democrat Party nomination for President, the next day in a memo, and a third time during a conference call afterwards. All of this within two-days of the NBC-sponsored debate Tuesday.

During the debate, Clinton at least portrayed the failure she perceived to address illegal "immigration" (code word alert) spread between both the Congress and the Administration.

The memo she sent to insiders the day after refers only to the Administration's failure...

Meanwhile the article Campaign Call Reveals Clinton debate concern reports yet another variation with spokesman Penn stating in a conference call:

In Wednesday’s conference call, Penn said Clinton “clarified that she does support governors like Gov. Spitzer” who are faced with the issue because of the federal government’s failure to offer comprehensive immigration reform.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html


So which is it now, Mrs. Her Slipperyness? Is the failure to offer comprehensive immigration reform at the door of the federal government, the Administration, or Congress and the Administration, or some other variable?

We're at Her Slipperyness Part 50 since Clinton's comments are the talk of the blogs, talk of even The Nation, making Fox News programming throughout morning, noon, and night, and even making PBS programming last night!

MSNBC Hardball's Chris Matthews has vowed to continue to press on the issue, as he's still unsure of Clinton's position in the aftermath of the debate and the release of a memo.

Newsday: Hillary backs license plan after political firestorm

Clinton has now veered from even her original statement claiming the failure to deal with comprehensive immigration reform was that of both the Congress and the Administration during the debate, to laying the blame at only the Administration in a memo the next day, to now in a conference call placing the federal government on the hot seat for the failure. Well who exactly is the federal government? The Immigration and Naturalization Service? Homeland Security? Who?

We expect the issue is not going to just go away. We hope female voters become smarter rather than dumb and dumber and really listen to the variation of positions Hillary Clinton chooses to take on the issue of giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens over the next months.

Hillary Clinton Her Slipperyness Part 1 Million, here we come.

Net the Truth Online

Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern
By Sam Youngman
November 01, 2007
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks...

... Obama and Edwards continued their assault throughout the day, trying to capitalize on the first chink in Clinton’s armor that they have seen in months.

In a memo from the Obama campaign, spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton “offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion that won’t bring the change America needs.”

“The ‘politics of hope’ doesn’t mean hoping you don’t have to answer tough questions,” Burton wrote.

Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate, Clinton’s position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, “Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen. Clinton’s position … She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards.”

In Wednesday’s conference call, Penn said Clinton “clarified that she does support governors like Gov. Spitzer” who are faced with the issue because of the federal government’s failure to offer comprehensive immigration reform.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html

Hillary Clinton: Her Slipperyness Part 4

It appears a new strategy is underway by Hillary Clinton, Her Slipperyness, to milk any and all sympathy "women" may be feeling towards her when she was treated basically like just "one of the boys," during the NBC sponsored debate among candidates vying for the Democrat Party nomination for President this week.

Seriously, as a woman, she should not be treated any differently during the debates than anyone else. If for instance, Barack Obama had been in the lead for the past months, poll-wise, he'd likely have gotten a lot of jabs from the other candidates on his own positions where he was equivocating. Same for Dennis Kuchinich who himself was not clear when asked whether he'd seen a UFO.

The man even made a joke of a serious question. Are the debates revealing character?

Absolutely. We'll continue to call Hillary Clinton Her Slipperyness until such time as she makes known her plan for dealing with the illegal alien crisis in this country.

As she is unlikely to do so any time soon, the series will continue probably into the six figures. Keep checking back...

Net the Truth Online
Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern
By Sam Youngman
November 01, 2007
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks.

Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.

“I wouldn’t say she lost her cool,” one caller said. “But I would say she lost her footing.”

The caller addded that Clinton’s response to questions about records from her time in the White House that have been sealed by the National Archives “made me roll my eyes.”

The criticisms followed Penn’s assertion that Clinton was “unflappable.” He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.

Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,” Penn told those on the campaign call.

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual,” Penn said, before adding that it “is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation … I think there will be further clarification.”

“I hope so,” a female caller responded. “To me, it was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.”

Penn turned again to Russert. “The other candidates were asked questions like, ‘Is there life in outer space?’ ”

The object of the call, and a follow-up breakfast Thursday morning with campaign chairman and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Terry McAuliffe, was apparently to stop whatever bleeding the senator might have sustained during a debate in which Clinton wore a bull’s-eye on her back throughout the evening.

Penn and Mantz said “a new phase” in the campaign had begun with about 65 days to go before the Iowa caucuses. They expect Obama and Edwards to go “negative on TV, and we’re going to need the resources to fight that front.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html

Hillary Clinton: Her Slipperyness Part 3 $1K for truth

Hillary Clinton, otherwise becoming known as "Her Slipperyness" for her reversal on the issue of illegal immigration during the debate among candidates vying for the Democrat Party nomination for President.

9/11 Families is offering $1,000 to the person/s who can get Hillary Clinton to clarify her meaning regarding her statements on the issue of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's action to give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.

Fox 'n Friends discussed the development this morning.

Yep. Wonder whether this can be done by text messaging? Anybody know Her Slipperyness's private cell phone number?

Oh, the AFSCME, they should know. Isn't the support from that organization aggravating to the taxpayers across the nation? The Association of Federal, State, County, Municipal "Employees" - in other words, your local, state, and federal public servants - get together to not only endorse Hillary Clinton, but their representatives in the lobbying organization hand her a supportive gift.

A pair of boxing gloves.

Red.

Yep. The AFSCME doesn't really give a hoot whether or not Hillary Clinton is clear on the issues, all of the issues, and speaks in code words to garner the support of whoever thinks they heard what they want to hear, they still support her - because she is the most visible - so far - liberal candidate for the Democrat Party nomination for President.

We can only hope the 9/11 Families charge full speed ahead and make appearances on all of the major network outlets.

Do you think Chris Matthews will invite them on Hardball? He may, because he stated on his program y'day that he was going to keep on the issue of her "position" on giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. Maybe he got the "wake up" bug bite during the NBC debate.

Check out the transcripts when you can.

See our previous posts which contain links to some of those, including the transcript of the debate provided by MSNBC.

How about Lou Dobbs. I place a bet there. He'll have them on.

Bill O'Reilly. Hannity and Colmes.