Poverty Status Remains Due to Politics says Commissioner

Poverty question answered
09/16/2008
Updated 09/16/2008 12:44:46 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Last week an editorial was written about a question asked at a meet the candidate forum. The question was, "Why are Fayette and Greene counties still the second- and third-poorest in Pennsylvania?"

While I cannot comment on Greene County, as for Fayette County there are three reasons, those being: politics, bureaucrats and self-serving interests.

Angela M. Zimmerlink Fayette County commissioner

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Responses at Herald-Standard

Reader Comments

Added: Tuesday September 23, 2008 at 07:50 AM EST
Primary Reason Poorest
Our local educational system is the primary reason Fayette and Greene counties are ranked the highest in the poorest economic category. Both counties lack a 21st century approach to education in our numerous public schools and both produce a discouraging rising secondary school drop-out rate. In this day and age with so many resources available statistics like these are simply inexcusable.

While politically, nepotism remains sacrosanct in hiring practices, a worse aspect of our school system which enables the stagnation is called "tenure," or more starkly, "unions."

Those remain "political" throwbacks and will continue despite any so-called legislative "fix" to "consolidate" local school districts.

It's time for our state legislators to act, not with Rep. Tim Mahoney's so-called consolidation - but not really - plan, but with a total break-up of the public school monopoly.

They should all each and every one be privatized and permit the private sector to actually produce an educated group of students who can rise above any economically distressed conditions in the counties.

Conditions accepted, maintained, and managed as is by the very people voters elect to public office.

The real and obvious distressed status is also a mentality the politically connected use to keep the counties down, and their own political power on the rise.

It doesn't seem to matter who is in office, the grants and special tax-abatement treatment in programs like LERTA and KOZs continues for some but not for all.

the only way to eliminate the mentality is for the voters in the state election system to demand independent political party participation in the political Primary election process.

Alongside the names of candidates from the PA Democrat and Republican parties should be names of candidates in all of the following parties, at every level of office:

America First Party of Pennsylvania
Communist Party of Pennsylvania
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania
Green Party of Pennsylvania
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
Reform Party of Pennsylvania
Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania
Socialist Party of Pennsylvania

There will be very little change - if any - unless and until a Third-Party candidate has equal access to the same politically charged election system as the two-majority parties in Pennsylvania. (And the nation, by the way)

As for the Housing Authority and its abolishment, and likewise for tax-free zones, if Commissioner Zimmerlink would use her inherent power as a commissioner and alone make the motions at a commissioners' meeting, and the motions failed for lack of a second, a public effort of support for her efforts would ensue. Over the next 3 years, with Commissioner Zimmerlink making the motions at every single meeting, and with the continued publicity, a growing grassroots effort to rid the county of the unconstitutional Housing Authority and the unconstitutional KOZs would rise to a level that could not be ignored.

Either both would be gone from our corner of PA, or there would be newcomers elected to the board of county commissioners.

Hold Them All Accountable

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Monday September 22, 2008 at 08:59 AM EST
Social Programs will remain in Fayette Co and elsewhere
Both Jo Smith and Mr. Lutes have made some valid points with respect to the social programs in Fayette County. I do respectfully disagree when they look upon me as the person responsible for the social programs and/or public housing. If one looks at my voting record when I was a mbr of the 5 person FCHA board one would see often times the votes were 4-1 and often times I made a Motion realizing that I would not garner a 2nd let alone two votes. I believe the point was missed by the below writers. Low income housing is needed in Fayette Co and I would prefer that it be derived from a private company and not a taxpayer account, however, throughout the US there are Housing Authorities and one cannot simply nor should one simply make a Motion to abolish without a plan or support from others who would be willing to help make the transition. Knowing that I did in my votes and Motions work towards not expanding the FCHA but at times it was not supported by fellow board mbrs and it was not because I did not get along with them it was because the commissioners (past and present) appointed board mbrs to the FCHA who believed in the mission of maintaining and providing for public housing in Fayette County. I am proud of my efforts and my accomplishments for the time I volunteered my time as a board member because I realized what I could not accomplish while making positive changes in the system. Thanks for your comments.

Commissioner Zimmerlink, Uniontown PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Sunday September 21, 2008 at 09:50 AM EST
Stupid and excuses
Ok first Mr. Lutes I take great offense when you say I am stupid. Unless I read your comments wrong you called people in Fayette County Stupid. I dont think you really meant that did you? Hard working people are not kept on a chain. I personally have no chain upon me. I work very hard make good money and owe no one anything. I understand your frustrations and the social issues that plight this county but your generalizatons are way off base.

Fayette county is not the problem here. Mrs. Zimmerlink the Social programs that plight Fayette County should be abolished. You Alway blame someone else for what you can not do or do not want to do. Sean Cavanaugh didnt have a vote on the FCHA and he busted the cooruptiion. Sean changed this Couny for the Good and He never had anyone carrying him or backing him. Did he always do it right probably not but he got some things done. Look at the Fayette Business Park he pushed that idea when All the big money people were supprting FAy Penn and countering the Idea. Now I am sure you going to say that You do not have the votes. YOUR first term you had Two Republicans and you could not get along with Hardy or at least it seemed that way to us the general public. Now you say yu cant get along. Well Sean, Vince and Ron Nehls (god rest his soul) didnt always get along but SEAN got things done. He did not always have a second vote but he showed people the path and he pushed.

It is easy to complain and point out problems Commissioner it is harder to get them done.

As for your many invitations to those who challange you stop trying to deflect your job duties. You Tell me "I invite you to come in" and I tll you I dont want to. You say " i will meet with you " and I say if I wanted to be elected to county Government I would run againnst you and beat you. Then you Tell Mr. Lutes (who I do not think I ever met and do not agree with on any issue) to run and become elected because you could use the help. Maybe he doesnt want to. It is our Constitutional Right to point out what we think your doing wrong. If we meet I would like to discuss the Constituion with you because obviously you have no idea what rights Mr. Lutes and other Fayette County Rsidents have under this document.

Jo Smith, Dunbar PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Friday September 19, 2008 at 07:30 PM EST
Why Fayette County is poor
Years of free traders, unfettered capitalism, and conservative financial ideology at the state and federal level, that's why. Factor in the purposeful strangulation of public education by these same charlatans and you get poor, uneducated people in every state.

Marcy Roberts, Masontown, Pa

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Thursday September 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM EST
Zimmerlink Comment Shows Complicity
Angela Zimmerlink implies that she did not make the motions to abolish the FCHA because the motions would not have received a second and would have failed.
So what? So what if the motions fail? At least if the motions are made you could say you did what you could to rid the county of this illegal, unconstitutional agency.
Doing anything less is simply an unacceptable cop-out.
As for running for office, I did that twice and learned that people like most those that fool them best.
In addition, I have volunteered to sit on boards in the past and would welcome your nominating me to sit on a board at any time.

Brian K. Lutes, North Union Twp., Fayette Co., PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Thursday September 18, 2008 at 06:40 AM EST
Zimmerlink calls for people to step forward
Mr. Lutes writes that Zimmerlink is complacent and helped to keep Fayette Co impoverished referencing that she did nothing to abolish the Fayette Co Housing Authority. In 1998 I volunteered my time to serve on the FCHA board for a 5yr term and was then reappointed for another 5 yr term. Anyone remotely interested in Fayette Co surely knows the actions I took as a board member. The inaction Mr. Lutes references is me not making a Motion to disband the FCHA. How do you think that vote would have gone Unanimous or 4-1? As a commissioner, if a Motion was made to rid the county of the HA how do you think that Motion would go? Which Vince do you think would vote in the affirmative? During my tenure as a FCHA board mbr I was effective with results. I also chose to make Motions that not only were in the best interest of those involved but also Motions that could possibly garner at least ONE or more votes of support. Perhaps one of the answers to this complacency Mr. Lutes talks of would be for him and like-minded residents to offer to serve on Boards and or run for office. I could use the help

Angela Zimmerlink, Uniontown PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Tuesday September 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM EST
Zimmerlink Correct, But Also Complicit
Commissioner Zimmerlink is 100orrect, but is herself complicit in scenario that keeps Fayette poor.
While it is possible that Zimmerlink does not fully understand how her own actions & inactions perpetuates the vicious cycle of intentional poverty, I doubt that is the case.
What we have in Fayette is the perfect package of apathy bundled with fear and laziness in a population that has been groomed to be docile sheep for more than 50 years and any public official that does not do everything they can to expose this is complicit in the scam as Zimmerlink is.
Those that run Fayette do not want citizens to be independent and self-supporting on a large scale because if poverty truly goes away they would not be able to receive the millions upon millions of dollars they use to run the social programs that are justified by the poverty conditions.
The social programs that are justified by the poveety conditions employ hundreds, if not thousands, of friends & family of the political powers in Fayette. Those same friends & family then work very hard to convince the "customers" of the social programs that the programs are needed and that anyone that comes along and talks about abolishing them is Satan personified and the politicians that are "giving" them the program are the Apostles.
Unfortunately, far too many Fayettnamese are completely comfortable with this and obviously too stupid to realize they are being kept on a chain with an acceptably sized water bowl within sight.
Zimmerlink contributes to this by not making motions to abolish these programs, such as the Fayette County Housing Authority, that she knows full well should not exist.
However, I must give her credit for picking up on a theme I presented years ago to abolish the Fayette County Zoning operation.
Fayette is poor by design and will continue to be unless and until the sheep lft their heads out of the trough and look around to see the clippers coming.

Brian K. Lutes, North Union Twp., Fayette Co., PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20122114&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Related

Countywide zoning makes great sense
Guest commentaryBy Ray Polaski
09/19/2008
Updated 09/19/2008 12:55:45 AM EDT

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Reader Comments

Added: Thursday September 25, 2008 at 06:22 PM EST
Best Government is Less Government
Ignoring the lead sentence provided by Commissioner Zimmerlink is prudent. When one is on the right side of not only desiring limited government, but in a position to deliver limited government, there isn't really any need to be prudent to protect the "government" entity that has become intrusive and power grabbing.

If the "zoning" can be handled on the truly local level, at the municipality, then the "planning" and the "community development" likewise can be handled at the local municpality level.

The idea is for government to be as local as possible because that is the level of government that is simply closest to the people. And that level has the better chance of not only being more representative of the people, but being more limited and more accountable.

As far as addressing the historic assets of the county, when did this become another role or duty for county government?

At any rate, should a motion be presented to abolish the Department of Planning, Zoning, and Community Development, the support will be quickly forthcoming from these quarters in the event the motion dies for lack of a second.

Of course, should Commissioner Zimmerlink make a motion to eliminate county zoning, that would be more than welcome, as well. Obviously, she's already got some public support for that not only here but on local radio talk show programming.

Hold Them All Accountable

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Thursday September 25, 2008 at 09:48 AM EST
Zimmerlink Given Bad Advice?
Commissioner Zimmerlink says that it was told to her that the Commissioners did not have the authority to abolish the FCHA.
This is technically correct as according to the Municipal Authorities Act states that only the "Authority" itself can end it's existance. This is why I have said for years that Zimmerlink, in her role as a member of the FCHA Board, should make the motion to abolish the authority, in essence to self terminate.
However, the same Municipal Authorities Act also states that the political body that created the authority, in this case the Fayette Co. Commissioners, can take over the authority's operations, which would entail the FCHA Board of Directors being eliminated, and then the Commissioners could simply end the operations and auction of the authority's assets such as buildings, vehicles, and anything else.
For anyone to contend that the people that live in the authority's communities would be put out on the street is ludicrous. The tenants, recipients actually, would simply pay rent to the new owners of the properties and they would still qualify for assistance from the myriad of social welfare programs ruining Fayette.
By eliminating the FCHA and auctioning off it's assets we could return some of the taxpayers investmentsin this sham operation and put the properties on the tax rolls.
Brian K. Lutes, North Union Twp., Fayette Co., PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Wednesday September 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM EST
Transition period needed for local zoning
Any suggestion for me as an elected official to make a Motion simply to abolish the county zoning dept is done so without understanding county government. First, the county office is Planning Zoning & Community Development. I propose taking county government out zoning issues and setting the stage for the local municipalities to decide if they wish to have local zoning and if so for a smooth transition. To do anything less would not be prudent or a sound decision as an elected official. The writers of these Postings are aware that I as a Commissioner have made Motions knowing I would not garner a 2nd but did so anyway. With the support of another Commissioner, we would reorganzie the current office because by County Code and otherwise there are still responsibilities that would fall under this county office. I would think that Hold Them Accountable writer D I believe is aware of this or at least given the background should be aware. To respond to the puzzlement as to why I pursued the Historic section I did so because I do not know what the outcome of my zoning elimination initiative will be and if county zoning remains than at least historic assets are addressed in the zoning ordinance. As far as public support,I havent seen or heard any yet. I never indicated in any way that I would not make a motion to eliminate countywide zoning in fact I did the opposite stating my position, asking for support and working on a suggestion course of action. I welcome the input of D, Mr. Lutes and any other person having the interest to contact me at my office.

The confusion perhaps on me stating I would not make a motion when I knew I would not garner a 2nd was with respect to the FCHA abolishment AND I also stated that I would never simply make a motion for the sake of it as it was told to me that we did not have the authority to abolish and even if that issue could be argued it would be irresponsible to simply abolish an authority without any plan of action for those living in public housing and under Section 8 programs.

Again, I welcome a phone call. Thanks
Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink, Uniontown PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Tuesday September 23, 2008 at 08:34 AM EST
Make Motion to Abolish County Zoning Dept.
At the next and upcoming September county commissioners' meeting this Thursday, Commissioner Zimmerlink should make a motion to eliminate the Fayette county planning and zoning department and the related though independent UCC "code" enforcement arm of county government.

Should the motions not receive a second and/or not pass, then she'd have the publicity necessary to mount a local grassroots effort of support for her causes.

Anything less is simply political grandstanding, the like of what we've experienced in the past administrations with many others before her.

what's been puzzling is her support for including zoning protection for historical properties in the updated county code. If she were truly opposed to county zoning on principle, she would have drawn a line in the sand prior to the last election when groups and organizations pushed for such an inclusionary measure in the County Code. She not only complied, she took on the cause and received support from those quarters.

Failing to gain a second vote is no reason to continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk, so to speak. Despite the inaction of her fellow commissioners, Zimmerlink has 3 more years to make the motion/s at every single board of commissioners' meeting.

Hold Them All Accountable

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Monday September 22, 2008 at 09:19 AM EST
Decision to have Zoning should be made on local level
Mr. Lutes is correct on 4 issues. (1) No municipality/county is Required to have a zoning program (2) the 10 municipalities in Fayette that have separate zoning apart from the County are indeed paying twice in that those residents pay for county zoning through county taxes yet have township zoning (3) Washington/Westmoreland (and other counties) do Not operate countywide zoning (yet those counties are not on the bottom of the economic development list) (4) political pressures keep zoning on the county level (and it doesnt stop there certain politicians quietly become involved in the Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board, and UCC.

Ray Polaski states "if it's not broken, dont fix it" well it is broke and has been broken but commissioners lend a deaf eye and blind eye to this broken system. Within these boards and departments the left hand often does not know nor care what the right hand is doing so to say we have experts is totally wrong.

As far as developers wanting the offices to be inclusive and that they favor this that too is incorrect as evidenced by the many complaints received in the commissioners office.

I initiated and Moved to eliminate county administration of zoning not only because I believed I had the support of at least another commissioner which then meant the next step could be taken and a plan of action could be pursued. My disappointment is that fellow Commissioner Zapotosky has somewhat changed his position that he stated at the State Music Theatre Candidate Night because now he has stated that he wants the county to maintain some role in the process.

Zoning should be completed eliminated on the county administration side and the 32 municipalities can decide just as others do in other counties whether or not they want zoning and whether or not they wish to join together for combined services.

Public support is needed on this issue.

Commissioner Zimmerlink, Uniontown PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Added: Saturday September 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM EST
Polaski Just Doesn't Get It!
Mr. Polaski says that the municipalities can't afford to run their own zoning programs so the county should continue doing it.
He shows his ignorance of the situation, but that is not surprising seein that he made his living from another agency that should not exist, the Fayette Co. Redevelopment Authority.
Polaski should know that no municipalaity, including counties, is required to operate a zoning program by state law.
Quite simply this means if a particular municipality can't afford to operate a zoning program they won't have a zoning program. It's just that simple.
As it stands now, the municipalities that do operate their own zoning programs are paying twice for the service as a portion of their county taxes goes to the operation of the county zoning office that they receive no service from.
In addition, zoning is a form of fascism and should not exist.
Furthermore, it is not needed in Fayette and the program was not implemented as a result of citizen demand. The political powers simply decided to implement zoning so they could exercise even more power over who does what in Fayette. That is why it was implemented; Not out of some desire to protect the the quality of life in Fayette because, clearly, they are not genuinely concerned with that.
Lastly, our neighboring counties of Washington & Westmoreland, which both have larger populations and budgets, do not operate county wide zoning programs.
The Fayette County Zoning office should be abolished immediately and county real estate taxes should be cut by the amount saved by eliminating the office.

Brian K. Lutes, North Union Twp., Fayette Co., PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20128210&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

More

Zoning

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_list_of_township_zoning_rules_for_north_union_township_in_fayette_county_pennsylvania

$700B Federal Financial Patriot Act

Says MSNBC news report, quoting somebody... the bailout plan presented by the Administration includes sweeping new powers for the Treasury Dept.

What sounds right about this action? Nothing...

Everybody is not on board

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/22846/opposition-growing-to-mother-of-all-bailouts-moab/

Hardball features Jim Cramer... must take action within the next 5 to 7 days or ...

...hopes to tell people they can be part of this process too...

MSNBC Transcript Chris Matthews hardball

More

Dispossession by Decree
by William Norman Grigg

However, it's impossible to blame the electorate for the most recent act of mega-larceny, the Federal Reserve's $85 billion bailout of the American International Group. This was done by the FED – a nominally private entity that exercises immense political and economic power without constitutional standing or accountability of any kind. Congress didn't appropriate the necessary funds for that bailout. Nor was the money set aside through executive action, the entirely illegal method now commonly used to commit the United States to immensely expensive undertakings such as wars of aggression against distant, helpless countries.

The FED's action amounts to the $85 billion purchase of a private company, on behalf of the federal government, using public funds – without political accountability of any kind. Outrageous as it is, this action may have the healthy, if thoroughly unintended, consequence of illustrating just who actually runs our political system and economy.

As the immensely perceptive economic analyst Michael Rozeff points out, on this Constitution Day we have witnessed an unprecedented arrogation of power by the unelected government that actually rules us. True power in our putative republic is actually exercised by the oligarchy that created, empowered, and controls the Federal Reserve.

Oh, sure, that oligarchy will allow elected officials to play-act the role of representatives or "Deciders," and every once in a while it will countenance a very limited form of political competition. But the really serious business – such as the disposition of the lives of the subject population in wars, or the re-allocation of their wealth for the benefit of politically favored constituencies – is simply too important to be left to the vagaries of representative politics. Thus we are routinely reminded that some issues are insulated from the public by being enshrined as part of the sacred "bipartisan consensus."

The nationalization of AIG is on that list, which explains why today we hear a palpably relieved silence from Capitol Hill, when the air should be shredded by expressions of bitter outrage over the FED's action. "Until this week," notes the Financial Times, "it would have been unthinkable for the Federal Reserve to bail out an insurance company...."

Actually, this was never "unthinkable" at all. Current FED Commissar Ben Bernanke has actually gone on record touting the Central Bank's ability to exnihilate what it's pleased to call "money" in any quantity its supervisors deem necessary in order to buy up anything it desires. And as I predicted almost exactly three years ago, the collapse of the debt bubble has left the FED and its controlling oligarchy in a position to conduct the "big buy-out" – the nationalization of practically everything in the supposed effort to prevent a depression.

"There's no limit to what the Fed is prepared to do," points out investment analyst Richard Daughty, the widely quoted "Mogambo Guru." "The only tool it has is inflation – creating money out of nothing. And Bernanke has explicitly stated that the Fed has the statutory means to use the money it creates to buy anything and everything, including stocks, bonds, houses, and raw land. It's entirely possible that someday we'll see the banking cartel literally owning everything – and Americans are letting this happen."

Given that the FED claims the power to buy both investment instruments and real property, why couldn't it buy an ailing insurance conglomerate? But then again, AIG is not your typical insurance company. It has affiliates in some 130 countries (some of which are now experiencing an old-fashioned bank run) and "counter-party relationships" with nearly every major financial institution on the face of the globe. That's a somewhat florid way of saying that AIG owes everybody money, and if it can't pay its debts, the entire financial services industry may collapse.

The problem here, of course, is that AIG is going to collapse, despite the FED's willingness to custom-print the company tens of billions of "dollars." AIG has been deeply involved in insuring the secondary mortgage bond market. This is why, over the past several years, its value has collapsed like a deflated soufflé.

According to letter sent by former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg just yesterday, AIG has lost "over 90% of its value." That has to be considered a criminally self-serving estimate of AIG's actual worth. Greenberg, it should be remembered, was forced out as CEO about three and a half years ago in the middle of an Enron-style accounting scandal in which the company admitted to overstating earnings by $1.7 billion.

Owing to the firm's size, historic reputation, political clout, and prominent place on the Dow, an investigation never made significant headway, and we have no way of knowing the extent to which the company's accounting was corrupt. So when Greenberg admits that the company has lost something north of ninety percent of its value, we are justified in rounding its actual value down to zero and simply letting nature run its course.

That's how things would work out for an honest entrepreneur whose business simply didn't work. But that's not how such things play out for the Power Elite. Picture the world financial market as a hugely overbuilt skyscraper resting on a badly compromised foundation.

The core pillars supporting the structure are rotten and about to collapse, and the failure of any one would rapidly induce failure in all of them. The sensible approach would be to get as far as possible from the impending collapse. The Power Elite's approach is to force commoners to work in the basement shoring up the mortally stricken building while the Important People evacuate.

That won't work, of course, and the inevitable collapse will wipe out those left in the basement – but, hey, that's just the price that has to be paid to save the Important People, who are, after all, more Important than the rest of us.

Deranged financial commentator Jim Cramer didn't take refuge in metaphor to express – and endorse – the perspective presented in my illustration. "Frankly, I don't really care if my community bank is doing well," insisted Cramer. "I care about AIG and the fate of Western banks, all of which have relied on AIG at some point for a risk transfer."

Let banks fail across the length and breadth of the land; let millions be left destitute, and misery be poured without mixture on the heads of the common folk – the FED must protect the interests of super-rich criminals at AIG and kindred institutions.

The anxiety over AIG's fate reflects its role not only as a pillar of the global financial system, but the prominence of the company within the Power Elite. This has been pointed out by the Christian Science Monitor, a publication that has hardly earned a reputation as a purveyor of "conspiracy theories."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w46.html

Grigg's blog post

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispossession-by-decree.html

Grigg's blog

http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

Grigg fired from JBS New American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Norman_Grigg

Alex Jones Jim Cramer goes off on everybody

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4091&cp=all

what, buying up the mortgages that nobody can pay back?

Net the Truth Online

Foreign Bondholders Drove the Fannie/Freddie Bailout
by: William Patalon III posted on: September 12, 2008

http://seekingalpha.com/article/95160-foreign-bondholders-drove-the-fannie-freddie-bailout

William Norman Grigg

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=william+norman+grigg&btnG=Search

Pennsylvania election regulations

Last day to REGISTER before the General Election ……………………. October 6
Last day to apply for a civilian absentee ballot ………………………….. October 28
Last day for County Boards of Elections to receive voted civilian………. October 31
absentee ballots

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/030_important_dates/importantdatesupcoming.pdf

Paperweights scare close airport

Shepard Smith updates the trio the scare that wasn't.

The airport was closed down because of a couple of paperweights that somebody said was grenades.

Shep still mocking everybody who listened to Jeraldo...


JetBlue evacuates NY JFK terminal
September 22, 2008

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--jetblueevacuation0922sep22,0,7957672,print.story

McCain's Poll Numbers Retreat

Update Pennsylvania

Record Pa. voter registration pads Democrats' edge
10/7/2008, 4:26 p.m. EDT
By PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Democratic registration has surged by 13 percent and Republican ranks have shrunk by 1 percent as a record 8.6 million people in battleground Pennsylvania registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election.

Last-minute registrations on Monday, the deadline, still have to be counted, but the total released by Pennsylvania's State Department already far exceeds the previous record of 8.4 million set in 2004.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1223411643267130.xml&storylist=penn

A.B. Stoddard on MSNBC says the downward movement in John McCain's numbers is due to Wall Street situation.

Obama 50 percent. McCain 43 percent.

Map stats

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 24, 2008; A01

The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

As a point of comparison, neither of the last two Democratic nominees -- John F. Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 -- recorded support above 50 percent in a pre-election poll by the Post and ABC News.

Last week's near-meltdown in the financial markets and the subsequent debate in Washington over a proposed government bailout of troubled financial institutions have made the economy even more important in the minds of voters. Fully 50 percent called the economy and jobs the single most important issue that will determine their vote, up from 37 percent two weeks ago. In contrast, just 9 percent cited the Iraq war as their most important issue, its lowest of the campaign.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667_pf.html

Are Bibles 'giants' set for return?


The benei Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions."

Genesis 6:2 (Interlinear Hebrew Bible)

New experiments in genetic engineering could open the doors for the return of fearsome "giants" described in the Bible – the offspring of human women and fallen angels – warns author Thomas Horn in his best-selling book, "Nephilim Stargates: The Year 2012 and the Return of the Watchers."

In the Book of Genesis, beings of great stature called "giants" appear, which some biblical scholars believe came into existence after powerful angels known as 'Watchers' descended to earth and used women (or their biological matter) to construct bodies of flesh, which they used to "extend" themselves into the material world.

The Apocryphal books of Enoch, 2 Esdras, Genesis Aprocryphon and Jasher support the Genesis story, adding that the sin of the angels grew to include genetic modification of animals as well as humans. The Book of Jasher, mentioned in the Bible in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, says, "After the fallen angels went into the daughters of men, the sons of men taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order to provoke the Lord" (4:18).

"This clear reference to the Genesis 6 record illustrates that animals were included in whatever cross-species experiments were being conducted, and that this activity resulted in judgment from God," explains Horn. "The Book of Enoch also supports this species-crossing report, saying that the fallen angels who merged with women also sinned 'against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish' (7:5,6). The Old Testament contains associated reference to genetic mutations, which developed among humans following this activity, including unusual size, physical strength, six fingers, six toes, animal appetite for blood and even lion-like features among men (2 Sam 21:20; 23:20)."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75592

McCain Doublespeaks on Expansion Government Role

During the 9/11 Presidential Forum, held at Columbia University on September 11 and broadcast on Fox on Saturday, McCain was asked what he'd do differently after 9/11.

His response included that he'd have initiated different programs and would have expanded Americorps...

A few minutes later, McCain responded to a question about mandatory service, and he said there were enough government programs, and his basic philosophy is not to expand government programs... he said we already have the Peace Corps and Americorps and he'd be careful about expansions.

His attempting a joke by snoring and pretending to fall asleep when asked about age got a laugh, but really, McCain cracking a joke about his own age is getting "old."

Obama would've asked more of the country than to be super-consumers after 9/11. It was initially unclear unclear whether Obama suggested or implied he'd have initiated a mandatory service call from his comment.

Later, Obama said when there is a war, it's an obligation of many, not some...

“If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some,” Senator Barack Obama declared.

Is asked about ROTC on campus, should they be invited back.

Obama answers, yes... we made a mistake there...

Asked specifically about how do you get more in the military short of a draft... Obama says need inspired... brings up potential of civilian corps... civil engineers who can do some of the things our military is currently doing...

Currently, Obama has presented a national service plan in the form of a bill... he also said he would not set up a bureaucracy, but he wants to set up an energy corp...

Net the Truth Online

Live Video: 9/11 Presidential Forum

Last Edited: Friday, 12 Sep 2008, 1:44 AM GMT
Created: Friday, 12 Sep 2008, 12:00 AM GMT

http://www.myfoxspokane.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7413441&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Transcript: ServiceNation Presidential Forum at Columbia University
Filed Under Barack Obama, John McCain, Presidential Campaign 2008


STENGEL: Senator, as recently as this past Sunday, you talked very openly about the fact that Americans should have been asked to do more than go shopping or traveling. What would you have done as president in those circumstances, to make people aware of what they should do as Americans, after 9/11?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, I would have called them to serve. I would have created organizations ranging from neighborhood block watch to making sure that our nuclear power plants are secure, to immediately proposing to Congress legislation, such as Senator Evan Bayh and I proposed, service to country, to create additional organizations, to expand AmeriCorps, expand the Peace Corps, expand the military.
Obviously, we were facing a new threat. Obviously, we needed to, at that time, take advantage of the unity in the United States of America. We weren’t Republicans on September 11th, we weren’t Democrats, we were Americans. And I think that if we had asked for a concrete plan of action, both on the part of federal, state and local governments as well as by the Congress of the United States as well as, frankly, talking directly to the American people, on the need for us all to serve this nation, I think perhaps we — but, you know, I have to tell you something, Rick.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/11/transcript-servicenation-presidential-forum-at-columbia-university/

Transcript: ServiceNation Presidential Forum at Columbia University
Filed Under Barack Obama, John McCain, Presidential Campaign 2008
(Source: CNN) (Deleted CNN Intro)

STENGEL: Let’s stay on the subject of military. You authorized a really interesting military policy, and it was started out as a bill that you mentioned you and Evan Bayh co-sponsored and then you inserted in the Defense Appropriations Act that blends military and civilian service, the 18-24-18 policy, which I won’t explain. But it’s leading me to a larger question. Why wouldn’t we have compulsory military service in America that has a civilian component? That if someone wants to opt out of military service, they can do their civilian service, like in your bill, and that it would become a unifying thing for America?

MCCAIN: Rick, first of all, I think that as much as I treasure our military service, there’s lots of ways to serve our country, too. And I want to emphasize that. I know we’re talking a lot about the military. But there’s so many ways to serve this country and there’s so many ways that are noble and wonderful, both at home and abroad. So I want to make that perfectly clear.

I think that it’s very clear AmeriCorps has been one of the astonishing successes. Peace Corps, we’ve seen the success for a long time, because Jack Kennedy obviously originated it.

But we have seen these volunteer organizations succeed. And if we need to, whether it’s connected to the military or not, provide them with sufficient reward and sufficient recognition.

You know, a lot of these young people are more proud of the fact that we recognize the ones walking around with the red jacket that say “City Year” than they are about the money.

MCCAIN: You know? I mean, that’s what they’re all about.

So I’d be glad to reward them as much as possible. But you want to be careful that the reason is not the reward of financial or other reasons, but the reward is the satisfaction of serving a cause greater than yourself. That would be fine with me. Finding new ways to serve. That’s what this next few years should be all about.

WOODRUFF: Senator McCain, Senator Obama has put forward a national service plan to do some of the things you talked about, the two of you agree. But his has a price tag of around $3.5 billion. Is that an amount of money you’d be willing to spend? More, less? I mean, is that in the ballpark?

MCCAIN: I’d be glad to spend money. I don’t think that should be the first priority in the kinds of benefits that are reaped from the kind of thing we’re trying to seek.

I haven’t agreed with all of what Senator Obama has proposed, but I think they’re very good proposals there. Some of them are new, some of them are obviously not.

But I also want to emphasize there, it doesn’t always have to be run by the government. That’s why we also ought to understand that faith-based organizations, other volunteer organizations that are completely separate from the government, have nothing to do with the government, are amongst the most successful.

So let’s not get entrapped by the idea that the government has to run these voluntary organizations and volunteer kinds of programs, because a lot of times the job can be done better with our encouragement.

WOODRUFF: So you’re not in favor necessarily of a distinct government role?

MCCAIN: Oh, we have a distinct government role — the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, all of these other organizations. But I want to be careful about expanding it when — my philosophy is let’s not have government do things that the private sector can do, or other organizations can do. That’s just my theory of government.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/11/transcript-servicenation-presidential-forum-at-columbia-university/

Time Report
McCain, Obama Keep It Civic
By Kate Pickert Friday, Sep. 12, 2008

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840733,00.html

Clip (date not documented on site reference)

“After 9/11, when America was united, I wouldn’t have asked Americans to go shopping or take a trip. I would have asked Americans to serve, find ways to serve, and provide ways to serve.I would ask people - first and foremost - to consider joining the military. I would have expanded the Peace Corps. I would have expanded AmeriCorps. I would have setup neighborhood volunteer organizations. I would have asked everyone to serve in some way. I believe Americans would have responded very affirmatively.Yes, I would expand AmeriCorps. Yes, I would expand the Peace Corps."


http://servicevote.org/content/view/278/118/

McCain's previous opposition to Americorps

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "I was wrong about AmeriCorps."
In 1993, Sen. McCain voted against the creation of the AmeriCorps program
and later joined with Congressional Republican
in efforts to zero-out funding. In January 2000 he said, "I was wrong
about AmeriCorps... I was extremely skeptical at first, mostly
because I didn?t trust the authors. But I?ve got to say that, over all,
the program?s been a success. And it was a failure on my
part not to recognize that earlier." [Klein, New Yorker, 1/17/2000] McCain
was also a cosponsor of the AmeriCorps
reauthorization bill in the 106th Congress.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/library/hot_releases/January_15_2001_7.html

More resources

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/11/se.01.html

Interesting reads

http://beltwayblips.com/story/time_release_on_candidates_9_11forum/

http://cbs5.com/national/barack.obama.john.2.815646.html

Note: Actually, if you review the videotape the audience actually clapped when Obama answered yes, he'd bring back the ROTC on the campus...

Sep 11, 2008 8:06 pm US/Pacific
Obama, McCain Upset Columbia Students During Forum
A Night Of 9/11 Healing In NYC Gets Awkward When Both Candidates Push For Return Of ROTC To Campus
McCain Blames Harsh Tone Of Campaign On Lack Of Town Halls
NEW YORK (CBS) ― It wasn't a night to ruffle feathers, but Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain may have unintentionally done that very thing when they proposed that ROTC be brought back to Columbia University

http://cbs5.com/national/barack.obama.john.2.815646.html

The Sarah Palin Doctrine

Charles Krauthammer (CK) defends Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin's response to Charlie Gibson's question about the "Bush Doctrine" in his piece entitled Charlie Gibson's Gaffe by pointing out he coined the Bush Doctrine in a 2001 article. CK explains further the defining two-parter forming the Bush Doctrine expanded after 9/11, and all three parts were superseded by a fourth.

First the transcript (we heard first-hand) but did not hear the word No, preceding Gibson's stating "the Bush Doctrine (enunciated) annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War."

ABCNEWS Excerpts

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

In what respect, Charlie?

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Well, what do you interpret it to be?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

His world view?

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war.

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/

transcript of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/

Clip

In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.

In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Now let's think. Ask the regular man or woman on the street, what is the Bush Doctrine and do you agree with it, or disagree with it?

We bet nobody, absolutely nobody, will name the one CK says supersedes the previous ones. Nobody will say: spread democracy around the world.

Except for a few who have read CK and are biting into his explanation, or drinking the koolaid, so to speak, responders to the question will - unlike Charlie Gibson's "anticipatory self-defense" either use one word, "pre-emption," or in street language, use two words: "strike first."

Gibson had the question exactly right. Do you AGREE with the Bush Doctrine?

Had Palin been aware of CK's publication and coining of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" and its subsequent expansion, Sarah Palin would have, not could have, or should have, but would have answered Charlie Gibson with a three or even four part question.

Charlie, as Palin had taken to uttering Gibson's first name throughout the interview, the Bush Doctrine includes these several parts.

Which one do you want me to address? All four? OK.

I agree. President Bush was right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

I agree. President Bush was right to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

I agree.

I agree.

Notice, Palin didn't actually answer whether she agreed with the Gibson pick.

Palin did cleverly imply that the Bush Doctrine as Gibson presented was missing a key facet: an "impending" attack on the United States.

Few have caught Palin's intention in her answer. To justify the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson defined as "premptive strike."

Palin's responses were not only the sign of a regular politician, they were the sign of a dangerous one. One who changes historical facts to suit one's own purposes.

Beware of the Palin Doctrine.

See if you can define it in one word.

Net the Truth Online

CK on Fox Panel

'Special Report' Panel on Sarah Palin's First Big Media Interview
Saturday, September 13, 2008

rush transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume" from September 12, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush--what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September, 2002 before the Iraq war, that we have a right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Now, Charles, critics say she seemed a little unsure of herself there about what the Bush doctrine was. What do you make of that?

KRAUTHAMMER: Fred is right. It was Charlie Gibson's gaffe.

And this was reported by liberals as if it was a huge mistake that she stumbled, she didn't seem to understand what the Bush doctrine was, and he informed her.

Well, he didn't. He got it wrong. He assumed there's one Bush doctrine. In fact, there are at least four versions which succeeded each other over the eight years of this administration.

And the one that is currently understood as the Bush doctrine, the one that has been around since 2005, is the one enunciated by the president in his second inaugural address, "the freedom agenda," in which he said that the success of the liberty at home is dependent on the success of liberty abroad.

And that is what everybody understands today as the Bush doctrine. It superseded the understanding of the Bush doctrine which Gibson had proposed.

If you hear liberals gleefully say that Iraq has destroyed the Bush doctrine, it is not destroying the idea of preemptive war, it is destroying the idea of spreading democracy.

So Gibson is the one who made a mistake, but he had that kind of condescending sneer that you get among the establishment in instructing a person who to them now appears as a moose hunting rube...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421882,00.html

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

More

Palin vs. Gibson, Round 1
The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008

http://www.slate.com/id/2199999/

James Fellows

The Palin interview

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

Mika Interviews Dad

Just had to turn to Morning Joe for a little bit as the family get-together was enticing. Mika Brzezinski sat in on the gang's interview of her father, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ... he recently completed a book with Brent Scowcroft... the gang includes Ron Suskind...

ZB: ...we started a war in Iraq that was not necessary... refused to seriously negotiate with Iran about the nuclear situation... avoided Pakistan and Afghanistan... we've made things worse... way we dealt with region made things much more inhospitable... pleads a case for both candidates... though he supports Barack Obama... we don't know the world... next president must use the bully pulpit to educate the public on the new world... doesn't endorse a particular candidate in the book...

Mika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Brzezinski

Projection Earth Cooling

Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway

The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm

Glenn Beck: Bailout Stealth to Socialism

Glenn's introduction on his Wednesday program to the topic of the government's takeover of Fannie and Freddie is a must view/read.

Senator Bunning was unequivocally superb.

Ron Paul was more than well spoken on the grossness of the Federal Reserve, and the irresponsibility of Congress.

Net the Truth Online

Obama Responds to Lipstick Comment Controversy; Can Hillary Help Obama?; Automakers Seek Government Bailout

Aired September 10, 2008

First, welcome to "THE REAL STORY." Two months ago Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson responded to investors` worries over the mortgage market by issuing this long-winded never-ending statement that says, "Today our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form as they carry out their important mission". I guess the key word in that statement was "today."

Eight weeks later those companies are no longer in their "current form". In fact, there is hardly any company left in them at all. They are more like a massive government agency. Goody.

I don`t remember voting for that agency or authorizing over $5 trillion in debt to be put on our country`s already bloated balance sheet. Do you remember that vote?

Here`s the one that will make blood shoot out of your eyes. Senator Chris Dodd, he`s the guy who usually has no problem spending your money. Even he is irritated over his lack of influence on this.

After hearing about the take over, he said that it`s probably necessary. Sure would like to know more.

I`m sorry. What did you say? You would like to know a little more? I`m sorry to be a stickler on details here, but weren`t you the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee? I`m pretty sure you are. I thought you would inquire about multi-trillion dollar takeovers before they happened. Call me crazy.

"THE REAL STORY" is that we have lost control over our financial system. It`s like you know that game "Whack the Mole?" We`re so focused on bashing the head of whatever pops up in front of us, it surprises us, we have no long-term plan, we have path to victory. May I quote the Democrats? We have no exit strategy.

Our only vision for the future is that all of our losses should be socialized so we can pretend that we don`t have problems anymore. Forget about tomorrow. We have no problems today.

It`s like that "shared prosperity" that you keep hear being from Obama; you know, minus the prosperity part. Here`s the question. Nobody seems to be asking this. If we are to believe our leaders that Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie all had to be rescued to save our entire financial system from collapse, what does that say about our financial system?

Are these people really trying to tell us that America`s economy could be brought down by one mismanaged company? And if so, these people are guilty of gross negligence for getting us into this position. If not then they are lying.

Either way, you can see why our leaders are held in such high regard right now. The truth is that scaring people with threats of collapse is right out of the Communist manifesto. You convince people that they can`t survive without the government and lo and behold, they will run to the government.

There is no trust with our leaders and no confidence and worse, no accountability in Washington. When a Republican administration can take us this far down a Socialist road with so little objection, I can`t imagine what is coming our way next.

Republican Senator Jim Bunning is from Kentucky. Apparently he can`t imagine it either. He`s called for the resignation of Hank Paulson and Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke yesterday. Good for you, Senator. Good for you.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/10/gb.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/10/gb.01.html

Obama credits cartoonist, we find.

Net the Truth Online

Obama Repeatedly Quotes Cartoonist While on Campaign Trail
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama delivered the same applause line during speeches in Terre Haute, Ind., on Saturday and Farmington Hills, Mich., on Monday. Only during the Monday event did he attribute the line to a cartoonist.

“You know, there was a cartoon the other day, it’s true,” he said before repeating the line. “So this is just a bunch of empty talk.”

Asked about the lifting of Toles’ line, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the candidate did not initially know the source of the line, which he had gotten from a friend.

“This came to Senator Obama from a friend who didn’t indicate where he had gotten it from, but the questions it raises certainly continue to ring true,” LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

“He did not know it was from a cartoon and when he was informed that it was, he credited the cartoonist.” LaBolt said.

Toles told FOXNews.com that after the first use, Post editors got in touch with the campaign and Obama made sure to credit Toles when he used the line on Monday. But in Tuesday’s speech, he again used the line without referencing the cartoon.

Toles said he is OK with Obama’s use of his line now that it has gotten credit.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/obama-repeatedly-quotes-cartoonist-while-on-campaign-trail/

A good line, but not Obama's
Posted by Scott Helman, Political Reporter September 8, 2008

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/a_good_line_but.html

Did Obama Steal his ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Speech from a Political Cartoon?
Posted on September 10, 2008

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/10/did-obama-steal-his-lip-stick-on-a-pig-speech-from-a-political-cartoon/

Fox on Obama and 'raised muslim'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

McCain Advisor wrote book Lipstick on a Pig

Hardball's Chris Matthews nails Republican spin on "lipstick on a pig" when he pulls out the book of that title and its supported meaning by the author, a former Press Secretary to John McCain.

Matthews shows the McCain campaign ad twice for the Republican guest who won't admit Obama has not called Palin a pig... let alone the quip used by Obama did not even reference Palin in its context.

Matthews plays the full segment of Obama's remarks leading up to the lipstick cliche. He questions another guest, a Congresswoman, about Republicans who have used the same phrase, including former senator Rick Santorum.

In response, the guest brings up another matter, saying she's heard word that Obama's campaign has traveled to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin.

Matthews asks whether Republicans never engage in opposition research.

Unfortunately, Matthews hasn't noted the word likely stems from a John Fund report which according to the following TPM site has been 'discredited.'

Note: On Fox 'n Friends this morning the trio discussed the Obama comment and the McCain ad. As the ad ran, the screen described the Obama quip as Obama on Palin...

McCain Ad Cites Discredited Claim That Dems Sent Team to Dig Up Palin Dirt
By Zachary Roth - September 10, 2008, 12:37PM
Yesterday, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal reported that "Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background."

The story was quickly seized on by Republicans eager to portray a Democratic vendetta against Palin. Sean Hannity repeated it on Fox last night. And now the McCain campaign has released an ad that cites Fund's report, and depicts the Democratic investigators as wolves on the prowl.

There's only one problem: It appears not to be true. Within hours, the DNC's research director, Mark Gehrke, had issued a blanket denial, to The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, who reported: "'Not a single person from DC or Chicago has traveled to Alaska to do research,' [Gehrke] writes. Not a single Obama staffer, not a DNC staffer, not a hired gun, he says." Gehrke repeated that denial to TPM's Election Central just now.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/mccain_ad_cites_discredited_claim_th.php

Maverick's "lipstick" comments ignored?

Net the Truth Online

McCain Health Care Plan Puts Focus on Spending
By MARC SANTORA
Published: October 12, 2007

Mr. McCain also criticized the Democratic plans, but his comments were more in passing and were far less barbed.

But when asked about Mrs. Clinton his speech, he said her proposal was “eerily” similar to the plan she came up with in 1993, when she headed a health care reorganization effort during her husband’s administration. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12health.html?fta=y

More

Linking to a separate report on Obama's comments, conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge placed the words "OBAMA: 'LIPSTICK ON A PIG, STILL A PIG' " under a picture of Palin.

A video clip posted on YouTube contains part of Obama's comments leading up to the "lipstick on a pig" expression:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026

Obama Accuses McCain Campaign of ‘Swift Boat Politics’
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

McCain’s campaign called Obama’s comments “offensive and disgraceful” and said he owes Palin an apology.

Obama’s campaign said the “lipstick on a pig” expression — frequently used in Washington D.C. — wasn’t referring to Palin, and GOP outrage is “a pathetic attempt to play the gender card.”

The common analogy is “the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run,” said Obama campaign senior adviser Anita Dunn.

In an appearance Wednesday on Fox News, McCain’s eldest daughter Meghan acknowledged that her father has said the phrase before, but objected to its use.

“I mean, I have heard my dad say that the term lipstick on a pig. I don’t like anyone being
referred to as a pig in any context. I think there is a lot more educated conversations we can have than these remarks,” she said.

The Obama campaign swiftly circulated a 2007 article that quoted McCain using the term “lipstick on a pig” to refer to a health care proposal from Hillary Clinton.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki also noted that Obama too has used the expression before — to criticize the troop surge in Iraq.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/obama-accuses-mccain-of-swift-boat-politics/

Gobal Warming Debate: Minister Terms Green Alarmists

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion".

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.

Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a "deeply irresponsible message."

Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.

"The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.

The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.

"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

State public-records gatekeeper to err on side of openness
By David Spett
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, September 2, 2008

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/state/s_585957.html

Reason's Input

Global Warming Debate at Reason

Carbon: Tax, Trade, or Deregulate?
Something is going to be "done" about global warming, so what should it be? A debate. Lynne Kiesling, Ronald Bailey and Fred L. Smith

http://www.reason.com/issues/show/704.html

Obama and Big Government
Should libertarians fear the Democratic nominee?
Steve Chapman | August 28, 2008

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128356.html


More

http://www.reason.com/convention2008/#128526

Who Killed the Constitution? (Book)

By: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman

“Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”

--Thomas Jefferson

The United States Constitution – the bedrock of our country – is … dead.

This is the dirty little secret that bestselling authors Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Kevin R. Gutzman expose in this provocative new book. The fact is that government officials – Democrats and Republicans, president, judges, and congresses alike – long ago rejected the idea that the Constitution possesses a fixed meaning limiting the U.S. government’s power.



http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=94&ITEM_ID=2380

PA State Rep. Tim Mahoney Keystone Opportunity Zones Position Not Noted

This site does not endorse candidates for political office.

We do seek truth and straight talk about public official's actions. Likewise, we point out the actions and record of any opponents seeking office.

Mr. Griglak neglects to point out state Rep. Tim Mahoney stated publicly he agreed Keystone Opportunity Zones are unfair, not uniform according to the PA Constitution, and are unconstitutional.

Monday, September 10, 2007
Keystone Opportunity Zones unfair agrees state legislator Tim Mahoney

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

Then Rep. Mahoney had an opportunity to vote his conscience and oppose the House measure initiated by colleague Rep. Peter Daley to expand KOZ's run another 7 to 10 years to those who applied for the designation and who received approval.

Daley expedites governor's economic recovery plan

http://www.pahouse.com/pr/049031208.asp

On the other side of the coin, is Rep. Mahoney's opponent, Gary Gearing, running as an independent candidate for the 51st District seat.

Gearing supports KOZs and in fact received KOZ designation for property he owns.

we cover these issues here and at Wake Up.

Net the Truth Online

Mahoney praised for leadership
By Martin Griglak
09/14/2008

It is a rare occasion when I feel compelled to write a letter to a newspaper. In this case, a friend recently gave me a clipping written by a person who would like to have state Rep. Tim Mahoney's seat in the state House of Representatives. He has every democratic right to aspire to elected office. However, I am concerned about how his ambition has driven him to attack the honorable reputation of our incumbent, rather than presenting his own qualifications for how he could do a better job...

...Tim Mahoney is a man of few words. If he says he's going to do something, you can take it to the bank. Unlike most politicians, he doesn't use "political correct" speech. He is not ambiguous, but is the epitome of straight talk. I have never known him to renege on a promise. His debut in Harrisburg has been spectacular...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20120257&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

PA State Rep. Timothy Mahoney responds to a Herald-Standard letter-to-the-editor written previously by his opponent, Gary Gearing, an independent running for the 51st District seat Mahoney has held in Harrisburg for the past two years. A major criticism of both candidates for PA representative for the 51st District is individual support of Keystone Opportunity Zones.

Gary Gearing obtained KOZ status for property back about 2002. Three taxing-bodies endorsed the tax-forgiveness program for the building and apartment units in downtown Uniontown, with the "stipulation" the building was "brought up to code," and efforts were made to attract outside, and new, business.

To date, it is unclear whether the Fayette Bank building - a wonderful historic building the Gearings purchased at an auction-sales around ten years ago - complies fully with the local building codes or has been improved to any large extent.

State Rep. Timothy Mahoney's criticism is well-placed, to some extent because he is certainly correct the KOZ program involves tax-shifting.

And a mere year ago, it appeared Rep. Mahoney was well on his way to embracing the facts KOZs are unconstitutional. Last September, 2007, he said publicly in response to a question on a local radio program he agreed KOZs were unfair, not uniform according to PA Constitutional and unconstitutional.

Monday, September 10, 2007
Keystone Opportunity Zones unfair agrees state legislator Tim Mahoney

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

Yet nearly a year after he made the comment on WMBS radio, he voted for bill which again EXPANDED and EXTENDED KOZs.

We've covered these situations here and at Wake Up.

Search Results Net the Truth Online

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=tim+mahoney+koz

HB 2297 PN 3702 susp mot rules

Y MAHONEY

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2007&sess_ind=0&rc_body=H&rc_nbr=1678

Prior to that vote, we wrote Rep. Mahoney twice using his online form site submission. We have yet to be afforded the courtesy of a response.

It's truly puzzling why the letter in response to an opponent's letter does not include Rep. Mahoney's clear position on support of Keystone Opportunity Zones.

Rep. Mahoney states in his Herald-Standard letter

Results are what really counts
By Rep. Tim Mahoney
08/31/2008

...Mr. Gary Gearing, on the other hand, already receives a complete property tax break with his Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ) status on the Fayette Building in downtown Uniontown. (KOZ, if you don't know, is a program for a commercial, industrial and/or residential site where most state and local taxes have been eliminated).

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20099339&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20099339&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Somebody should ask both candidates, and any others who may run as write-ins, how tax-shifting, as Rep. Mahoney correctly notes is fair, uniform according to existing law, and constitutional?

On another issue, open records, Rep. Mahoney states in the Herald-Standard Letter:

I led the charge for open records in Pennsylvania and that is a documented fact. I am very proud of that and I will continue to work to bring openness to government.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20099339&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

While all would certainly agree Rep. Mahoney indeed led a charge for legislation on open records, and his legislation did include the "flip of presumption" so central to any decent open records legislation, (that effort was supported at the outset by many, including these quarters, and the PA Newspaper Association, the legislation Rep. Mahoney originally submitted did NOT APPLY to past records.

From the outset neither the PNA or other organizations were overly critical of that aspect. a mere handful, include us, of activists criticized the bill heavily for that detraction. Even after undergoing House amendment process, the original legislation never did when it was ultimately sent to the Senate for agreement or alteration.

The Senate Bill 1 altered that facet of House Bill 443. In addition, at the outset of the presentation of Rep. Mahoney's bill, the PA Newspaper Association supported the overall effort to enable the "flip of presumption" and was on-board with that aspect over any detracting parts of the bill. Those included its application to only future records. Spokespersons for the PNA also criticized the bill for its exemptions as did Democracy Rising PA's Tim Potts who noted legislation passed in other states did NOT include many of the 2 dozen exemptions in Mahoney's Bill.

It's unclear when Potts tagged the bill the "Corruption Protection Act," but he did so around the time the state government committee took action which expanded an exemption pertaining to electronic communications. The committee expanded the exemption. That led the PNA to pull its support from House Bill 443, due to its "blanket exemptions for legislative e-mails," and turn its attention to Sen. Pileggi's Senate Bill 1.

Meanwhile, state Rep. Babette Josephs presented an amendment which would have removed the language for "blanket exemptions..." and while Rep. Mahoney, Kula, and Daley voted yes on the measure, state Rep. H. William DeWeese cast a NO vote.

Yet, Rep. Mahoney, and the others from this district have not uttered a word about this true obvious difference of opinion with their Democratic caucus leader.

We'll track further and update with more links should more info become available on Rep. Mahoney and Gearing be asked about their KOZ positions and how they differ.



Net the Truth Online...

Results are what really counts
Herald-Standard
By Rep. Tim Mahoney
08/31/2008

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20099339&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

More

Local Reps Reps. Daley, Kula and Mahoney voice support for DeWeese...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20079708&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=565757&rfi=8

http://grassrootspa.com/?p=7158#comments

PA Citizen Investigator Anonymous | 2008-08-20 11:03:08 | +1

Have to agree with soccerdad999 that the Herald-Standard Harr article was an insightful story. (inciting, too or should be to thinking out of the poli-box voters) Thanks to RJF for the Net the Truth Online link plug above.

Surprising is Daley’s continued support knowing full-well of DeWeese’s in-House tactics to ‘reign’ in any strays from the fold. The Mahoney/Kula support isn’t quite as puzzling as it’s quite easy to say one thing in public and do everything but behind closed-doors and later even in public.

See Mahoney’s flip-flop on his stated negative position on Keystone Opportunity Zones, but his actions in a House vote on an extension of KOZs.

Monday, September 10, 2007
Keystone Opportunity Zones unfair agrees state legislator Tim Mahoney

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

By the way, it was Rep. Peter Daley who co-sponsored the KOZ expansion legislation that passed with the OK from Mahoney. The measure was a little-known but key part of Gov. Ed Rendell’s economic stimulus package.

Daley expedites governor’s economic recovery plan

http://www.pahouse.com/pr/049031208.asp

What’s missing from the Harr article? Any notice or info of a call by new-leaf DeWeese, or any others who touted their own horns on delivering open records reform, to release all the details pertaining to those House Democratic Caucus (alleged)(campaign) spam or blast emails, and the electronic addresses on which they are based, and any and all related political campaign websites. Un-released to the public as of yet are the particulars of those contracts engaged in between the House Democratic Caucus and either/or/and Eric Buxton and businessman James Russell (who allegedly according to the Corbett Bonusgate Grand Jury report actually secretly vied for the contract for those services).

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
DeWeese Not Asked to Open Closed Bonusgate Blast Email Website Contracts

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/08/deweese-not-asked-to-open-closed.html

At the very least, all of these area legislators should call for immediately opening up the House Democratic Caucus records regarding these (alleged taxpayer-funded/resources) blast emails and potential political campaign websites whose particulars might be in the alleged, but ‘existing’ contracts. No excuse the Corbett investigation continues and we can’t release anything, or we don’t know. It isn’t a matter of knowing or not knowing the contents of the contract/s. The public now knows at least if they’re paying any attention, bonusgate is about much more than what the regular media is publicizing or covering back home.

A contract or contracts exist between at least the House Democratic Caucus and Buxton’s private company and Russell and firm. (allegedly)

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
PA Bonusgate Lists Helped 2006 Winners

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/08/pa-bonusgate-lists-helped-2006-winners.html

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Bonusgate PA Spam Scam

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/08/bonusgate-pa-spam-scam.html

The voting public should have all the info before November 2008 to make an informed choice among political party candidates. Less than that is simply business as usual. A mode-of-operation DeWeese vowed to alter, actually, he said upon his 2006 re-election, he’d noted a culture existed among the four General Assembly caucuses.

DeWeese’s statement upon (July 2008) indictments handed down by Tom Corbett.

Said DeWeese: “Today’s announcement is an indictment of a culture that has existed in all four caucuses of the General Assembly for far too long, and which I committed to changing upon my re-election in 2006.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_577061.html

We tracked in-his-own words in that regard, too. How could DeWeese be aware of a culture among the four caucuses “upon” his re-election in 2006 when notification of a potential “investigation” of bonuses related to campaign work didn’t occur until long after that November election? In fact when exactly did H. William DeWeese hire Chadwick Associates who subsequently conducted an internal House investigation of legislative communications, before announcement of Corbett’s investigation? The Post-Gazette article note is dated Dec. 16, 2007 and references a March in-House investigation, so that puts the date of any potential knowledge gained from the internal investigation at approximately March, 2007.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Will DeWeese Face Electoral Defeat for Wrong Understanding?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/08/will-deweese-face-electoral-defeat-for.html

E-mails show how Dems tied staffers’ bonuses to campaign work
Sunday, December 16, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
HARRISBURG — E-mail messages exchanged by top aides in the Democratic caucus starting in 2004 make clear that taxpayer-funded bonuses were given to legislative employees for their work on election campaigns.

The messages, obtained by the Post-Gazette, are a key component in an investigation by Attorney General Tom Corbett into the bonuses and whether they constituted an illegal use of state money for political work…

…DeWeese investigation
Most of the e-mails and spreadsheets were first uncovered by House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, of Waynesburg, who had delegated much of the day-to-day operation of the caucus to Mr. Veon. Mr. DeWeese, after accumulating information from state computers, provided thousands of e-mail exchanges, which are now at the core of the state attorney general’s case.

None of the materials obtained by the Post-Gazette suggests that Mr. DeWeese was aware of the scheme. Mr. Veon did not respond to a message seeking comment.

After initially being told by staff that the bonuses were routine seniority and holiday awards, Mr. DeWeese said he discovered that the bonuses amounted to $1.9 million. He then ordered an internal inquiry, calling in William Chadwick, a former prosecutor, in March, prior to the announcement of a criminal probe by the attorney general.

E-mails show how Dems tied staffers’ bonuses to campaign work
Sunday, December 16, 2007

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07350/842079-85.stm

November 14, 2007

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=3117

One of a few articles on the blast emails and website (s) ? service

Eric Buxton, a former Democratic aide and son of Rep. Ronald Buxton, R-Harrisburg, testified under immunity about setting up the House Democratic Campaign Committee Web site in 2004 on state time. He also described how campaign e-mails were written and sent from inside the Capitol using an offsite server in Michigan to mask their origin.

Buxton testified that in 2005 he set up his own private company, Govercom, after negotiating a deal with Manzo and director of information technologies Steve Keefer to do work for the caucus.

Keefer, of Lebanon County, is also charged in the case. Buxton told the grand jury that the contract appeared to be for legitimate government work but instead was for e-mail work for Democratic campaigns.

The House Democratic caucus paid Buxton’s company $420,000 in taxpayer money between 2005 and 2007, the report states.

Businessman James Rossell was granted immunity and testified that his company, Gravity Web Media, also did campaign work with state contracts. He told Keefer and Manzo that he could do a better job than Buxton of servicing Web sites and sending blast e-mails, and later was awarded a caucus contract with terms that are not disclosed in the grand-jury report.

“The subsequent contract made no reference to the performance of any campaign work,” the grand jury report states. “Rossell testified that it was very clear, from the very beginning, that his work would not be limited to the language of the contract.”

Little fish snag Pa Bonusgate immunity By RICHARD FELLINGER Public Opinion Harrisburg Bureau in

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_10009637

http://grassrootspa.com/?p=7158#comments

bobguzzardi | 2008-08-20 13:04:29 | +0

On the other hand, DeWeese and Mahoney got Open Records passed. It would never have happened had Perzel been Speaker or Rs in the majority. Opening up the bonus records is what started this all rolling and there will be more in 2009 and even the Gov deserves credit for appointing someone who appears to be a public servant and not a hack.

Systemic secrecy of the Leadership Accounts is not being addressed by anyone, not media, not bloggers, not grassroots, not Republicans or even conservatives.


http://grassrootspa.com/?p=7158#comments

PA Citizen Investigator Anonymous | 2008-08-20 18:58:14 | +0

DeWeese and Mahoney got Open Records passed. It would never have happened had Perzel been Speaker or Rs in the majority. bob guzzardi

The original Mahoney HB 443 open records bill and the subsequent HB 443 the House passed and sent on over to the Senate did not apply to past records.

Pennsylvania pushes to open records By Brad Bumsted Tribune Review Tuesday, October 16, 2007

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

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

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

Pennsylvania pushes to open records By Brad Bumsted Tribune Review Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Also see:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
PA Open Records Reform: Exemption Central

And, the House version offered by Mahoney originally contained approximately two-dozen exemptions. In October, 2007, Tim Potts, Democracy Rising PA, tagged HB 443, The “Corruption Protection Act.” It’s unclear whether he made the statement just prior to the House State Government Committee action, or shortly after action. The action expanded the e-mail exemption clause to “blanket exemptions for electronic communication.”

Brad Bumstead’s Shh! More State Secrets published November 11, 2007 points out a little known amendment to HB 443 presented by Rep. Babette Josephs. Had the measure passed, it would have removed the language from the bill regarding “blanket exemptions for electronic communication.”

Bumsted:
Rep. Babette Josephs, chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, last month offered an amendment to remove what the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association calls a “blanket exemption” for lawmakers’ e-mail in House Bill 443. The Philadelphia Democrat’s amendment was defeated 127-69 with seven members excused.

Here’s the punch-line: Fayette representatives who voted yes on the amendment included Kula, Daley, and Mahoney. So Mahoney voted yes on the amendment because a yes vote would have removed the blanket exemptions for e-mail language.

The lone “No” vote from the Fayette contingency: Rep. H. William DeWeese.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008
PA House Leader DeWeese No Questions on Open Records Email Blanket Exemptions

Bumstead’s Shh! More State Secrets November 11, 2007 A “yes” vote would have made lawmakers’ e-mail available (if approved finally). A “no” vote scuttled her amendment and maintained the status quo:

Meanwhile back in 2006 Absence of re-elected DeWeese’s name from a December 2006 PA Newspaper Association’s Brighter Pennsylvania “open records” effort

Now take a look at 2006 close election results.

Around October, 2007 the PA Newpaper Association pulled its support from 443 and cast its attention to Pileggi’s efforts in the Senate per Senate Bill 1. Per that pressure, changes were made to SB 1 - Pileggi too saw the value of the “flip of presumption…”

Key Pa. Senate leader backs wider state open-records law June 4, 2007 By MARK SCOLFORO
Associated Press Writer

The PA Newpaper Association and its project Brighter Pennsylvania was satisfied and Pileggi’s bill went forward to passage. Importantly, SB 1 reversed the House’s presentation and its non-application to past records, and removed the blanket exemptions for electronic communication.

Meanwhile, in the House, there were still grumblings, but House members had no recourse but to sign on to the Senate bill.

last time I checked, Senator Pileggi is a Republican.

Senator Pileggi’s Open Records Bill Unanimously Approved by Senate Appropriations Committee

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

http://grassrootspa.com/?p=7158#comments