Interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight
This controversy is the subject of our "Face-Off debate." Now joining me, radio talk show host, Joe Madison, WOL in Washington of SIRIUS/XM Radio. Radio talk show host Andrew Wilkow, also SIRIUS/XM.
Gentlemen, great to have you with us.
Andrew, let me start with you. It sounds like the president, who, I don't think anyone would argue, misspoke. Let's keep it as gentle as we can, misspoke. But, it sounds like he's trying to reconcile a mess to which he acknowledges today that he contributed to. That's a positive, isn't it?
ANDREW WILKOW, SIRIUS/XM RADIO: I'm kind of shocked that a guy with such great oratory skills, being a congressional law professors would claim guilty until proven innocent. I mean, "I don' t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly?" Come on. There's not enough minutia for the president to deal with that he had to step into this one?
DOBBS: Joe Madison, your thoughts? We're sitting here -- the president, today, acknowledging -- he said it sort of interestingly. He continues to believe that Professor Gates did not effectively behave well. I didn't hear him say that the first time. Did you?
JOE MADISON, WOL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: No, he didn't say it the first time. He clarified it, I think, in Cleveland. But, I think your notes will show when I talked to your produce earlier today, even before the president went into the press room, that this is a learning moment.
The president clearly blew it. Gates probably overreacted. I may have done the same if I had a cold and had gotten off a long flight from China. I think, for example, when I looked at the law in Massachusetts, the police really would not have had a case if he -- if they had not dropped the case on disorderly conduct, because according to a '76 decision, no matter how verbally abusive a person might be, you cannot find them guilty of disorderly conduct.
So, all the way around, three people made mistakes. And the one thing I do applaud the president, is that he now has come forth and says, let's defuse it. So the question is, where do we go as a people, as a country from here. And don't let this one incident -- and I'll conclude with this, absolve the problem of racial profiling, nationwide.
DOBBS: Yeah, you know, Joe's just gone to an issue that is difficult here, because on its face, Andrew, is this racial profiling and what debt do we owe the president of the United States for there being a very close national media examination of the events that happened in Cambridge, Massachusetts?
WILKOW: You know -- we hear the Democrats saying that the stimulus money is going to keep cops on the streets during Election Day. They talked about cops this and cops that. And his immediate reaction is to throw the cops under the bus. To me, this sounds like a way of, you know, boosting the stock of "Race Baiting Incorporated."
I mean, we elected the first Black president. The NAACP is passing climate change resolutions. And you know, it seems like we're -- for some people, they're never going to get -- as long as there is money and attention and votes invested in race baiting, the race baiting is going to continue. This seems to be the natural instinct of a community organizer that, well, it's got to be the cops, got to be the cops, they acted stupidly. I don't know what really happened, but I know the cops are the bad guys, here.
MADISON: Well, I am one who has been profiled probably more times than you have, Andrew, and so has my son. And the point I'm making is that we're not baiting anybody. What we're asking is that we stop the profiling... WILKOW: Well, wait a second. Come on, you're shouting...
MADISON: And I'm not -- excuse me, I didn't interrupt you.
WILKOW: OK, yes, sir.
MADISON: And with all due respect, and I'm not suggesting that this was profiling. What I am suggesting is that two grown men probably got overanxious and excited at each other and neither could find the way to step back. And I think that's really what happened here, and I applaud the president for trying to defuse it. And that's what we've got to do...
WILKOW: But, why did he get involved in the first place? Why was the president of the United States even involved in the first place?
MADISON: Well, because he was -- look, because he was asked a direct question. And I agree, and the president obviously went back the next day in the Oval Office and said, uh-oh, I didn't use the right words. But, you know, if he had been asked a question about Afghanistan or a question about something else and if he didn't answer it directly, we would have criticized him for avoiding it. So, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
WILKOW: No, no, Afghanistan is not a question of innocent until proven guilty. He could have clearly said, you know, that's for the mayor of Cambridge to deal with or the police chief of Cambridge to deal with. There was no reason for him to step into this. This has nothing to do with the president of the United States. For him to forwardly admit that he doesn't know and then lay guilt at the feet of a police officer, to me, seems ridiculous for a constitutional law professor.
MADISON: Well, look Andrew, if that's the case, then neither the sergeant nor Professor Gates ought to accept an invitation to the White House.
WILKOW: Well, I mean...
MADISON: So, I mean, come one man.
DOBBS: I don't understand how that follow, Joe.
MADISON: Well, what I'm trying to say, if Andrew is saying, he shouldn't get in it, then maybe the president should come back on and say, you know, I saw Andrew on Lou Dobbs' show, and he's right, I should ought to stay out of it. I'm sorry, I even invited them to the White House. What he's trying to do is defuse a debate -- and quite honestly, we know in part for political purposes so we can start talking about health care.
DOBBS: By the way, and I'm not sure he wants us talking about health care, either, but maybe something else.
(LAUGHTER) WILKOW: I'll talk about health care.
DOBBS: Let's stick with this, if we may, because he talked about a teachable experience, which to me, frankly, sounds like an arrogant piece of condescension to all parties involved, on the part of the White House. I understand they got to spin this out. But, the teachable moment is here for a president who, you know, Andrew put it eloquently, he through the police under the bus.
It was a teachable moment for Professor Gates, who was arrogant, and frankly, aggressive with a police officer, and for Sergeant Crowley, who, teaching as he does, racial profiling with a tremendous record and as you articulated it, Joe, couldn't p find a way out of this mess. So, those are the teachable moments. For the nation, it should be -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MADISON: No, the only reason I'm interrupting...
DOBBS: And by the way, you're interrupting me as you shamed Andrew for doing.
MADISON: I know, I know, I know.
DOBBS: Say you're sorry, Joe.
MADISON: Go ahead.
DOBBS: No, you go ahead.
MADISON: No, I was going to say, we don't know, because when I interviewed Professor Gates -- and I'll take him for his word, like you are taking the police officer for his word -- Professor Gates told my audience that Sergeant Crowley was arrogant and that's what started it.
DOBBS: Oh yeah, by the way, however you want to characterize Sergeant Crowley, what I didn't take one person's word over the other. But, what I did listen to was telling us, here on CNN, that sergeant Crowley was a rogue officer, which on its face is not borne out by the eyewitnesses there, including a Black sergeant, who was there at the house, nor a Hispanic officer, who was there at the house, at the same time.
But I want to say this, Andrew, I'm delighted to spend some time with you.
WILKOW: I had fun.
DOBBS: Joe, I am delighted to spend more time with you, even if you interrupt me.
MADISON: Well, thank you. We share in that responsibility.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Don't interrupt me, don't interrupt me. Joe Madison, Andrew Wilkow, thank you both for being with here.
Up next, we'll have more one the Gates arrest controversy. Also, an open and bitter battle between the White House and Congress over health care. Is it failing health care? We'll be talking about that with three of the country's best political thinkers.
And a U.S. Border Patrol agent has shot and killed, murdered on patrol, protecting the people and the border of the United States.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now, three of my favorite political analyst, columnist, "New York Daily News," CNN contributor, Errol Louis; editor-at-large, CNN political analyst, "Time" magazine, Mark Halperin; former special assistant to former President George Bush, and former Vice President Dick Cheney, Ron Christie.
Thank you all for being here. Let me start, if I may, with you, Ron. The president seems to be bringing a teachable moment out of what was a controversy, up until about an hour ago -- or is it, in fact, a controversy that will continue beyond the teachable moment, so called?
RON CHRISTIE, CHRISTIE STRATEGIES: Well, I think this is going to be a story that's going to live on for a little while. I think in the short term, it's going to die down, but for the first time, people have looked at President Obama and the Teflon seems to be a little bit removed from him. And I think the president, I think, was very arrogant in the way that he said that the police department acted stupidly. The first thing you learn in law school is that you should never assume fact's not in evidence. The president made an assumption, he shouldn't have done it. He's the president of the United States...
DOBBS: He knew better than that, right? He said he didn't know the facts, but here's the judgment.
CHRISTIE: It's going to be something. And the last thing I would say is that for a president who campaigned to be post-racial and he wanted to move beyond race, he said he was too busy to wade into Tehran, when the Iranian students were protesting, but he immediately jumped in and said, oh, I have an opinion, here. I think it's going to follow him.
DOBBS: Errol?
ERROL LOUIS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: A mistake, I think, no doubt as he, himself, acknowledged. I would have loved to have been there he walked into the briefing room to sort of dial himself back...
DOBBS: I would have wanted to be in the room before...
LOUIS: Yeah. Well, apparently he realized he had made a serious mistake and the distraction of it, really, was crippling almost, in a way. I mean, because we're not talking about the previous hour that preceded that had remark where he was laying out his hopes and his agenda and his rationale for health care reform, which is very much in danger and he needed and wants the nation's focus on...
DOBBS: And how was this day any different from any previous day, and in that respect?
LOUIS: Well, you know, I mean, if he can get himself back on track, he'll have a chance at his health care reform, but right now, a very unwelcome distraction. He cannot be the explainer-in-chief on race. I mean, that has been clear all along and he really put us right in the middle of it.
DOBBS: He confirmed it this week.
LOUIS: Indeed.
DOBBS: Mark?
MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: I think the teachable moment and the person who's going to learn the first lesson, if he's lucky, is the president, because he cannot do all the things that Ron said, in particular. He cannot go out in front of reporters and wade in on an issue when he admits he doesn't know the facts, whether it involves race or not. This is a huge distraction for them. It will continue into next week. This president does not like what I call the freak show. He does not like the talk radio, 24-hour cable dynamic.
DOBBS: Tell me about it.
HALPERIN: He likes to say he can rise above it and he often does. This was a case, sometime between this morning, when Robert Gibbs said "we're done talking about this," and the afternoon when the president come out and talked about it, when the president had to realize, you can't always transcend it, sometimes you have to give. And that's what he did. I think it probably dies, unless there are new facts, by early next week.
DOBBS: Dying along with it, Ron Christie, his health care initiative, which, by the way, the national media, much of it liberal, styles his reform, which last I looked, was a positive and supportive description, rather than an objective and neutral word.
CHRISTIE: Sure, well, I think the president's health care initiative is on major life support, right now. The president has gone out and campaigned to the American people and said, we're going to have a bill that is not going to raise the deficit by one penny. The Congressional Budget Office has proven that's not true.
The president said he was very much for reforming the system, but the bill making its way through Congress, right now, has very little in the way of systematic and structural reform, doesn't reduce the cost of the health care delivery system and again, it doesn't ensure all American, which he said was his goal. So, I think he's in deep trouble on this one.
LOUIS: Well see, I mean, one thing about the current situation is you have a detailed critique of a nonexistent bill and so the president, it has...
DOBBS: Why in the world are they trying to pass a nonexistent bill?
LOUIS: Well, he's trying to get a bill so that they can get something done. I mean, look, the real dynamic here, I think, is he wants something passed before the end of the year, but really what that means is not so much the calendar year, but the midterm election season, when it heats up in earnest, will be very difficult to get anybody to take any chances.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: ...pushing this into the middle of next year?
LOUIS: Well no, I mean, listen, I've been saying, I don't know other people, I've been saying all along, what he doesn't get in the way of major reform on climate, on health care, what he doesn't get before the 2010 elections really heat up, he very possibly won't get it all, because 2011 signals the re-election season.
HALPERIN: There's two parts to his challenge: the inside game, Congress, and particularly within his own party, and the outside game of public opinion.
In the press conference, he did not make progress, as best I could tell, with either of those two audit dens. He is -- got to get, I think, past the point by saying, I'm -- sort of like that provision, I sort of don't like this provision or that provision. He's got to, I think, if he has a chance, he's going to have to get people in a room and say this is now what I'm for, can we pass this?
DOBBS: For the first time, two polls today, that is, Zogby's interactive poll and Rasmussen Reports poll, shows the president's approval rating below 50 percent. With the incident in -- with the Cambridge police department, he's facing some interesting headwinds, I think is the expression.
HALPERIN: I don't think those polls have him at the right place. I think he's higher. But the trend is certainly down and particularly people looking to him in terms of health care. He is going to have to succeed, I think, again, first in Washington in the inside game to get public opinion back up. I don't think he can rally public opinion, right now, just from a standing start.
CHRISTIE: I think Mark's right on that and I think the president's numbers are going down because he has so personally involved himself in the health care debate. He's made this health care issue about him. People always liked the president for his outstanding personality for what they perceive. Now, they're looking at the president in a policy issue area, and they don't like it.
LOUIS: As it heats up, he's already put out the call to Obama supporters to get a million names on a signature on a petition and so forth, and start putting pressure, the way Reagan used to do, on a recalcitrant Congress. That will, I predict, include Democrats as well as Republicans. The word is he's going into anybody's district he needs to. The battle hasn't really yet been joined on this, but he's going to have to whip his own party into line.
DOBBS: We'll see what happens starting, well, about Monday, I guess. Thanks very much, we appreciate it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/24/ldt.01.html
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Lou Dobbs Obama Birth Settle Noise
Dobbs clarifies: he's presented what others have questioned, has said all along in his opinion, the President of the USA, Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States... Dobbs says further it would be simple to make all this noise go away if the President would simply show his long form birth certificate...
See Dobbs tonight
Meanwhile, at the end of his program, Bill O'Reilly said Lou Dobbs would be a guest on the Factor, Wednesday.
Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO)
digg Huffpost - Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/bill-oreilly-slams-birthe_n_245939.html?page=6&show_comment_id=27886210#comment_27886210
Right Wing US conspiracists question Obama's birth certificate
On the fringes of the American right, a growing conspiracy claims that Barack Obama is hiding a Kenyan birth certificate, making him ineligible to serve as president.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5907183/Right-Wing-US-conspiracists-question-Obamas-birth-certificate.html
Fascinating
Is the signature on this letter re-published by WND, authentic to President Barack Obama?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104718
Politico July 28, 2009 Birthers back Hawaii-Obama resolution and Discussion
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Birthers_back_HawaiiObama_resolution.html
Politifact investigation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
See Dobbs tonight
Meanwhile, at the end of his program, Bill O'Reilly said Lou Dobbs would be a guest on the Factor, Wednesday.
Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO)
digg Huffpost - Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/bill-oreilly-slams-birthe_n_245939.html?page=6&show_comment_id=27886210#comment_27886210
Right Wing US conspiracists question Obama's birth certificate
On the fringes of the American right, a growing conspiracy claims that Barack Obama is hiding a Kenyan birth certificate, making him ineligible to serve as president.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5907183/Right-Wing-US-conspiracists-question-Obamas-birth-certificate.html
Fascinating
Is the signature on this letter re-published by WND, authentic to President Barack Obama?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104718
Politico July 28, 2009 Birthers back Hawaii-Obama resolution and Discussion
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Birthers_back_HawaiiObama_resolution.html
Politifact investigation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Woman Voted Twice: Absentee and Provisional
Provisional Ballots
Fayette election board rejects 67 provisional ballots
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
04/30/2008
Updated 04/30/2008 12:15:24 AM EDT
Four others were rejected because the voters were registered in other counties. In one of those, a woman registered in Greene County voted with an absentee ballot there, and then came to Fayette County and cast a provisional ballot.
The other three had registrations in Westmoreland, Washington or Allegheny counties.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19529568&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6
Fayette election officials throw out 41 ballots
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_565005.html
In Pennsylvania, voters must be registered with a political party if they want to cast a ballot in primary elections.
That didn't stop 41 Fayette County residents who claim no party affiliation from trying to vote in the April 22 primary election.
On Monday, the election board voted unanimously not to count the 41 ballots, which had been cast via provisional ballots. The ballots, which were contained in sealed envelopes, were provided to voters at the polls when questions arose over their eligibility to vote.
Yesterday, the election board reviewed the circumstances behind the ballots to determine whether they should be counted.
County Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, who along with Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov are members of the three-member election board, said the 41 ballots were ineligible because Pennsylvania does not hold open primaries.
"Only those registered as a Republican or Democrat are being allowed to participate in the primary because there were no questions on the ballot," Zapotosky said.
Voters who are registered Independent or with non-nominating parties can vote in primaries when a referendum appears on the ballot, but they are restricted to voting only on the ballot question.
The board yesterday rejected two provisional ballots because although the voters were registered Republican or Democrat, they voted on ballots for the other party.
Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said a registered Democrat cast a Republican ballot and a registered Republican voted on the Democratic ballot.
Zapotosky questioned whether the voters were erroneously provided the wrong ballots.
"Are we sure we didn't make a mistake?" Zapotosky said. "I would hope you could distinguish between John McCain and Hillary Clinton."
Lint said the two voters insisted on voting outside of their parties.
"They chose the opposite party they're registered," Lint said. "I don't know why."
In another case, the board voted to reject a ballot that Lint initially believed had been cast by an individual who had also voted via absentee ballot in Greene County. Upon closer review after the board had adjourned, Lint said it appeared the two ballots had actually been cast by different people with the same name.
Zapotosky yesterday said if an error was made, steps will be taken to correct it.
In reviewing other ballots, the board accepted six ballots that were cast by registered voters whose names could not be found in the poll books. In several instances, partial ballots were accepted when voters went to the wrong precinct, but whose correct district was in the same Congressional district.
They rejected 19 that were cast by unregistered voters, four that were cast by voters who are registered in other counties and one that contained incomplete information regarding the voter's status.
The election board typically is comprised of the three county commissioners. Mehalov sat in yesterday for Commissioner Vincent Vicites because Vicites was on the ballot as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_565005.html
Monday, July 27, 2009
Expert Panel Expected To Cast Doubt on Common Forensic Tests
By PLL
Source: Crime and Justice News, September 22, 2008.
"A panel of experts looking into the reliability of CSI tests has heard damning evidence against some of the most common techniques used to convict killers, rapists, and other criminals, reports the New York Post. The analysis of fingerprints, tire tracks, and bite marks isn't nearly so reliable as researchers once believed, crime-scene specialists told the panel. Some even called it junk science. Many said major changes would be necessary if crime labs want to continue using the evidence."
"The National Academy of Sciences report isn't due out until December, but forensic expert Barry Scheck said it could have major implications. "There were some serious questions raised about the reliability of certain disciplines - bite impressions, tire tracks and automatic fingerprint identification," he said. 'I'm assuming they're going to make some big recommendations about how standards are set. A lot of people are anticipating a fairly far-reaching examination of forensic science.' The $1 million effort to assess forensic work is not final; the academy's report is undergoing a peer review now. It's already being viewed as a major potential challenge to the fundamentals of crime-scene investigation. One example: 'Bite marks probably ought to be the poster child for bad forensic science,' said expert David Faigman"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/PLL/2008_9_22
Fayette County Voter Rolls to Remain Bloated
Voter Removal Process (purge) of ineligibles may not happen in Fayette for some 2 or 3 years... awaiting news of current events, in particular an appeal filed in the Court of Common Pleas of PA... by our reading of applicable federal and PA state election laws, the county registration commission is obligated to provide an accurate voter registry, annually, culling the voter registration records of any and all ineligibles, that is deceased, and non-residents, and have a program to determine the status of individuals who have moved in the county and out of the county.
Caution is in order, however, to not remove the names of voters solely for the reason of "not having voted."
More findings coming... here's a good one, from back a while...
Don't become confused by the 2009 dates referencing the Fayette purge has begun.
A full review of the voter database for the county is not happening. (One never did in the past either, even though there's a line item in the 2006 Budget Report for 'Voter Registration Purge' there isn't a dollar figure by the item
http://dsf.pacounties.org/fayette/lib/fayette/genfundbudgets/fayette_county_budget_2006.pdf
)
It's a wonder that it is legal for the county to have sent out some 9,000 postcards - how was this number determined? What information was used to get to that number, and what year was used?
For an adequate and truly fair voter removal program of "ineligibles" - postcards should have been sent out to all 91,382 registered voters. A follow-up of problematic non-returns or returned undeliverable, etc. would be the only way to determine whether many such registered have moved, are deceased, or potentially are alive and well but exercise their right to be both registered on the county's books, AND simply not vote as a protest.
I know if I'd chosen that route, not voting as a protest, and received a notice my name may be removed if I didn't respond to a mailing, I'd be hopping mad that I had to confirm my voting right status to a bunch of elected officials who I had chosen not to vote for any of the above by abstaining from appearing at the precinct to vote or cast an absentee ballot.
We'll be placing former letters sent to boards of commissioners off-site for review.
Previous posts
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed
search results
http://www.google.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed+&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2
Herald-Standard
clip from wind watch
Caution is in order, however, to not remove the names of voters solely for the reason of "not having voted."
More findings coming... here's a good one, from back a while...
Census: `Motor voter law' inflates numbers
Debra Erdley TRIBUNE REVIEW
In Fayette County, a 1997 scandal over absentee ballots raised questions about registration numbers. A grand jury investigation that followed concluded with a report speculating that at least 10 percent of the registered voters were either dead or resided elsewhere.
However, when Fayette officials conducted an investigation last year at the grand jury's recommendation, they found only 190 names that could be purged from the rolls - 10 who had died and 180 who had moved out of state. Another 1,300 names were placed in an inactive file after letters came back with notations that forwarding addresses had expired.
Laurie Nicholson, director of Fayette County's Election Bureau, said those names can be purged if the individuals fail to vote in two consecutive federal elections.
She said statistics that show 72 percent of Fayette's voting-age population as registered voters are as accurate a representation as possible under the motor voter law.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/2000census/motorvoter.html
Of the county's current 91,382 registered voters, Lint said 62,880 are Democrats and 21,929 are Republicans. The balance, or 6,573, are independents.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/counties/s_613640.html
Don't become confused by the 2009 dates referencing the Fayette purge has begun.
A full review of the voter database for the county is not happening. (One never did in the past either, even though there's a line item in the 2006 Budget Report for 'Voter Registration Purge' there isn't a dollar figure by the item
http://dsf.pacounties.org/fayette/lib/fayette/genfundbudgets/fayette_county_budget_2006.pdf
)
It's a wonder that it is legal for the county to have sent out some 9,000 postcards - how was this number determined? What information was used to get to that number, and what year was used?
For an adequate and truly fair voter removal program of "ineligibles" - postcards should have been sent out to all 91,382 registered voters. A follow-up of problematic non-returns or returned undeliverable, etc. would be the only way to determine whether many such registered have moved, are deceased, or potentially are alive and well but exercise their right to be both registered on the county's books, AND simply not vote as a protest.
I know if I'd chosen that route, not voting as a protest, and received a notice my name may be removed if I didn't respond to a mailing, I'd be hopping mad that I had to confirm my voting right status to a bunch of elected officials who I had chosen not to vote for any of the above by abstaining from appearing at the precinct to vote or cast an absentee ballot.
We'll be placing former letters sent to boards of commissioners off-site for review.
March 2008 Letter with links provided to entire board of Fayette County Commissioners
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/truthonline/nettruthonline/
Previous posts
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed
search results
http://www.google.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed+&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2
Fayette postpones purging 25,000 voters
By Mary Pickels
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, August 8, 2008
Buzz up!
A Fayette County voter purge that was to begin earlier this week has been postponed, the director of the election bureau said Thursday.
"We're going to do it after the (fall) election," Laurie Lint said. "The time constraints were too close. I didn't want to start and not complete it."
The postponement did not sit well with Commissioner Vincent Vicites, who said the purge had been discussed at a May board meeting.
"I'm disappointed it's not being done," Vicites said yesterday.
"We need to make sure our rolls are as accurate as possible. This is probably the most important election cycle in the last four years."
Vicites said Lint was to have a plan ready to present for board approval at the June meeting.
"That did not happen," he said. "I wanted her to move forward on it. The point I'm making is I brought it up in plenty of time.
"Now we have to do it next spring. I will remain fervent about getting it accomplished."
On July 24, the commissioners agreed to authorize the purge, which would have notified as many as 25,000 inactive voters.
At that meeting, Lint said the mailing process had to have been completed by Wednesday, within 90 days of the fall election.
"Can we do it by that date?" Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky asked at the meeting. "Let's not pursue it unless we're 100 percent sure."
Zapotosky and Vicites both said they considered the purge among their top priorities.
Yesterday, Zapotosky said when he spoke with Lint more than a week ago, she could not give him a 100 percent guarantee of meeting the deadline.
"That kind of triggered putting a stop to it," he said. "Laurie made the call. I gave her the opportunity to decide whether we should or should not.
"I don't hold her responsible. I think she made a good decision."
Lint said efforts were made to meet Wednesday's deadline.
"It just didn't work out," she said. "It wasn't feasible for me to get it done and postmarked and out of here by the 6th."
Lint said her greatest concern was getting the materials she needed in time.
"I couldn't be guaranteed I would have all of my supplies in here and out on time -- printed, folded, presorted and stuffed," she said.
When the purge takes place, voters who wish to remain on the rolls will be asked to return notices in postage-paid envelopes provided by the county.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_581779.html
Purge of inactive Fayette voters delayed
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard August 09, 2008
A purge of about 25,000 Fayette County voters who have failed to show up at the polls in five years has been delayed until after the November election.
Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Elect...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19901537&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
http://pipdocs.org/?p=map&s=pa
Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Fayette County Election Bureau has identified as many as 25,000 registered voters who have not cast ballots in at least five years, putting them at risk of having their names purged from voter rolls.
Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said Tuesday a check of voter registrations turned up between 15,000 and 25,000 people who have not voted in the past five years. Lint conducted the review as the first step in a countywide purge of voter rolls...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html
Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
County commissioners on Thursday will vote on authorization of the next step, which is to mail out notices to each of the inactive voters. Voters who want to remain on the rolls will be asked to return the notices in postage-paid envelopes to be provided by the county.
Voters who don't respond can still vote in November, should they go to the polls, Lint said.
Inactive voters who fail to respond to the notices, and then subsequently do not vote in November, will have their names purged from the county's voter rolls...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html
Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The county last purged its voter rolls in 1995, when the Motor Voter Law was enacted. Prior to 1995, the county purged its voter database every year, removing the names of voters who did not go to the polls in four consecutive elections, Lint said.
Lint said she used data provided by the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, to identify voters who have not cast ballots in the past five years. The SURE system notifies each of the state's 67 election bureaus when voters die, move or register in another county.
There are 89,536 registered voters in Fayette County, including 61,887 Democrats and 21,449 Republicans, according to Lint. Voter turnout in the primary election was 42 percent.
Cost for the mailings will be approximately $20,000, Lint said, including $6,500 in postage to send out the notices using the standard bulk rate of 26 cents per mailing. Another $10,500 will be spent on postage for the return envelopes, Lint said, because they are ineligible for the bulk rate.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html
Herald-Standard
Precinct consolidation plan stalled
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
06/25/2008
Lint also told the commissioners she has plans to send out 25,000 notices to voters as part of a voter purge program prior to the November election. She said the biggest obstacle is having a postage-paid envelope and a bulk rate must be reinstated for the county. Lint said the cost of reinstating the bulk rate would cost $180, but if that were done, it would save $3,000 overall.
Lint said the purge is estimated to cost about $20,000, which includes sending letters that can be sent back in. She said if people vote in the next election they will remain on the rolls, and if they don't respond and don't vote, they would be purged.
The commissioners took no action on the request, but Lint said in response to a question from Vicites that the vote could be taken at next month's meeting to initiate the purge.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19801026&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
clip from wind watch
The commissioners also will act today on proposals to enact a voter purge as well as initiate a pay study for all non-union county employees.
Last month, all three commissioners voted to support a voter purge. Zimmerlink said in May 2006 the county mailed out 21,142 letters to registered voters, informing them of the new voting system, which led to removing more than 1,000 names.
Zimmerlink said the open issue is how to fund the purge.
Vicites said the purge should be completed before the November election, adding that he initially pushed to have it placed on the agenda.
“We need to move forward. We have identified funding,” Vicites said. “The voter purge is the top priority in the election bureau in my opinion.”
Zapotosky said money from the sale of some of the county’s electronic voting machines could be used to pay for the purge. He said the only outstanding issue is to ensure the county follows federal requirements regarding when the purge can be done.
All three commissioners have talked about the need for a pay study to address pay inequities in various departments where union employees are making close to or more than non-union management employees.
The agenda item calls for advertising for professional services under the request for qualification to conduct a pay scale study for the current staff complement of non-union employees.
Vicites said the pay study is something the county needs to carry out. He said it is a step-by-step process and it has to be properly budgeted.
Judge Conrad Capuzzi and Michelle Grant Shumar, head of the Fayette County Office of Human and Community Services and Fayette Area Coordinated Transportation, have separately raised the issue at county salary board meetings.
If the motions are approved today, the commissioners will vote to take action on them during Thursday’s monthly meeting.
By Amy Zalar
Herald-Standard
22 July 2008
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/22/commissioners-may-change-ordinance-to-comply-with-turbine-industry-standards/
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19863949&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6http://
Election Redo
What an interesting case. Voting redo ordered in Monroeville's Ward 5
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_630775.html
An election redo in one ward in Allegheny County because less than half a dozen voters were somehow enabled to vote in the Primary - it's alleged - in another political party from which they are registered.
And the new ballots will be mailed to the selected few who are registered as the "harmed" party but whose votes were wronged due to the debacle.
What will be of interest - how many of the 171 Democrat registrants who voted in the Primary at the local Ward will bother to fill out a new ballot and how many will leave the race/s undervoted?
How many will write in names of somebody else? Wonder whether that would be legal? Haha. Wouldn't it be something if voters changed their minds after all that had happened and enmasse wrote in someone's name who didn't participate in the Democrat ticket/primary process?
Just wondering...
Net the Truth Online
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_630775.html
An election redo in one ward in Allegheny County because less than half a dozen voters were somehow enabled to vote in the Primary - it's alleged - in another political party from which they are registered.
And the new ballots will be mailed to the selected few who are registered as the "harmed" party but whose votes were wronged due to the debacle.
What will be of interest - how many of the 171 Democrat registrants who voted in the Primary at the local Ward will bother to fill out a new ballot and how many will leave the race/s undervoted?
How many will write in names of somebody else? Wonder whether that would be legal? Haha. Wouldn't it be something if voters changed their minds after all that had happened and enmasse wrote in someone's name who didn't participate in the Democrat ticket/primary process?
Just wondering...
Net the Truth Online
Voting redo ordered in Monroeville's Ward 5
By Brian Bowling
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The May primary still isn't over for 171 Democrats in the first district of Monroeville's fifth ward.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James ruled Tuesday that those people will get the chance to vote again in the Ward 5 council race because five Republicans and one independent illegally voted in the Democratic primary.
"Let's see if we can get it done right this time," James said at the end of a cordial hearing in which attorney Robert Wratcher, representing incumbent Marshall Boone, 68, and attorney Karen Balaban, representing challenger Diane Allison, 42, agreed that a special election by mail is the way to correct the problem.
County elections manager Mark Wolosik said his office will mail paper ballots with the two candidates' names to the 171 Democrats who legitimately voted in District 1, Ward 5. Democrats who didn't vote on May 19 aren't eligible to vote in the special election.
The county hopes to send the ballots out Monday, but it may take an extra day or so to get them ready. The ballots will have to be returned within 15 days.
The last special election by mail in the county was held in 1999 when a lever voting machine malfunctioned in Plum and added 100 votes to a council primary race, Wolosik said. Eighty-four percent -- or 137 of the 164 eligible voters -- recast their ballots then.
Allegheny County's electronic voting system doesn't leave a paper trail that would allow officials to determine for which candidate the six party crashers voted, Wolosik said.
Preliminary results had Boone leading Allison by a 198-196 count. James said he couldn't allow the six miscast votes to stand because they could reverse Boone's two-vote lead.
Allison filed a petition to challenge the results, which led the Allegheny County Board of Elections to refuse to certify the District 1 results for the Ward 5 race.
Wolosik said the five Republicans apparently were able to vote as Democrats because poll workers failed to set the machine for the Republican ballot. He told the judge the old lever voting machines had the same problem.
The one independent apparently claimed to be a Democrat on Election Day and was allowed to vote on the Democratic ballot, he said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_630775.html
Dr. Dean's Rx for USA Healthcare Doesn't answer who pays
On Morning Joe - again, thankfully, Joe Scarborough himself is absent, as we've noted before, when he could have asked the pointed and difficult questions during the Presidential campaign couple of year-long runs of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he didn't - Howard Dean, former Presidential candidate himself, has a book to plug just in time for the health care debate... and he'll be hosting Countdown in the evening.
What does he say about the President's healthcare plan...
"Small business won't have to pay for the healthcare of employees any longer...!"
He left out hehaw...
And he left out who will pay for all yes all of the small business employees, and how the healthcare coverage for employees of small businesses would be paid. In other words, who would be taxed for the coverage of all small business employees?
He also left out explanation of how hospitals, private hospitals, would have to comply with a little known provision in the 1000 plus page healthcare bill.
A provision that mandates coverage for abortions...
But he didn't leave out mention of his book.
Yeah, hooray for Dean's book, blogger posts review
Dean's Book
And he didn't clarify what he means when he says individuals can opt into the government plan of health care, or not.
More on what Dean has said and it's been recorded...
Video of speech, introduced on blog with glowing support
http://www.talkwithtim.com/politics/governor-and-doctor-howard-dean-discusses-health-care-reform-and-president-obamas-plan
What does he say about the President's healthcare plan...
"Small business won't have to pay for the healthcare of employees any longer...!"
He left out hehaw...
And he left out who will pay for all yes all of the small business employees, and how the healthcare coverage for employees of small businesses would be paid. In other words, who would be taxed for the coverage of all small business employees?
He also left out explanation of how hospitals, private hospitals, would have to comply with a little known provision in the 1000 plus page healthcare bill.
A provision that mandates coverage for abortions...
But he didn't leave out mention of his book.
Yeah, hooray for Dean's book, blogger posts review
Dean's Book
And he didn't clarify what he means when he says individuals can opt into the government plan of health care, or not.
More on what Dean has said and it's been recorded...
Video of speech, introduced on blog with glowing support
http://www.talkwithtim.com/politics/governor-and-doctor-howard-dean-discusses-health-care-reform-and-president-obamas-plan
Dean told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman last week that Obama’s public option plan is best thought of as Medicare or single payer.389x6122494
“For the average American, they should best think of it as Medicare,” Dean said.
According to Dean, under the Obama plan, the American people will have a choice to opt into a single payer system.
“Look, you decide for yourself,” Dean said. “We’re going to allow people under sixty-five to sign up for what people over sixty-five have. And you make the choice.”
more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
PA Tax Free KOZ Hypocrisy
Yet again, the state-wide tax-free Keystone Opportunity Zones have come up for an extension in Pennsylvania.
Local elected officials who comprise three taxing bodies, county, school district, and municipality must weigh agreeing to granting the status to undeveloped properties for this time around some seven (7) years.
Each separate entity must vote on approving the KOZ extension request by voting and a majority of the board can accept or deny.
The important feature of the process is any one of the boards' denial of the extension would effectively gut the extension for the one jurisdiction. Further, if one board - the county commissioners - would deny the extension - even though the school board/s and municipalities approved, the extension would not happen.
Fayette's board of commissioners voted in the majority but not unanimously to enable the application process for the extension to go forward. This week, it's been reported the board will consider a motion to re-consider some of the properties which have KOZ status currently to either expire in 2010 or 2013 and may pull some of the properties from the extension.
South Union Township supervisors have reportedly denied the extension for their own property, some 60 acres, but agreed to grant the extensions so far to property the local economic development organization sought for inclusion in the extension due to its undeveloped status.
But it isn't clear whether developed properties that want to continue to receive the KOZ status after its expiration, such as Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 Company, can obtain the extension, it's interesting that in material distributed by Fay Penn Economic Development Council, the company is listed among requests for the extension.
The question arises then, what is the purpose of continuing the KOZ on already developed and habitable land another 7 years?
The extension is supposed to be for undeveloped properties, but as we've seen how the KOZ has been promoted in the past for industrial development, that goal didn't quite pan out in the county as planned.
Further, if the Fayette commissioners pull some property (qualified and undeveloped at this time) from the extension for whatever reason - don't like it or think KOZ status is appropriate for housing developments, individual single family homes, or apartment complexes, or a private individual or private corporation has obtained the status through diligent application, and members of the board by majority or unanimously deny the extension - what does that say about continuing to permit an extension for other property in the county solely because it is handled by the county's lead economic development agency?
Across the border, in Greene County, supervisors display a bit of common sense in comments made about KOZ and what the state gave them to deal with, yet the members still voted to continue the program they've raised objections to. Give a look.
An upcoming post will highlight the same arguments and some variation used by Fayette commissioners Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites who don't like some aspects of KOZ yet still voted for approval of the extension.
Net the Truth Online
Local elected officials who comprise three taxing bodies, county, school district, and municipality must weigh agreeing to granting the status to undeveloped properties for this time around some seven (7) years.
Each separate entity must vote on approving the KOZ extension request by voting and a majority of the board can accept or deny.
The important feature of the process is any one of the boards' denial of the extension would effectively gut the extension for the one jurisdiction. Further, if one board - the county commissioners - would deny the extension - even though the school board/s and municipalities approved, the extension would not happen.
Fayette's board of commissioners voted in the majority but not unanimously to enable the application process for the extension to go forward. This week, it's been reported the board will consider a motion to re-consider some of the properties which have KOZ status currently to either expire in 2010 or 2013 and may pull some of the properties from the extension.
South Union Township supervisors have reportedly denied the extension for their own property, some 60 acres, but agreed to grant the extensions so far to property the local economic development organization sought for inclusion in the extension due to its undeveloped status.
But it isn't clear whether developed properties that want to continue to receive the KOZ status after its expiration, such as Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 Company, can obtain the extension, it's interesting that in material distributed by Fay Penn Economic Development Council, the company is listed among requests for the extension.
The question arises then, what is the purpose of continuing the KOZ on already developed and habitable land another 7 years?
The extension is supposed to be for undeveloped properties, but as we've seen how the KOZ has been promoted in the past for industrial development, that goal didn't quite pan out in the county as planned.
Further, if the Fayette commissioners pull some property (qualified and undeveloped at this time) from the extension for whatever reason - don't like it or think KOZ status is appropriate for housing developments, individual single family homes, or apartment complexes, or a private individual or private corporation has obtained the status through diligent application, and members of the board by majority or unanimously deny the extension - what does that say about continuing to permit an extension for other property in the county solely because it is handled by the county's lead economic development agency?
Across the border, in Greene County, supervisors display a bit of common sense in comments made about KOZ and what the state gave them to deal with, yet the members still voted to continue the program they've raised objections to. Give a look.
An upcoming post will highlight the same arguments and some variation used by Fayette commissioners Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites who don't like some aspects of KOZ yet still voted for approval of the extension.
Net the Truth Online
In other business, supervisors voted unanimously to support the seven-year Keystone Opportunity Zone extension for the Evergreene Technology Park. The extension would continue the current KOZ tax incentive for an additional seven years, until Dec. 31, 2017. The current KOZ incentive ends Dec. 31, 2010.
The two existing buildings in the technology park are not eligible for the KOZ extension.
The township projects an estimated total of $6,050 of tax revenue in 2011 from the two buildings.
Currently, the technology park has about 220 acres of undeveloped land, which is eligible for the KOZ extension if developed.
Although supervisors John H. Higgens and Corbly Orndorff disagree with the concept of the KOZ and believe the state is overstepping its boundaries by offering this type of incentive, they agree that if surrounding counties are offering a KOZ tax incentive extension to perspective businesses, then Franklin Township and Greene County must do the same to remain competitive.
Supervisors' Chairman T. Reed Kiger told Don Chappel, executive director of Greene County Industrial Development Inc., that he hopes to see collaboration between Evergreene Technology Park officials, the Franklin Township supervisors and other county officials not just for the township's benefit but for the benefit of the entire county.
Kiger also suggested that the park consider businesses in the oil and gas industry, which he believes to be up and coming in Greene County.
Kiger added that the board of supervisors would really like to see the park make changes.
Herald-Standard June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano on WAR Program
Discussion at Ron Paul Forums and link to audio of the Wayne Allyn Root program featuring guests Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano. We're tracking Judge Napolitano and his proposal Freedom Watchers start the alteration of our Constitution ball rolling via pressing the legislatures of the required necessary 34 states to petition or submit a call for a second federal Constitutional Convention.
Napolitano outlines his proposal in a piece we've highlighted here at Net the Truth Online. We have noted dangers of such and have highlighted notables who have done so as well.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2155452#post2155452
Link
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/war.php
Napolitano outlines his proposal in a piece we've highlighted here at Net the Truth Online. We have noted dangers of such and have highlighted notables who have done so as well.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2155452#post2155452
Link
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/war.php
Ron Paul: Uprising, Revolt, Nobody Will Pay Taxes Anymore
Interesting discussion on Freedom Watch Program, still, beware Judge Napolitano's call for a second federal Constitutional Convention. Odd the Judge didn't bring up the issue during his discussion with Ron Paul...
clip
clip
Judge Napolitano: I think Shelly has a question for you from one of the good folks that has been watching and listening.
Shelly Roche: Yes. Congressman Paul. This is from Betsy Ross and she would like to know…
Judge Napolitano: Is that really her name?
Shelly Roche: That’s her screen name.
Judge Napolitano: Great name.
Ron Paul: Hi, Betsy.
Shelly Roche: I know. It’s appropriate for today. She would like to know about the questionable constitutionality of the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Judge Napolitano: Oh, you want to weigh in on that, Ron.
Ron Paul: Well, I can rather quickly because I discuss it a lot. I think it was improperly ratified, the 16th. But it really doesn’t matter. I think it’s good to debate it and expose it. But we’ll get rid of the IRS and the 16th Amendment by repeal or [maybe] people are finally going to get fed up, and there will be a tax revolt and so much chaos and violence in our streets, so nobody [will pay taxes anyway].
But on the 17th, I never think of the 17th as being illegally ratified. There may be an argument there that I’m not aware of, but the whole thing is I don’t like the 17th, and that’s the one that allows the senators to be elected by popular vote rather than representing the states. That was the symbol or the essence of the states being independent and sovereign, that the legislatures elected the senators and sent them to us. If we did it that way, we would certainly eliminate all these buying and selling of senators like they have in the Illinois.
Judge Napolitano: In Illinois.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/ron-paul-peter-schiff-on-freedom-watch-4/
Friday, June 05, 2009
Warning Post at Philly Blog
Thank you Philly Blog for your post about Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano pushing for a second federal Constitutional Convention. We're steaming over here after following Judge Napolitano's misguided proposition, and we're tracking the Wayne Allyn Root radio program upcoming June 6th wherein Napolitano is going to be a guest.
We don't know yet how Root feels about a second Con-Con, but we're tracking.
Years back we researched the issue of the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention and posted info on our site Dare Inquire Representatives Truth.
http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html
also see our sidebar and conduct a search of our site for posts about a federal Con-Con...
As we're hot on highlighting what Napolitano is saying as a sit-in for the absent Glenn Beck Friday - tonight - June 5 - and what he might say on Wayne Allyn Root's upcoming radio program, we've little time to formulate more of our thoughts, and you've said it all so well, why duplicate...
Thanks.
Net the Truth Online
Note the part about Madison's warnings of a second federal Constitutional Convention... Guess Glenn Beck didn't read that either.
Net the Truth Online
OK 6 PM Napolitano didn't repeat his proposal for states to submit the same Constitutional Amendment/s and call for a second Constitutional Convention when he had an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program to do so. Why not?
And we had time to ponder over Beck's denial Napolitano even wants a Con-Con. Maybe he'll actually read what Napolitano wrote and after his tour is over he'll find our site and come out and address his oversight and negligence.
Net the Truth Online
Philly Blog
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=84535
Phyllis Schlafly is tops don't miss her May article on the dangers of a Con-Con
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html
We don't know yet how Root feels about a second Con-Con, but we're tracking.
Years back we researched the issue of the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention and posted info on our site Dare Inquire Representatives Truth.
http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html
also see our sidebar and conduct a search of our site for posts about a federal Con-Con...
As we're hot on highlighting what Napolitano is saying as a sit-in for the absent Glenn Beck Friday - tonight - June 5 - and what he might say on Wayne Allyn Root's upcoming radio program, we've little time to formulate more of our thoughts, and you've said it all so well, why duplicate...
Thanks.
Net the Truth Online
Note the part about Madison's warnings of a second federal Constitutional Convention... Guess Glenn Beck didn't read that either.
Net the Truth Online
OK 6 PM Napolitano didn't repeat his proposal for states to submit the same Constitutional Amendment/s and call for a second Constitutional Convention when he had an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program to do so. Why not?
And we had time to ponder over Beck's denial Napolitano even wants a Con-Con. Maybe he'll actually read what Napolitano wrote and after his tour is over he'll find our site and come out and address his oversight and negligence.
Net the Truth Online
Philly Blog
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=84535
Phyllis Schlafly is tops don't miss her May article on the dangers of a Con-Con
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html
Glenn Beck Denies Push for Constitutional Convention
OK then why the Judge's push for 34 states legislatures (by a mere majority vote, maybe a mere quorum, too) to forward the same exact amendment/s to the Constitution for whatever, Glenn.
The man simply doesn't realize the call is automatic upon the submission of the call for formal submission of the same amendment/s proposal/s from the required 34 states.
Judge Napolitano is wholly negligent in his proposal for 34 states to submit the same exact amendments and initiate a call for a convention for that purpose.
The call is automatic once the 34 number is reached. Automatic. No do-overs. No, oops we (34 states) really just want to scare Congress-critters to act on these matters...
The convention will be called and state legislatures will forthwith select delegates to the convention somehow someway. Once convened there is no way to limit what the delegates could do.
If I were able to ask you a question on your tour, Glenn, I'd ask if you read Judge Napolitano's writing on the matter to which you made a post denying the Judge wanted a Con-Con.
He wants one, no doubt. Just read where he says he does in What Should Freedom Lovers Do?
Excellent suggestion at Ohio Freedom to have John McManus make a guest appearance on Napolitano's program!
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3241
Vote for guest on Napolitano's Freedom Watch
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/206370-john-f-mcmanus
Net the Truth Online
Don't miss
The man simply doesn't realize the call is automatic upon the submission of the call for formal submission of the same amendment/s proposal/s from the required 34 states.
Judge Napolitano is wholly negligent in his proposal for 34 states to submit the same exact amendments and initiate a call for a convention for that purpose.
The call is automatic once the 34 number is reached. Automatic. No do-overs. No, oops we (34 states) really just want to scare Congress-critters to act on these matters...
The convention will be called and state legislatures will forthwith select delegates to the convention somehow someway. Once convened there is no way to limit what the delegates could do.
If I were able to ask you a question on your tour, Glenn, I'd ask if you read Judge Napolitano's writing on the matter to which you made a post denying the Judge wanted a Con-Con.
He wants one, no doubt. Just read where he says he does in What Should Freedom Lovers Do?
Excellent suggestion at Ohio Freedom to have John McManus make a guest appearance on Napolitano's program!
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3241
Vote for guest on Napolitano's Freedom Watch
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/206370-john-f-mcmanus
Net the Truth Online
Don't miss
Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=18760
May 15, 2009 - 11:17 ET
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
1.) The Scope of the Problem.
The Constitution gives the Congress only 17 discrete powers. One of them is the power to regulate interstate commerce and another is the power to tax incomes. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, almost from the time the first Congress sat, it used its Commerce Clause power to tax goods, to control private behavior, and even to prohibit items in interstate commerce. Subsequent Congresses used that power to control the conditions for production and sale of goods that eventually made their way into interstate commerce. And modern Congresses have used that power to regulate any human behavior they wish, so long as the behavior, when combined with other similar behavior, might conceivably affect the movement of goods or persons in interstate commerce. Thus, today, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the size of the toilet bowl in your bathroom, the number of legs on your desk chair, the strength of the water pressure in your shower in your home, the amount of wheat you can grow in your yard, the amount of sugar manufacturers can put into ketchup, the words you can utter in public or private, are all regulated by the Congress, claiming power under the Commerce Clause. And the feds, as well, use their enormous horde of cash from our income taxes to bribe the states by paying them to regulate in areas that the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating.
2.) How to address this?
We need an amendment to the Constitution that expressly limits Congress to exercising only the 17 specific powers that are delegated to it in the Constitution and defines and limits the regulation of interstate commerce to its original meaning of keeping commerce regular by preventing all governments, state and federal, from interfering with it. We also need to rescind the 16th Amendment and affirmatively prohibit any federal tax on persons, as individuals or as groups. These two measures will starve the federal government back down to the footprint established for it by the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended by enactment of an amendment by three-quarters of the legislatures of the states. In order to get to the state legislatures, an amendment can only come from an affirmative vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or from a constitutional convention which Congress must call if asked to do so by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
3.) What should freedom lovers do?
Here are a few simple steps. First, agree on the wording of two amendments addressing commerce and income taxes. Next persuade the state legislatures of 34 states to enact a resolution by a simple majority vote of each house of the states’ legislatures instructing Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the express and sole purpose of considering these two amendments. I don’t know if 34 states will agree to this; but I firmly believe that as the number of agreeing states approaches 34, Congress will become terrified, and will begin to curtail its regulation of our behavior and lower our taxes. If the convention does come to pass and sends the two proposed amendments to the states, the goal is then to get 38 states to adopt the amendments. Note, the state legislative process of demanding a convention and the state legislative process of approving an amendment only requires a simple majority in each house of a state legislature, and neither is subject to a governor’s veto.
Judge Napolitano
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25372/
Note from Glenn
Let’s be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention. Nobody on the left or the right really pushes for one for two reasons. First, no matter how limited the scope of the proposed constitutional convention if one actually takes place it’ll be almost impossible to restrict the changes that could be made to the Constitution. Remember that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government. If a constitutional convention were held today there would be no limits on what they could do and it’s very possible we end up with the Constitution shredded and in tatters. I don’t want to take that risk.
Second, I don’t trust our current crop of politicians to do the right thing. I don’t see a modern-day George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison. All I see are selfish politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected. I don’t want to put the future of my children and grandchildren in their fat money-stained fingers.
So let’s hold off on the constitutional convention but move forward with the gun legislation in Montana, Utah, Texas and other states in an effort to have the Supreme Court re-consider the 10th Amendment. Good people doing great things is all it takes to return America to what our Founding Fathers intended Her to be—a bastion of freedom and liberty!
-glenn
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25372/
Watchdogging Judge Napolitano on second federal Con-Con
Judge Napolitano is sitting in as host of the Glenn Beck Program tonight. He started out saying in his introduction the Tenth Amendment is under attack.
We're tracking to see how far the Judge goes to push for a second federal Constitutional Convention... We've posted about this previously...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-ignores-dangers-napolitano.html
See our sidebar for more info about the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention...
including our former website Dare Inquire Representatives Truth
http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html
Net the Truth Online
Excellent article from Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=judge+napolitano+constitutional+convention&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2
We're tracking to see how far the Judge goes to push for a second federal Constitutional Convention... We've posted about this previously...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-ignores-dangers-napolitano.html
See our sidebar for more info about the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention...
including our former website Dare Inquire Representatives Truth
http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html
Net the Truth Online
Excellent article from Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=judge+napolitano+constitutional+convention&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2
Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root in Syndication
Root has recently been appearing on many Fox News Network programs, including interviews with the dynamic Neil Cavuto...
Cavuto interviewed VP Biden's economic policy analyst, yadayada, who could not answer what the Great Lakes Czar was responsible for accomplishing... he gave a sketchy answer about the goals of the "Stimulus Czar," appointed by President Barack Obama.
Cavuto interviewed South Carolina Governor on the recent state Supreme Court case wherein the Court ordered the state to accept the stimulus money from the federal government. Unbelievable. The Gov. said he wasn't going to appeal the decision.
As if those interviews weren't enough to make your stomach turn, Cavuto's next guest was Wayne Allyn Root who raised further concerns about government largesse, debt, and control of our individual lives and livlihoods.
A search produced the info about Root's syndicated radio program to air in select cities June 6. Following...
Ah yes, we also had to find controversy...
Independent Politcal Report Comments
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago/
OK Just a note to beware one of Root's first guests on his radio program will be Judge Napolitano. Recently, the Judge encouraged consideration of a states' initiated federal Constitutional Convention while appearing on the Glenn Beck program. We made a post and provided a link to discussion of this wholly bad idea and danger to our country at the time.
so we're just saying... beware... the Libertarian plank has at one time included just such a second Constitutional Convention...
Net the Truth Online
Cavuto interviewed VP Biden's economic policy analyst, yadayada, who could not answer what the Great Lakes Czar was responsible for accomplishing... he gave a sketchy answer about the goals of the "Stimulus Czar," appointed by President Barack Obama.
Cavuto interviewed South Carolina Governor on the recent state Supreme Court case wherein the Court ordered the state to accept the stimulus money from the federal government. Unbelievable. The Gov. said he wasn't going to appeal the decision.
As if those interviews weren't enough to make your stomach turn, Cavuto's next guest was Wayne Allyn Root who raised further concerns about government largesse, debt, and control of our individual lives and livlihoods.
A search produced the info about Root's syndicated radio program to air in select cities June 6. Following...
Ah yes, we also had to find controversy...
Independent Politcal Report Comments
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago/
OK Just a note to beware one of Root's first guests on his radio program will be Judge Napolitano. Recently, the Judge encouraged consideration of a states' initiated federal Constitutional Convention while appearing on the Glenn Beck program. We made a post and provided a link to discussion of this wholly bad idea and danger to our country at the time.
so we're just saying... beware... the Libertarian plank has at one time included just such a second Constitutional Convention...
Net the Truth Online
Independent Political Report Comments
Scott Lieberman // Jun 5, 2009 at 1:25 pm
To listen to the Wayne Allyn Root Radio show on a streaming feed on the Internet:
Saturdays
Noon-1pm Eastern Time
Go to…
http://am970theapple.townhall.com/
and then click on “Listen Live”, which is in a red oval in the upper left part of the page.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago/
"The Wayne Allyn Root Show" to debut nationally Sat., June 6
Root's First Two Guests Are 2008 Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News
LAS VEGAS -- Wayne Allyn Root, the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee and a regular guest personality on FOX News and FOX Business networks, is declaring “W.A.R.” on big government beginning June 6, 2009 when “W.A.R.: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” debuts in Los Angeles and New York (with Chicago joining the lineup in two weeks).
Root's guests on his first show will be 2008 presidential candidate and 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee Dr. Ron Paul, and libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano of the FOX News Channel.
The weekly, one-hour syndicated talk show will be broadcast on political talk format radio stations on Saturdays in the three biggest markets in the country, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. The program will be aired at noon on AM 970 The Apple WNYM in New Jersey/New York; 8 a.m. on Talk Radio 790 KABC in Los Angeles; and 9 a.m. on AM 560 WIND in Chicago (starting on June 20th). Additional markets are expected to be added in the coming weeks.
Root joins a star-studded lineup on these stations with the biggest names in talk radio: Sean Hannity (KABC), Mark Levin (KABC), Michael Savage (WIND), Bill Bennett (WNYM), Dennis Prager (WNYM), Michael Medved (WIND), Mike Gallagher (WNYM) and Joe Scarborough (KABC).
“The show will focus on politics, business and personal finance issues with a Libertarian point of view,” said Root who advocates a free market economy, dramatically smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, reduced government regulation, and more freedom and individual rights.
Root described his unique persona: “I'm 'the ANTI-Obama.' I'm an S.O.B. - son of a butcher - small businessman, home-school father and citizen politician. My life experiences have made me a passionate, committed Libertarian and Capitalist Evangelist. I am proud to be adding my Libertarian flair to conservative talk radio. My hero was Barry Goldwater. I'd describe him as a Libertarian conservative. I look forward to returning conservative talk radio to its Goldwater roots.”
Root is regular guest on three of the biggest talk shows in America: “Savage Nation” hosted by Michael Savage, “The Jerry Doyle Show” and “The Mancow Show” with host Mancow Muller. He's appeared many times on FOX News Channel with hosts Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren and Judge Andrew Napolitano as well as appearances on CNBC. A tireless freedom crusader, he conducted hundreds of radio, TV and print interviews around the country during his campaign for Vice President. Now he's turning the tables and will be interviewing nationally-known personalities and pundits weekly on his new show.
Root is the author of seven books. His latest is The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns Gambling & Tax Cuts!, to be published on July 20 by John Wiley & Sons and available at www.Amazon.com.
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/the-wayne-allyn-root-show-to-debut-nationally-sat-june-6
Friday, May 15, 2009
ACORN Donation Obama Figures?
Another ACORN scandal – in a funeral home?
Group operating out of small building donated $33 million to Obama campaign
Posted: May 14, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Fox News' Glenn Beck may have uncovered another twist to a series of ACORN's alleged scandals when he revealed on his show that the group's main affiliate is operating out of a former New Orleans funeral home and bringing in millions of taxpayer dollars.
The Service Employees International Union's New Orleans headquarters location that also houses ACORN is supposed to be home to more than 270 related corporations and non-profits.
"Does that former funeral home look big enough to you to house 270 organizations?" Beck asked. "The owner of the building is a company whose partners are – oh my gosh! – Wade and Dale Rathke."
Wade Rathke, a New Orleans resident, is founder of ACORN and also founder and chief organizer of Service Employees International Union, which donated $33 million to President Obama's campaign last year.The online OpenSecrets.org estimates Obama's entire campaign spending at about $640 million.
According to the New York Times, he failed to notify police in 2000 when he learned that his brother Dale, ACORN's chief financial officer, had embezzled $948,600 from Citizens Consulting Inc., the ACORN affiliate that handles its financial affairs.
Beck said Wade and Dale are listed as president or partner in dozens of companies based in the New Orleans building.
"[T]he big question remains unanswered: Millions of dollars flow into that building every year," Beck said. "Where does it go?"
Wade Rathke
He said ACORN received as much as $10 million in federal grants last year. But it could get up to $8 billion more after the House passed Rep. Barney Frank's amendment allowing organizations indicted for voter fraud or related crimes to receive taxpayer dollars today.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., urged Congress to block ACORN's access to federal housing funds.
"ACORN, as you know, is no stranger to the spotlight," Bachmann said outside the Capitol. "Yet no matter how many times prosecutors investigate and even indict ACORN and their employees, they emerge unblemished as far as the federal government is concerned from having access to federal tax dollars."
Bachmann told Fox News that ACORN has received at least $53 million in tax dollars since 1994. Frank's amendment passed by a vote of 245-176, largely upon party lines.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98145
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Beck: ACORN web of connections
Glenn Beck revisits the issue of ACORN and its "web of connections" - he wants to know what we might know. So send in your investigative reports...
Last episodes discussion
Last episodes discussion
Former ACORN Board Member Wants Answers
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," May 11, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Now, let's talk to somebody who I may not agree with on politics — I don't really know because I haven't talked with him — but I know he is working at ACORN and I think that's just a left group, but I do agree with the man on principle.
Current ACORN member, Michael McCray: He was a member of ACORN's national board like the women I spoke to on Friday on this program. He, like them, was pushed off the board after they all started asking questions...
...BECK: Oh, yes. That's why, you know, I was told on Friday by the two amazing women that were here, I was told on Friday, "Glenn, stop looking at this as politics. It's not politics. It's about money." Can you tell me — because what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to find — I'm trying to find the beating heart of this — this is like hydra. You can cut ACORN off but it just sprouts another head. There are all kinds of affiliated organizations.
Can you tell me at all what CCI is?
MCCRAY: Well, I'm glad you asked that, Glenn. Essentially, CCI — Citizens Consulting, Inc. — is basically the financial nerve center for ACORN and all its entities. So, if you really want to try to follow the money, that's why we requested a forensic examination and financial audit of CCI.
BECK: OK. CCI — can you put that back up on the screen, please? CCI shows one — what a surprise, it's in New Orleans. There's no corruption down there. It shows one address. This is the address that has — that all of the other ACORN entities, they all list this as their address.
So, if you are — correct me if I'm wrong here, Michael — but if you're in one of these organizations and you apply for federal dollars or any kind of dollars, the money goes there?
MCCRAY: Well, Glenn, I'm glad you mentioned that. I mean, that's the main problem. As a matter of fact, the money goes there first.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519948,00.html
Former ACORN Board Members Speak Out
Monday, May 11, 2009
GLENN BECK, HOST: This week, I learned an awful lot about the "ACORN 8," eight members of the group that joined because they wanted to help people. They said when they learned about some of the fraud and corruption; they just couldn't take it anymore. They tried to blow the whistle but it seems like nobody would listen to them.
I want to introduce you to two women that were in my office this afternoon and we had about a 45-minute conversation. We're going to try to break it down here in the next few minutes. They are — they were once national board — once national board members of ACORN. They ran an organization after the CEO and CFO of the group were fired over a million-dollar embezzlement scandal. Then, when they tried to get the books opened to find out about the corruption, one of them was fired from the board.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519834,00.html
Write-in Choice: Paper Recorded Ballot
Want to send a message to unsatisfactory candidates whose names appear on the Primary ballot? Use the write-in option and vote another candidate whose name doesn't appear on the ballot for the contest, or if there is nobody that meets your specs, vote None of the Above as a write-in choice.
Want to send a message to election officials who chose wholly electronic voting systems and who have yet to see the usefulness of hand-marked ballots that provide a record in ink in the event a recount is ordered?
Want those election officials to adopt paper ballots as a voter choice of voting system at the polling place in the Primary or General Elections?
if you are displeased with only one choice of voting system when you show up in person to cast a vote at the polling place, under a contest between candidates you intend to leave blank, or under-vote, use the write-in feature on the electronic voting machine to write-in a choice for inclusion of paper ballots.
In a Friday, May 19, 2006 piece online, PA Voters' Dirty Write-In Votes & a Better Idea, Joyce McCloy of Black Box Voting.com makes several recommendations to send just such a message.
Rather than the above, might we suggest a very clear message "paper recorded ballot."
While many election officials (who tout electronic method of marking a ballot) have actually argued the electronic marked direct recording machines (called DREs) can print-out on paper each electronically cast ballot, there is actually no way for anyone to determine whether the voter indeed actually made the selection recorded in data stored in an internal memory area.
Nobody can determine whether what is stored on a memory card for instance was tampered with and so if what officials print out from the DRE has in some way been tampered with, nobody will ever know.
However, with a paper ballot, hand-marked by the voter, and the optical-scan system used to scan the ballot for counting (the system also enables second-chance voting in case of error or voter changes) the actual "record" of the voted ballot is the paper ballot.
In the event of a recount - there is something visible to recount. A paper ballot.
That's not to say a wholly paper ballot system cannot be tampered with. It can be. Memory cards can be tampered with. Ballots themselves can be manufactured or created anew and inserted into the optical scan machines.
That's why the chain of custody for paper ballots must be as clean and visible or transparent as possible.
That's why the state of Minnesota is in the position it is with the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
The chain of custody there during the recount was horrendous.
The entire state uses paper ballots, but not all precincts used precinct scanners.
There were enough questionable delivery of absentee ballots there to warrant a complete investigation yet no investigation was done.
yet in comparison to wholly electronic voting systems, the paper ballot with optical scanner as a choice for the voter can have safeguards built-in, if only election officials would allow that choice.
Many don't so if you want that choice you might want to write it in this next election in areas of the ballot you intend to leave blank anyway.
Want to send a message to election officials who chose wholly electronic voting systems and who have yet to see the usefulness of hand-marked ballots that provide a record in ink in the event a recount is ordered?
Want those election officials to adopt paper ballots as a voter choice of voting system at the polling place in the Primary or General Elections?
if you are displeased with only one choice of voting system when you show up in person to cast a vote at the polling place, under a contest between candidates you intend to leave blank, or under-vote, use the write-in feature on the electronic voting machine to write-in a choice for inclusion of paper ballots.
In a Friday, May 19, 2006 piece online, PA Voters' Dirty Write-In Votes & a Better Idea, Joyce McCloy of Black Box Voting.com makes several recommendations to send just such a message.
Put the "write in" feature to good use. Why not write in your "vote" for one of these candidates (especially in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida or anywhere that the lawmakers and election officials refuse to listen to the voters) :
-voterverified paperballots
-noproof notruth
-HR550
-no vaporballots
-paper ballots
If enough people write in the same thing, for the same contest, your candidate, "No Vaporballots" might win.
Regardless, your write-in vote will be counted, and then the media can report something that actually IS newsworthy - that the voters do not want paperless voting. Count those write ins if you don't believe us!
If "voterverified paperballots" got 2,000 votes in a small contest, it might win!
http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/124-PA-Voters-Dirty-Write-In-Votes-a-Better-Idea.html
Rather than the above, might we suggest a very clear message "paper recorded ballot."
While many election officials (who tout electronic method of marking a ballot) have actually argued the electronic marked direct recording machines (called DREs) can print-out on paper each electronically cast ballot, there is actually no way for anyone to determine whether the voter indeed actually made the selection recorded in data stored in an internal memory area.
Nobody can determine whether what is stored on a memory card for instance was tampered with and so if what officials print out from the DRE has in some way been tampered with, nobody will ever know.
However, with a paper ballot, hand-marked by the voter, and the optical-scan system used to scan the ballot for counting (the system also enables second-chance voting in case of error or voter changes) the actual "record" of the voted ballot is the paper ballot.
In the event of a recount - there is something visible to recount. A paper ballot.
That's not to say a wholly paper ballot system cannot be tampered with. It can be. Memory cards can be tampered with. Ballots themselves can be manufactured or created anew and inserted into the optical scan machines.
That's why the chain of custody for paper ballots must be as clean and visible or transparent as possible.
That's why the state of Minnesota is in the position it is with the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
The chain of custody there during the recount was horrendous.
The entire state uses paper ballots, but not all precincts used precinct scanners.
There were enough questionable delivery of absentee ballots there to warrant a complete investigation yet no investigation was done.
yet in comparison to wholly electronic voting systems, the paper ballot with optical scanner as a choice for the voter can have safeguards built-in, if only election officials would allow that choice.
Many don't so if you want that choice you might want to write it in this next election in areas of the ballot you intend to leave blank anyway.
Silent Sebelius Sidesteps How Taxpayers Pay Uninsured Coverage
Secretary of Health faced the question posed twice by Mike Barnacle on Morning Joe programming this morning but skirted it with platitudes.
Barnacle asked: How are we going to pay for this?
Sebelius responded: We need to change healthcare...
Barnacle asked: How is this going to be paid for?
Sebelius responded: We need to lower costs...
Her answers didn't answer the direct question posed two different ways.
How are we - taxpayers - going to pay for this via the federal government program?
In other words, if (approximately 46 million)(according to reports)(the number keeps rising because people keep dropping out of the private programs expecting public-funded replacement healthcare insurance and assurance)(no matter their unhealthy lifestyle choices) more people need insurance, but aren't acquiring insurance by paying in through private business employer/employee split insurance programs, how are the rest of the taxpayers going to pay for those who will use the new healthcare program but are not expected to chip in?
Another consideration, guess who currently is statistically the largest employer in the U.S.? Right, government. For the first time in history, government entities now employ more individuals than all the few left manufacturing plants, private business entities and banks too big to fail, and little mom 'n pop stores - combined!
Wouldn't it be interesting to discover that there are also now more than can be imagined illegal aliens who are included, yes included in the numbers cited 46 million uninsured?
Net the Truth Online
By Donna Smith Donna Smith – Wed May 6, 3:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday said a proposed government health insurance plan backed by President Barack Obama would compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.
In her first appearance before a congressional panel since taking office, Sebelius fielded questions about a new government health plan that would help cover the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.
"Dismantling the private market ... is not something the president supports. He supports moving forward and filling the gap, not disrupting the entire market," Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee.
Republican and private insurers argue that a government-run plan would drive insurance companies out of business. Sebelius said it would inject competition in the market, keep costs low and help cover the uninsured.
Obama has not put forward a specific plan and is leaving it to the Democratic-controlled Congress to write the legislation.
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel said how the plan they proposed would operate and what benefits it would offer depended largely on costs.
Sebelius said several states offer public insurance plans to their employees, taking on the underlying risk but contracting with private insurers to operate the plan.
Obama wants an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry passed by the end of the year. The ambitious undertaking has become more urgent amid soaring health costs and rising U.S. unemployment that is leaving many workers without their employer-sponsored health insurance.
"The costs of the current system are unacceptable and unsustainable," Sebelius told the committee.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090506/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_overhaul
Barnacle asked: How are we going to pay for this?
Sebelius responded: We need to change healthcare...
Barnacle asked: How is this going to be paid for?
Sebelius responded: We need to lower costs...
Her answers didn't answer the direct question posed two different ways.
How are we - taxpayers - going to pay for this via the federal government program?
In other words, if (approximately 46 million)(according to reports)(the number keeps rising because people keep dropping out of the private programs expecting public-funded replacement healthcare insurance and assurance)(no matter their unhealthy lifestyle choices) more people need insurance, but aren't acquiring insurance by paying in through private business employer/employee split insurance programs, how are the rest of the taxpayers going to pay for those who will use the new healthcare program but are not expected to chip in?
Another consideration, guess who currently is statistically the largest employer in the U.S.? Right, government. For the first time in history, government entities now employ more individuals than all the few left manufacturing plants, private business entities and banks too big to fail, and little mom 'n pop stores - combined!
Wouldn't it be interesting to discover that there are also now more than can be imagined illegal aliens who are included, yes included in the numbers cited 46 million uninsured?
ILLEGAL ALIENS AND EMTALA
Dr. Madeleine Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ
March 23, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine.htm
2003 June 22 Sunday
Illegal Immigration Drives Up Number Of Medically Uninsured
Bruce Crawford argues that the high percentage of illegal immigrants with few skills and with less than a high school education is driving down wages among the poorest sector of society while driving up the number of people who have no medical insurance.
It is true since 1989 the national population without health insurance has grown by 7.8 million to 41.2 million in 2001. This is almost exactly the incease in the number of illegals in the U.S. When one counts both immigrants and children born to them, over 95 percent of the increase in uninsureds is the result of immigration, more than half of which (by some estimates, 70 percent) is attributable to illegal immigration.
This is a plausible argument. The level of uninsured among the Hispanic population in the United States is much higher than that of other ethnic and racial groups.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001395.html
Uninsured Immigrants Burden the Health Care System
Health Care News October 2001
Written By: A Camarota and James R. Edwards Jr.
Published In: Health Care News > October 2001
Publication date: 10/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor’s note: The increase in the number of people without health insurance is one of the our most troubling social trends. An under-reported study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds the nation's health insurance crisis is being driven to a measurable degree by immigration policy.
The study, "Without Coverage: Immigration's Impact on the Size and Growth of the Population Lacking Health Insurance," was written by the Center's director of research, Steven A. Camarota, and James R. Edwards Jr. of the Hudson Institute. It offers detailed information, based on Census Bureau data, on immigrant and native insurance coverage at the national level, as well as for the major immigrant-receiving states and cities.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/456/Uninsured_Immigrants_Burden_the_Health_Care_System.html
August 28, 2007 Right Truth
Almost half of uninsured in America are illegal aliens - UPDATED II
Poverty is down and median income is up, according to just released census figures 2006, Current Population Survey. (pdf) Reporting: Molly Henneberg, Fox News Channel.
2006: number of uninsured in America 47 million people, or 15.8% of the population.
2005: number of uninsured in America 44.8 million people, or 15.3% of the population.
Joseph Antos, American Enterprise Institute, looks inside the numbers, because they are very misleading.
uninsured who are NOT U.S. CITIZENS IS 45% of the 47 million.
Broken down by age, 18 - 24 years old - 29.3% of the 47 million.
25 - 35 years old - 26.9% of the 47 million.
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/08/health-care-hyp.html
Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/posts/list/1542810.page
From: Cafe, Election Central
Obama, Illegal immigrants and Health Insurance
By AM - July 27, 2008, 6:28PM
They reported that Obama has stated (showed a clip of a debate) that he
does not plan insuring the illegal immigrants in this country. He
stated his reason as "we have limited resources." Then they said
that he has stated many times his intention to insure the 47 million
uninsured people in this country, and that 40% of those are
illegal. Then CNN quickly moved onto something else...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/obama-illegal-immigrants-and-h.php
Net the Truth Online
By Donna Smith Donna Smith – Wed May 6, 3:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday said a proposed government health insurance plan backed by President Barack Obama would compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.
In her first appearance before a congressional panel since taking office, Sebelius fielded questions about a new government health plan that would help cover the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.
"Dismantling the private market ... is not something the president supports. He supports moving forward and filling the gap, not disrupting the entire market," Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee.
Republican and private insurers argue that a government-run plan would drive insurance companies out of business. Sebelius said it would inject competition in the market, keep costs low and help cover the uninsured.
Obama has not put forward a specific plan and is leaving it to the Democratic-controlled Congress to write the legislation.
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel said how the plan they proposed would operate and what benefits it would offer depended largely on costs.
Sebelius said several states offer public insurance plans to their employees, taking on the underlying risk but contracting with private insurers to operate the plan.
Obama wants an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry passed by the end of the year. The ambitious undertaking has become more urgent amid soaring health costs and rising U.S. unemployment that is leaving many workers without their employer-sponsored health insurance.
"The costs of the current system are unacceptable and unsustainable," Sebelius told the committee.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090506/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_overhaul
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Choice Easy Between Candidates for Fayette Common Pleas Judge
We find it interesting during the Fayette Civic Forum debate between two candidates for Fayette County Common Please Court Judge a notable defining issue was presented to voters who take time to sift through the stark and different information each presented to the audience.
From a Herald-Standard report Judicial candidates' debate spirited by Jennifer Harr
Candidates for Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge (crossfiled)
Ernest P. DeHaas III
Nancy D. Vernon
Which candidate is actually "correct" yes correct in different statements concerning the kind of cases that make up the often overwhelming docket in Fayette County court?
Shouldn't the candidate who got the information "correct" be the candidate who can bring more than experience to the bench?
Something more like 'trustworthiness?'
While DeHaas cited his background with civil cases, Vernon cited her background with prosecuting criminal cases.
The exchange between the two candidates on that matter alone could enable voters to determine which is the spinner and which is the truth-teller?
Shouldn't the candidate who did her or his homework and provided an accurate portrayal of the kinds of cases that make up the Fayette County docket be the candidate who voters will trust to well do his or her homework on the law?
So which is the correct info?
More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are non-criminal?
More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are criminal?
Should it turn out it's 50-50 voters will have a much more difficult choice. If not, the choice should be pretty clear.
Net the Truth Online
The following article is posted as published in the Herald-Standard for discussion purposes and in full so as not to leave out anything that might help make an informed decision.
Net the Truth Online
From a Herald-Standard report Judicial candidates' debate spirited by Jennifer Harr
Candidates for Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge (crossfiled)
Ernest P. DeHaas III
Nancy D. Vernon
DeHaas said that civil cases - which include not only lawsuits, but also custody cases, divorces and any other non-criminal matter that would come before the court - make up the bulk of the court's docket.
However, Vernon said she believes criminal cases did. She said she got that assessment from the county's current judges.
Which candidate is actually "correct" yes correct in different statements concerning the kind of cases that make up the often overwhelming docket in Fayette County court?
Shouldn't the candidate who got the information "correct" be the candidate who can bring more than experience to the bench?
Something more like 'trustworthiness?'
While DeHaas cited his background with civil cases, Vernon cited her background with prosecuting criminal cases.
The exchange between the two candidates on that matter alone could enable voters to determine which is the spinner and which is the truth-teller?
Shouldn't the candidate who did her or his homework and provided an accurate portrayal of the kinds of cases that make up the Fayette County docket be the candidate who voters will trust to well do his or her homework on the law?
So which is the correct info?
More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are non-criminal?
More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are criminal?
Should it turn out it's 50-50 voters will have a much more difficult choice. If not, the choice should be pretty clear.
Net the Truth Online
The following article is posted as published in the Herald-Standard for discussion purposes and in full so as not to leave out anything that might help make an informed decision.
Net the Truth Online
Judicial candidates' debate spirited
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
05/06/2009
Updated 05/06/2009 12:57:59 AM EDT
When voters go to the polls on May 19, they will have two longtime Fayette County attorneys to choose between for their next common pleas court judge.
And while Ernest P. DeHaas III and Nancy D. Vernon agreed on some issues, they entered into a spirited debate about their respective qualifications and other issues during a debate hosted Monday by the Fayette Civic Forum at the State Theatre Center for Arts in Uniontown. The forum was one of four held at the theater Monday night.
While Vernon, 53, cited her 10-year tenure as the county's chief prosecutor as one of her qualifications to take a seat on the bench, DeHaas, 61, said voters should consider his broad experience in civil cases.
Both have cross-filed in the primary.
DeHaas said that civil cases - which include not only lawsuits, but also custody cases, divorces and any other non-criminal matter that would come before the court - make up the bulk of the court's docket. However, Vernon said she believes criminal cases did. She said she got that assessment from the county's current judges.
Moderator Gary Altman, a local attorney, asked both about their ideas for improving the civil and criminal court systems in the county.
Because civil court week is held four times a year and most cases are settled before they actually go to trial, Vernon suggested the judges could set specific times to hear civil trials.
DeHaas said that, with twice as many civil cases filed than criminal cases, increasing the number of days for arbitration might be beneficial.
Cases in which plaintiffs sue for $50,000 or less are automatically scheduled for arbitration.
"A full-time DA wouldn't realize that because they're just (handling) criminal cases," DeHaas said.
DeHaas suggested that Vernon's office does not efficiently schedule cases to get them into court during the county's monthly criminal court term.
Vernon bristled at the suggestion.
She said that she schedules 10 cases for each courtroom to be heard during the week, however, it is beyond her control when a defendant decides to enter a plea, or continue the trial.
Although he cited a wealth of courtroom experience, Vernon said that she never has seen DeHaas in a criminal trial, and questioned his ability to keep up with the fast-paced ways of criminal law.
Vernon cited her vast criminal trial experience, which includes trying 26 homicide cases as district attorney. Of these, 15 resulted in first-degree murder convictions and nine in third-degree murder convictions. In two of the first-degree cases, she obtained a death sentence from jurors.
Vernon said she has tried more homicides than any district attorney ever has in Fayette County, and conducted more trials in general.
"I have the experience necessary to take the bench," she said.
"Experience as a prosecutors would have some importance if we were running for district attorney, but we're running for judge," DeHaas said.
He noted that former county judge Fred C. Adams has indicated to him that while on the bench only about 15 percent of the workload a judge sees is criminal.
By those numbers, DeHaas said he is uniquely qualified for the post because he has a wealth of experience in civil cases.
"My experience far exceeds hers," he said.
The candidates also went back and forth at different times during the debate about advertisements DeHaas has run criticizing how Vernon has dealt with appeals.
Those ads include quotes from various appellate court rulings that have criticized Vernon for not filing briefs in some cases.
In advertisements that attack Vernon's record in filing briefs in appeals cases, she said DeHaas as "misstated (facts) and misled people."
Vernon said a conviction never has been reversed because she failed to file a brief, and noted that she is not required to file one.
DeHaas, however, said that he never has failed to file appeals briefs, and has received compliments from judges for the work he has done on cases over the years.
Both candidates vowed that politics would not enter into his or her courtroom if elected.
"We don't want a person who is going to make a decision based on politics on the bench," DeHaas said.
As district attorney, Vernon said she is accustomed to making decisions based on the law and not on any other considerations.
"I have never made a decision based on politics, and I would never jeopardize the integrity of my office to do that," she said.
DeHaas noted that it is not often that voters get to elect a new common pleas judge, and said they should vote to continue the excellence on the bench.
"We're electing a judge, we're not electing a district attorney," he said.
He said voters should focus on his broad legal experience, proven ability to handle cases, his impartiality, non-political background and good work ethic.
Those qualities, he said, have helped him earn the respect of county, state and appellate judges.
DeHaas vowed to work hard as a judge, and said he would make decisions based on the law and facts.
"I will keep politics out of my courtroom," he said.
Noting that she was the county's first female trial lawyer and first female district attorney, Vernon said she would be honored to serve as the county's first female judge.
She stressed her many years of legal experience, both criminal and civil, and said that she believes that public service is a calling.
While also promising to keep politics out of the courtroom, Vernon said that she had to run for district attorney because it is an elected post. During that time, she said that she believes she has earned the trust of the voters.
"You know me. You know what I stand for," she said. "I've been here for you, and now I'm asking you to be here for me," she said.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20310150&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Excuse Lame Not Release City Financial Data
Financial issues draw attention
By Steve Ferris, Herald-Standard
05/06/2009
Updated 05/06/2009 12:58:19 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
(Editor's note: The following is the second of a two-part series on the primary race for Uniontown City Council.)Democratic candidates for Uniontown City Council offered varying opinions on the city's financial struggles at a recent debate conducted by the Herald-Standard editorial board.
Incumbent Gary K. Crozier, appointed Councilman Francis "Joby" Palumbo and challengers Gary Gearing and James L. Killinger are seeking Democratic Party nominations for two seats on council in the May 19 primary.
Advertisement
Republican candidates Curtis R. Sproul, who was recently appointed to fill a vacant council seat until the municipal election in November, and Russ Rhodes were not included in the debate because they are running uncontested in the primary.
A debate between the Democratic and Republican nominees for those two offices and the parties' nominees to serve the remainder of an unexpired term will be conducted prior to the November election.
Crozier, who is running for his fifth consecutive term, said no one should be blamed for the city's financial difficulties, but not raising property taxes in the past is at least part of the cause.
"I voted for raising taxes 10 years ago, 12 years ago," Crozier said.
He said the city's accountant told council then that the city couldn't continue operating with the amount of revenue it was getting from taxes.
"I wanted to raise taxes, it wasn't raised," Crozier said, adding that he believes the city's financial condition is improving.
He said council had to raise taxes this year, but shouldn't have cut services.
Council laid off 31 employees in October 2008 and then raised taxes, laid off 10 more employees and made two others part time this year. Ten employees were recalled in April.
Soon after taking office in January 2008, Mayor Ed Fike reported that the city inherited $1.3 million in debt from the prior administration. The auditor general's office began an audit in February.
Crozier said potholes have to be filled and streets are dirty. He said council has to do something for residents who have been forced to pay higher taxes.
The city needs a manager to handle its finances, he said.
"The city needs a city manager."..."I'm for it 100 percent."
Some people don't understand the role a manager would play, Crozier said. Council would continue to run the city if a manager was hired, he said.
Gearing, who has been a candidate for state representative in the past, said it's hard to know whom to blame for causing the financial struggles because many financial records are not available.
A 2008 financial statement from the current administration had not been completed as of April 2009 and financial information from prior years is "absent," Gearing said, adding that financial documents should be available on line.
"It's all about accountability and responsibility," Gearing said.
He said council did the right thing by reducing expenses and raising taxes, but it is not letting the public know how money is being spent.
This year's budget is "over inflated" and needs a lot of changes, Gearing said.
A city manager would help the city, but finding out how the city got into debt should be the first priority, he said.
In the past, spending was not done in accordance with budgets and the current council has not provided information on spending, Gearing said.
Killinger, a former commander of the state police barracks in Belle Vernon who retired after 30 years in the state police, said the last and previous administrations probably caused the financial problems facing the city.
He said he asked council to contact the auditor general to conduct an audit in 2008 to find out how the city ended up in financial trouble.
"That fell on deaf ears for a year," Killinger said.
He said no information is available about how the last and former administrations spent money. The first priority should be to find out how the city got into debt, he said.
Killinger said council should have asked the state to help track down the city's debt in early 2008 and should consider hiring a manager.
Palumbo, who was appointed in January 2008 to serve the remainder of Joseph Giachetti's term after he was elected treasurer, said the prior administration caused the financial crisis the city is facing now.
"We had a mess to clean up," when the new administration stepped in last year, Palumbo said.
He said Gearing had not received the information he has requested because the 2008 financial books have not been closed and city officials do not want to release inaccurate information.
Work stopped on the 2007 audit last year because the city didn't have enough money to pay the accounting firm that was conducting the audit, but work has resumed, Palumbo said.
The public should be able to review city financial documents, he said.
Council needs someone, possibly a manager, to work full time on city finances, Palumbo said.
He said there should be a checks and balances system to monitor spending in all departments and the manager.
"We can't afford to relive the past," Palumbo said...."I think greed crept in in the past."
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20310148&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
ACORN Workers Accused Registration Packing Vote Fraud Not Supported
Whether any subsequent action will include criminal charges of voter or election fraud remains to be seen.
Net the Truth Online
Net the Truth Online
May. 04, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
ACORN voter registration drive nets charges
By ALAN CHOATE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNALA voter registration drive last year illegally required canvassers to meet quotas to keep their jobs and resulted in thousands of “garbage” registrations gumming up Clark County voter rolls, officials said Monday as they released a criminal complaint against the drive’s organizers.
The complaint names the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, as well as Chris Edwards, the group’s former Las Vegas field director, and Amy Busefink, who was regional director for voter registration...
...Lisa Rasmussen, a local attorney representing ACORN, called the allegations against the group “patently false.”
“Even the state concedes in its charging documents that there was no 'quota’ system that was enforced by ACORN,” she said in an e-mailed statement. “Furthermore, the suggestion that a business cannot implement standards of quality control, performance goals and individual job performance tools is contrary to the First Amendment.”
She also said Busefink would not be available for comment.
The charges are Class E felonies, the penalty for which can be probation or one to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
At Monday’s announcement, state and local officials strenuously emphasized that the false voter registrations didn’t translate to people being able to vote fraudulently.
“This is a case of voter registration fraud,” said Secretary of State Ross Miller. “There is absolutely no evidence that there was any voter fraud in the last election.”
Larry Lomax, the Clark County registrar of voters, said his office reviewed the 91,002 voter registration forms turned in by ACORN, verifying that information on the form matched information attached to the voter’s driver’s license number or Social Security number.
If it didn’t, those registrations were tagged as requiring identification at the polling place.
There were 28,097 forms that were duplicates or changes of name, party or address, leaving 62,905 new voters.
Of those, 23,186 actually voted in the 2008 general election, according to a report prepared by Lomax’s office.
That means almost 40,000 of the new voters registered by ACORN didn’t vote, and of those, almost 19,000 had information on file that didn’t match what was turned in on the forms.
“That’s 48 percent of those forms that I believe are clearly fraudulent,” Lomax said.
“This is individuals ripping off their bosses because they have a quota to make.”
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/44307912.html
John Murtha No Influence Says Pentagon Awarding Nephew Contract
Murtha's Nephew Got Defense Contracts
Millions in Work Came Without Competition
Murtha has "no influence" in the awarding of particular contracts, a Pentagon spokesman said. (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)
By Carol D. Leonnig and Alice Crites
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.
Murtha said he does not advertise being the nephew of John Murtha and considers it "unfortunate" that some will unfairly assume Murtech received its federal contracts because of his uncle's influence at the Pentagon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050403743.html?hpid=topnews
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Glenn Beck Ignores Dangers Napolitano 2nd Federal Constitutional Convention
On Glenn Beck's program Saturday, Judge Napolitano said the federal income tax has to go as a way to stop government over-spending. He specified states can call a federal Constitutional Convention by submitting the same proposal to "abolish the income tax." He noted 34 states could make the call.
Glenn Beck's response, I like the idea, as a warning to Congress... we don't have to actually do it, but we have to put the fear in them and maybe they'll get the idea.
How sad. As soon as you turn your thoughts to the liberal and progressive coup of United States government with a Democrat President and majority Democrat Congress, and how to combat loss of liberty from those quarters, and soon enough with the help of the minority so-called conservative Republicans, along comes Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck stumping for a second Convention.
Is Beck unaware of the dangers a convention called by the states presents? (Yes.)
See our sidebar for information showing the dangers inherent in convening a second Federal Constitutional Convention. The precedent for a 'runaway' and unlimited convention if states call for one was set in 1787 to 1789 when the delegates to the convention veered from the stated purpose to convene (amend the Articles of Confederation) and instead presented an entirely new Constitution. The one the U.S. still has in operation.
Another little matter the delegates altered - a unanimous vote required to pass the document on for ratification!
Has Beck read enough history, obviously not. Had he been aware of the controversy over a second Constitutional Convention he'd have responded to Napolitano's idea far differently. He may have stuck to the best warning we can give these Congress-critters who spend unconstitutionally now and on unconstitutional programs now is a boot out of office next chance we have. Can't come soon enough for many.
Net the Truth Online
See Hannity forums for discussion not all ok with second Con-Con there, either
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1451601
Also see commentary
The new Constitutional Convention and what it means for America
Jan 13, 2009
http://toastyaroma.com/blog/the-new-constitutional-convention-and-what-it-means-for-america/
See Eagle Forum and Phyllis Shafly
This page was updated June 5, 2009
Glenn Beck's response, I like the idea, as a warning to Congress... we don't have to actually do it, but we have to put the fear in them and maybe they'll get the idea.
How sad. As soon as you turn your thoughts to the liberal and progressive coup of United States government with a Democrat President and majority Democrat Congress, and how to combat loss of liberty from those quarters, and soon enough with the help of the minority so-called conservative Republicans, along comes Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck stumping for a second Convention.
Is Beck unaware of the dangers a convention called by the states presents? (Yes.)
See our sidebar for information showing the dangers inherent in convening a second Federal Constitutional Convention. The precedent for a 'runaway' and unlimited convention if states call for one was set in 1787 to 1789 when the delegates to the convention veered from the stated purpose to convene (amend the Articles of Confederation) and instead presented an entirely new Constitution. The one the U.S. still has in operation.
Another little matter the delegates altered - a unanimous vote required to pass the document on for ratification!
Has Beck read enough history, obviously not. Had he been aware of the controversy over a second Constitutional Convention he'd have responded to Napolitano's idea far differently. He may have stuck to the best warning we can give these Congress-critters who spend unconstitutionally now and on unconstitutional programs now is a boot out of office next chance we have. Can't come soon enough for many.
Net the Truth Online
See Hannity forums for discussion not all ok with second Con-Con there, either
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1451601
Also see commentary
The new Constitutional Convention and what it means for America
Jan 13, 2009
http://toastyaroma.com/blog/the-new-constitutional-convention-and-what-it-means-for-america/
See Eagle Forum and Phyllis Shafly
This page was updated June 5, 2009
Fayette judge overturns zoning board on windmill project
By Liz Zemba TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, May 1, 2009 A Fayette County judge has ruled in favor of an Oregon-based company that accused the county zoning hearing board of bias when it denied the company's permit for a special exception for 24 wind-powered turbines in Georges and Springhill townships.
In the ruling handed down late Thursday, Judge Ralph Warman reversed the hearing board's denial of the special exception for Iberdrola Renewables, formerly known as PPM Atlantic Renewable. Warman found that the zoning hearing board had "abused its discretion and committed errors of law" when it issued the denial.
Warman ordered the zoning hearing board to reconsider Iberdrola's request.
"Since the ZHB has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final adjudications in applications for variances and upon consideration that the ZHB has failed to do so in this case, we remand this action back to the ZHB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Warman wrote.
"The ZHB shall consider and grant each special exception as required by law and may impose whatever conditions they deem fit to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community."
Iberdrola wants to use the wind turbines to produce electricity for its South Chestnut Ridge Windpower Project. In the notice of appeal, Iberdrola indicated the 24 windmills were part of a total of 27 that were to be installed over a 3.5-mile section of Chestnut Ridge in Wharton, Georges and Springhill townships.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_623214.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
