PA: Rep. Bill DeWeese Receives Corbett Interview Request

OK. So what will Pennsylvania state Rep. Bill DeWeese be asked during the secret interview? Would we even think one of a few current insiders, formerly among the outsiders, who've sought truth no matter Democrat or Republican (alleged) (corrupted) culprit, would have a little naggling bit of conscience and uh find out? And spread the confidentiality under a fake name?

Net the Truth Online

Prosecutors have offered former House Speaker Bill DeWeese, one of Pennsylvania's most influential Democrats, a chance to testify before the so-called Bonusgate grand jury, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

http://www.wopular.com/deweese-invited-talk-bonusgate-grand-jury-4

Only in our fictional minds.

Way back, we posed a series of questions and analyzed the happenings, take a look at our review and wonder what exactly will Rep. DeWeese be asked now?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=deweese+bonusgate+emails

Net the Truth Online

House leadership invited to testify to grand jury
Friday, December 04, 2009
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
HARRISBURG -- A statewide grand jury has invited the state House majority leader, the man he displaced in that job and the state secretary of revenue to appear before the panel, a move that has presaged charges against others who received such letters in an ongoing corruption probe.

The letters went to State Rep. Todd Eachus, D-Luzerne, the House majority leader; State Rep. H. William DeWeese, D-Greene, who served as majority leader until Mr. Eachus succeeded him in a caucus shakeup; and Revenue Secretary Stephen Stetler, a former eight-term Democratic House member from York.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09338/1018310-454.stm#ixzz0ZIUEFlFw

EyeOpener

EACHUS, DEWEESE, STETLER ASKED TO TESTIFY IN ‘BONUSGATE’ PROBE

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette a statewide grand jury has invited the state House majority leader, the man he displaced in that job and the state secretary of revenue to appear before the panel, a move that has presaged charges against others who received such letters in an ongoing corruption probe. The letters went to State Rep. Todd Eachus, D-Luzerne, the House majority leader; State Rep. H. William DeWeese, D-Greene, who served as majority leader until Mr. Eachus succeeded him in a caucus shakeup;

http://blog.lobbytracpa.com/2009/12/07/eye-opener-december-7-2009/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FyiByPls+%28FYI+by+PLS%29

Legislative corruption inquiry turns to DeWeese
By Brad Bumsted and Mike Wereschagin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, December 10, 2009

HARRISBURG -- Investigators from the state Attorney General's Office interviewed House Majority Whip Bill DeWeese this week as the office continues its probe into corruption in the General Assembly.

DeWeese, D-Greene County, recently received a letter inviting him to appear before a grand jury in the corruption investigation. He appeared voluntarily for the interview, but has not yet been before the grand jury, his attorney, Walter Cohen, said Wednesday.

"Bill DeWeese has met this week with Attorney General (Tom) Corbett's investigative team and he will continue to cooperate with them as he has for the past 34 months," Cohen wrote in an e-mail.

"That (grand jury appearance) is still a possibility, but that is something we're not going to talk about," Cohen said in an interview Tuesday. Grand jury proceedings are secret.

Kevin Harley, a spokesman for Corbett, declined comment. DeWeese's spokesman, Tom Andrews, referred all questions to Cohen.

In a wide-ranging investigation, Corbett, a Republican candidate for governor, is investigating the use of taxpayer resources for campaigns, as well as obstruction of justice. He has charged 22 people with ties to the House Democratic and Republican caucuses.

The first trial, for former state Rep. Sean Ramaley, a Beaver County Democrat, could go to a jury as early as today.

The Tribune-Review and other newspapers reported last week that House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-Luzerne County, and Secretary of Revenue Stephen Stetler, a former lawmaker who chaired the House Democratic Campaign Committee, received letters to appear before the grand jury.

They have not responded to requests for interviews. Gov. Ed Rendell has said he expects that Stetler would testify before the grand jury.

Legal experts say the letters can be a precursor to facing criminal charges, though that is not always the case. They are a signal that a phase of the investigation is nearing an end.

Corbett began investigating the Legislature in February 2007, prompted by reports that House staffers who worked on political campaigns the previous year received millions of dollars in bonuses.

The investigation has since evolved into a much broader probe of public resources allegedly used for political work. Ten Republicans, including former Speaker John Perzel of Philadelphia, were charged in November with theft, conflict of interest and conspiracy. Corbett said they used millions in tax money for computer programs and equipment for campaigns. Perzel denies any wrongdoing.

Shortly after the probe began, DeWeese, then the majority leader, hired Chadwick Associates, led by former state Inspector General William Chadwick. On Nov. 13, 2007, DeWeese dismissed seven House Democratic staff members. DeWeese said then the dismissals were about trust and accountability. He turned over thousands of e-mails to investigators.

Corbett later charged five of those aides -- DeWeese chief of staff Mike Manzo, staff director Scott Brubaker, political analyst Brett Cott, personnel director Earl Mosely and information technologies director Steve Keefer -- in the bonus scandal.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_657057.html

Andy Stern Quotes Communist Manifesto

But Stern denies he's anything less than a capitalist...

SEIU's Andy Stern Denies He's A Radical!
2009 November 13
tags: ACORN, Andrew Stern, Andy Stern, Glenn Beck Program, News, NewsRealblog, Politics, SEIUby Matthew Vadum

...In a Washington News Observer video, Andrew (Andy) Stern, boss of the radical union SEIU, denies Glenn Beck’s frequent accusation that Stern is a radical. (see first video below)

Despite what Glenn Beck says, I am a capitalist, not a socialist, communist, or anything else he’s called me in the last two weeks...

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/13/seius-andy-stern-denies-hes-a-radical/

A Country That Works
Center for American Progress
October 10, 2006

The Center for American Progress held an event last week to discuss the new book by Andy Stern, A Country That Works. At the event, Stern discussed the central theme of his book, a calls for unions to “recognize competition” and adapt to the “global economy” by dropping demands for “trade barriers.”

Stern urges unions build a “global union movement” that can defend worker’s rights in the new economic environment. He also calls on unions to form “labor-management partnerships” in order to achieve their goals.

Stern used the event to deliver a critique of the ideas and strategies held by many of America’s labor unions. Under Stern’s direction, the SEIU split with the AFL-CIO in July 2005. Labor unions have traditionally called for the rollback of free trade agreements, arguing that they hurt manufacturing jobs. Stern, however, rejected calls for the reinstatement of “trade barriers,” shunning the protectionist and anti-globalization rhetoric usually associated with union leaders.

Stern called for the formation of a “global union movement” that works within the new economic realities. In his opinion, unions must first cooperate at the international level in order to achieve success in their own countries. Quoting The Communist Manifesto, he said that “Workers of the world, unite!” is “more than just a slogan.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/country_that_works.html

Andy Stern: Use Persuasion of Power when Power of Persuasion Doesn't Work

OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW DECEMBER 6, 2008 Andy Stern
Let's 'Share the Wealth' America's most powerful union boss says Europe offers a good economic model.

...His tactics are controversial. The SEIU targets private equity firms, shames business leaders, and competes with other unions to build up its membership. Mr. Stern is unapologetic. "We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn't work, we try the persuasion of power." Inside the SEIU, a traditionally decentralized union, his dominant personality has earned him enemies among dissident local bosses. The biggest SEIU local in California is enmeshed in a corruption scandal. Some people wonder whether he's truly in charge. As an admiring adversary in Washington noted, these days "Andy Stern is surfing a high wave, and hanging on right by the edge."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852244367484311.html

Mesmerized by Discussion Everything But Mandated Health Insurance

It's not buried in the health care insurance legislation, not at all. The mandate is the foundation of whatever is determined to be the details in Senate and House versions of a bill.

Ed Shultz on the Ed Show on MSNBC railed against the rumors of the Senate doing just this, creating a private-sector option with public oversight, but his guest, Jonathan Alter, was on board with whatever the Senate did and the House did to get the most "historical" effort ever towards the ultimate goal universal health care...

The transcript ends the segment with Crosstalk, but Alter's point is not to be missed.

Alter wants to see any legislation passed, no matter the details, no matter what is in it. "...don't destroy history..."

Dec. 8, 2009 Transcript Ed Schultz Show

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:1088765858&start=2

Senate may drop public option
PRIVATE-SECTOR ALTERNATIVE
Reid says he is optimistic about bill after deal

...Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804388.html?hpid=topnews

Shultz wants the full public or government-run option and nothing less.

We believe all of the hysterics not only on his part but others is just for show.

Think about it. If congress can mandate individuals purchase health care insurance, no matter what the details, when Congress is not empowered anywhere in the Constitution to do this, there is nothing to stop Congress from returning in a few years and creating exactly what Shultz and others want.

Nothing.

Unfortunately, the people truly have been put in a state of confusion when the arguments focus on those everything else but the foundation of the proposal - and a "mandate" on individuals is the foundation of the so-called health care (insurance) reform effort.

Net the Truth Online

Transcript excerpt

THE ED SHOW for December 8, 2009

...Let me bring in Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist at "Newsweek" magazine.

What are we seeing unfolding here, Jonathan, tonight? Are we seeing just total compromise and the White House and the Democrats are going to be the political pragmatists here and take whatever they can get?

JONATHAN ALTER, SR. EDITOR, "NEWSWEEK": Yes, that`s about it. But what they can get ain`t bad, Ed. And I think you`re misrepresenting the totality of the bill.

Look, I am strongly for a public option, but it doesn`t look like it is in the cards. That`s the nature of politics. You have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

This is sausage-making time. That`s what they compare passing legislation to. Nowadays, we get a camera right into the sausage factory. We`re seeing it unfold. It has never been a pretty process.

When Social Security went through, the liberals were so angry at Franklin Roosevelt because less than half of senior citizens were going to be eligible for Social Security. They said Roosevelt`s a sellout. How could he do this?

Roosevelt understood that politics is the art of the possible. The same thing is true on this bill, Ed.

It`s a 2,000-page bill. Republicans have been complaining about that. In that 2,000 pages is a tremendous amount of fantastically important stuff -- ending discrimination against sick people, which has Harry Reid quite rightly says, is a civil rights issue of the first order; insuring more than 30 million additional Americans; adding all kind of preventive care.

We don`t have time on this broadcast to list all of the important things that are in this bill.

SCHULTZ: Well, that`s why I...

ALTER: Because you`re making it sound...

SCHULTZ: Now, now, wait a minute now.

ALTER: You`re making it sound like the whole bill is the public option. That`s preposterous, Ed. Preposterous.

SCHULTZ: No, wait a second here. No, this is why I didn`t interrupt you, because I let you go and tell me what`s so good about it.

Just so I`m not misrepresenting the sausage-making here, this is nothing but a handout to the insurance industry...

ALTER: Oh, please. That`s preposterous.

SCHULTZ: No, it is not preposterous. It is not preposterous.

What you`ve got is tax dollars that are going to be subsidizing lower- income people, they`re going to be mandated to go over to the insurance industry and purchase insurance. If there is going to be 40 million new customers, Jonathan, 40 million new customers to the insurance industry, why the heck wouldn`t they take that on?

They love it. It`s new customers.

ALTER: Well, that`s how they got the buy-in from the...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: There is -- my friend, there is no mechanism in place...

ALTER: That`s why at a minimum -- and this is what they`re behind closed doors talking about. They`re talking about -- now, I don`t favor a trigger. I`m for a public option. But just to explain what it is...

SCHULTZ: I know what it is and our audience knows what it is. It`s a watered-down -- there is no mechanism in place.

ALTER: Well, we don`t mow what the trigger is yet.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Jonathan, there is no mechanism in place on the table that is going to give private industry any competition to force down rates. That`s the way it is.

ALTER: Well, that`s not true.

SCHULTZ: It is true!

ALTER: No, there`s a lot of insurance regulation that`s in the bill.

SCHULTZ: Jonathan, don`t tell me I don`t know what I`m talking about. It is true.

ALTER: There`s a lot of insurance regulation in the bill, Ed.

SCHULTZ: OK. Well, we will continue this discussion. I`m up against the clock, as you well know.

I appreciate your opinion, but this sausage-making is not being misrepresented on this program. I can guarantee you that.

ALTER: Got to take the world as it is.

SCHULTZ: No, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

ALTER: Voting against the bill would be historic...

SCHULTZ: You need to fight politically for what`s right for the people.

ALTER: Yes. Fight for it, but at the end, don`t destroy history...

(CROSSTALK)

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:1088765858&start=2

Senate defeats Nelson No Fed Funding Abortion

Senate Defeats Nelson Amendment to Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 8, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday voted 54-45 to defeat the Nelson amendment that would have removed the massive abortion funding from the Senate government-run health care bill. With the defeat, pro-life advocates will unite behind a concerted effort to defeat the entire health care bill.

The legislation currently allows abortion funding under both the public option and the affordability credits to purchase health care insurance.

The bill contains a slightly-reworded version of the much-maligned Capps amendment, which a House committee approved on a partisan vote and which pro-life groups say is an accounting scheme to hide government-funded abortions.

The Nelson amendment, sponsored by Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, would have restored the Hyde amendment principles to the bill to ensure that abortions can't be funded.

Contrary to the claims of abortion advocates during the debate, women would still be able to pay for abortions with their own money and purchase health care insurance to cover their abortions.

Nelson was unable to get enough Democrats to join him in supporting the amendment while two Republicans, pro-abortion Maine Sens. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, sided with abortion advocates against the amendment.

Sen. Barbara Boxer moved to table (kill) the Nelson amendment and she was joined by most Democrats and opposed by most Republicans.

Democrats who voted no and opposed Boxer's motion to kill the Nelson amendment included Sens. Casey, David Pryor of Arkansas, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Edward Kaufman of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

With the Nelson amendment defeated, attention now turns to the vote on the bill itself, and Nelson (but not Casey) has said he would filibuster the bill because of the abortion funding it contains...

...Other issues apart from direct abortion funding are causing pro-life advocates to oppose the health care legislation.

The Senate has also added the Mikulski amendment to the bill that could open the door to forcing every health insurance plan in the country to cover abortions.



http://www.lifenews.com/nat5748.html

Posted Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:15 PM
Why The Senate's Abortion Debate Does Not Matter
Sarah Kliff
The Senate is now debating one of health-care reform's most controversial provisions: Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment. The language of Nelson's amendment, introduced yesterday, mirrors the strong restrictions of the Stupak amendment and bars plans traded on the government exchange from covering elective abortions. Barbara Boxer, the first Senator to speak in opposition to Nelson’s amendment, was quick to term it “the biggest rollback to a woman’s right to choose in decades.” Meanwhile, Nelson has repeatedly threatened to filibuster any bill without his language. Groups that both oppose and support abortion rights have encouraged members to write letters to their senators on the issue, imploring them to vote one way or another.

But no matter how many letters are written or emotional speeches given, this abortion debate does not actually matter

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/08/why-the-senate-s-abortion-debate-does-not-matter.aspx

Global Warming UNraveling

Glenn Beck mentioned the error...concerning ice caps melting and destroying the habitat of the polar bear...

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Covered previously at redstate site

http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2009/02/global-warming-keeps-cooling-off.html

EPA given unparalleled power to regulate clean air, says Craig Smith, in 2007...

Interviewed on Fox News Your World, Smith doesn't appear surprised at what might go on in Copenhagen... talks...

Related

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

Release date: 04/17/2009

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/0ef7df675805295d8525759b00566924!OpenDocument

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Gold-Stranglehold-Jerome-Corsi/dp/1581824890

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/smith-craig-r/6616

Danger in PA Property Tax Elimination Proposal S.T.O.P.

We'd like to agree with letter-writer on the sentiments expressed in "Stop tax-relief ruse" but find the wording is unclear and sounds very much like the S.T.O.P plan proposed on the grand old USA site.

http://www.grandoldusa.com/

The letter-writer only mentions residences, and neglects to clarify whether the reference applies to primary residential property, all residential property, and/or business or commercial property.

We can only assume then the letter-writer is actually referencing the S.T.O.P. plan.

(it appears we're right on the connection of the Tribune-Review letter-writer, Bednar to the S.T.O.P. proposal as her name and publication of a short letter to Sen. Logan is mentioned by Bob Logue who started the S.T.O.P. effort:

http://www.spedunkie.com/loganresponse.html

If so, that plan does not apply to all residential property, nor does it apply to business property.

And the PA Constitution would need to be amended in order for the proposal to fly.

On our Vote Fix site, we previously analyzed the S.T.O.P. plan.

STOP tax reform plan Guts PA Constitution

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id104.html

What's sad is most people will read letters-to-the-editor such as the following and actually agree with the contents, but won't understand fully the proposal - if it indeed is the one proposed by S.T.O.P. coalition - applies only to 'primary' residence.

Beware of any legislative proposal which needs any tinkering with our PA Constitution such as a referendum and/or a state Constitutional Convention.

Period.

Net the Truth Online

Stop tax-relief ruse
Tribune-Review
Saturday, December 5, 2009
To all the voters: When you talk or write to the candidates who are running for governor, ask them how they stand on abolishment of all three property taxes.

These include the school, municipal and county taxes. If only the school tax is abolished, we still will be liable for the assessments/reassessments of our properties, and our county and municipal property taxes will keep going up along with the sheriff sales, etc.

We will still be paying rent to the government and our homes will never be ours.

We don't want to hear the words ''reduction" or "relief.'' Tell your senator and representative that we are tired of the 30-year deceptions about ''reducing'' property taxes on our homes and that you want property taxes totally abolished.

We are tired of all of the deceit we keep getting from our representatives and senators, and we are aware of how costly these sheriff sales and assessments are to the taxpayers. They are all fraudulent promises, and we won't stand for it any more.

Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Alene Bednar Ford City

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/s_656046.html

Senator Logan,

I have been advising quite a few Reps to contact you and Rep. Gergely about the STOP plan. Have you heard from any of them? I haven't heard anything about the total abolishment of our property taxes lately either. Where are we on this? Please reply so I can pass your information on to the other members. Sincerely, Alene Bednar.

Senator Logan's reply:

I have not heard from any of them. The bill is introduced and waiting for Republican Leadership to bring this issue up for discussion. But at this time to my knowledge, there are no plans to bring this issue up for debate. Keep up the fight.

Sean Logan

Bob Logue Comments: First, let me commend Alene Bednar (above) and everyone of you and your families and friends who have been contacting your PA Senators and Representatives, as well as the announced candidates for Governor. Keep it up...and encourage others to do the same.

Senator Sean Logan wrote the STOP legislation to abolish all property taxes on primary residences in 2003...and has continuously supported the STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan. He again reintroduced our legislation in the current legislative session.

You will note in Sean's response to Alene's inquiry--that his bill is waiting for 'Republican Leadership to bring this issue up for discussion (in the Senate).' He is right. Movement on legislation to bring to a public referendum, changing the constitution to permit 100% of all property (real estate taxes) to be abolished on primary residences passed the house 192-0 in the last legislative session which ended in 2008. The legislation then went to the Senate and was sent to the Senate Finance Committee. To their credit, the Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee voted 12-0 to bring the legislation to the full Senate for debate and a vote. However, the Republican Senate leadership instead sent the legislation to the Appropriations committee to die...which it did as the session ended.

Some in legislature may believe the current economic situation in Pennsylvania and across the US is the wrong time to be considering such a dramatic change in our method of taxation for our schools, counties and municipalities. The opposite is true...

http://www.spedunkie.com/loganresponse.html

Proper Audit Trail After Demolition Sounds Improper

Audit trail looks good on paper, right? UHHUH. Does this item Airport authority seeks condemnation of building already razed seem as ludicrous to others as it seems to us? How did relatives of the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport Authority's chairman acquire anything at any time past or present at the public/private regional airport? Since when is vacant space at an airport worth nearly $200,000 of taxpayers' money? What was the original arrangement?

The most obvious concern is this: if a private citizen or business owner created a proper audit trail after the fact of acquiring something, there would be an investigation.

Looks to us like an investigation is needed on this 'proper audit trail' at the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Unity, over in Westmoreland County.

The situation also brings up a host of questions about so-called regionalization of so-called public services not only those concerning airports of whatever size.

In Pennsylvania, authorities are autonomous once created they are subject to very little oversight by those who appoint members to the authority's board.

Deals such as this one can be made and who will look into it? Our 'regional' newspapers?

Net the Truth Online

Airport authority seeks condemnation of building already razed

The Westmoreland County Airport Authority is seeking official condemnation of an already demolished aircraft hangar owned by the family of authority Chairman Anthony M. Ferrante.

Authority Solicitor Donald Snyder filed a "declaration of taking" with the county's Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 24 as a means of confirming the taking of the leasehold interest of the building known as Hangar 14 at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Unity.

The building — torn down in October to improve hangar facilities and airport layout — housed 12 spaces owned and rented out by Ferrante's son, Anthony K. Ferrante, and his sister, Bernice Ferrante Lewis, both of Vandergrift, Snyder said.

Hangar 14 tenants were relocated either to rentable spaces in other buildings owned by Ferrante and Lewis or to facilities being rented out by the authority itself, said authority Executive Director Gabe Monzo.

The authority is required to hire an independent appraiser to determine the value of properties it wishes to acquire based on eminent domain guidelines, Snyder said.

Hayden Appraisal Services of Greensburg determined the property to be worth $185,000. The firm's assessment was independently reviewed by Jack Lizza, owner of Professional Real Estate Appraisal Services, also of Greensburg, Snyder said. That amount already has been paid to Ferrante and Lewis, Snyder said.

This purpose of the legal filing was to "create a proper audit trail" as it relates to the recent negotiation, Monzo said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_656314.html

Health Care Insurance Mandate Most Intrusive to Individual

Benjamin Franklin said it best.

Should any health care insurance reform measure pass no matter what its contents in addition to the mandate on individuals and a fine for non-compliance, it will be obvious the "little temporary safety" Franklin warned of - is the mindset of the United States of America's public.

There is still hope you can make your voice heard. For us, however, there is no acceptance of any bill put forth by Congress regarding individual choice to purchase or not purchase, anything, including health care insurance from among private, so-called non-profit entities, or a public option, absolutely no acceptance.

Check out a new website referenced by World Net Daily

Want to sound off on health-care debate?
New website offers free online lobby tool – no matter your opinion
Posted: November 23, 2009

A new online lobby tool allows visitors to take a broad-based survey on the health-care issues facing Congress and transmits the results free to their member of the House of Representatives and both of their senators.

The website, HealthCareVote.com, is the work of Brad O'Leary, publisher of the monthly political insider newsletter "The O'Leary Report" and author of "The Audacity of Deceit" and "Shut Up, America."

"This is a great tool to shake up the current health-care debate in Congress – if people use it," said O'Leary.

Visitors to the site can answer 14 critical questions on health-care reform and then click to automatically send their answers to their senators and congressman. The service is completely free for all users...

... O'Leary has also launched a special television program running on 220 cable and network television stations. The program promotes two messages: 1) Why it's important for everyone to improve personal health and wellness to keep health-care costs down, and 2) Why it's important Americans go to HealthCareVote.com to tell their senators and representatives where they stand in the health-care debate.

The TV special is hosted by Bryant Gumbel with a special appearance by actor Dean Cain...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116904

See WND's coverage of the O'Leary/Zogby poll and its results...

Poll: Americans agree on health insurance
But Obamacare out of step with Zogby-O'Leary respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 14, 2009
11:39 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily




Americans have put aside partisan difference and agree on several significant health care issues, but facets of Obama's health-care plan remain outside of those boundaries, according to a newly released Zogby International/O'Leary Report poll.

"Congress should put forward a health care reform plan that addresses these eight issues on which most Americans agree," Brad O’Leary, publisher of "The O'Leary Report," said today.

"In particular, tort reform and permitting Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines have near universal appeal with voters. New taxes, on the other hand, are almost universally opposed," he said.

O'Leary, besides authoring the report bearing his name, also has written "Shut Up America: The End of Free Speech."

...Regarding support for new taxes on employer-provided health care benefits, only about 12 percent agreed and nearly 78 percent said no.

Likewise, 75 percent said no when asked about raising taxes to fund a government-run health insurance program for the 26 million Americans who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or the 12 million illegal aliens who lack health insurance. Only 15 percent said that should happen.

A federal proposal that would fine Americans for not purchasing health insurance is a bad idea, according to 70 percent of respondents, and a good idea for 18 percent.

And restrictions for pre-existing conditions should be allowed, according to about 20 percent of the respondents, while 68 percent said no such limits should be permitted.

Regarding the proposed Obamacare "Independent Medicare Advisory Council," which purportedly would make decisions "to deny payment for procedures it deems unnecessary or futile," not even one voter in three supports the idea...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109836

Expect Stew Parties should Health Insurance Mandate Pass

Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.Article Comments (158) By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Discussion site daily paul

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/107710

D

ebating the Constitutionality of an Individual Mandate
Jonathan H. Adler • November 5, 2009 3:09 pm

The latest installment of the Federalist Society’s “Originally Speaking” debate series features UC Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Baker & Hostetler partner David Rivkin sparring over the constitutionality of an individual mandate.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/05/debating-the-constitutionality-of-an-individual-mandate-2/

Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009: Unconstitutional

Michael Connelly
Infowars
September 21, 2009

...However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...

http://www.infowars.com/affordable-health-care-choices-act-of-2009-unconstitutional/

Dr. Manny: 25% childhood OCD result of PANDAS

On Fox News weekend edition, interviewed by Alison Camerota, Dr. Marc Siegel comments on findings related to the case of a girl who suffers uncontrollable fits of sneezing.

He noted the underlying cause being an infection, but offered the medical condidtion can lead to behavioral situations, including A.D.D.

...strep infection... damages brain on neurological side that could also be medical...

He said along with medication, a behavioral approach has to be undertaken as well.

video Dr. Marc Siegel "Medical Rewind"

http://video.foxnews.com/12239060/medical-rewind

http://www.iseenews.com/watch/bless-you-foxnewschannel

Also Dr. Manny Alvarez comments in the following video

video sneezing girl gets diagnosis called PANDAS

http://video.foxnews.com/12213484/bless-you

Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009 report

Girl Who Sneezes 12,000 Times a Day Gets Official Diagnosis

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579070,00.html

Washington, Dec 4 : An American girl, who sneezes up to 12,000 times a day, has been given an official diagnosis, with doctors saying that she is suffering from PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus).

...Symptoms of PANDAS include obsessive or compulsive behaviours, Tourette's syndrome and attention deficit disorder.

http://www.andhranews.net/Health/2009/December/4-Girl-sneezes-43082.asp

Sneezing girl officially diagnosed
Doctors say she has PANDAS
Updated: Wednesday, 02 Dec 2009, 6:32 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 02 Dec 2009, 5:38 PM EST

Katie Collett
CHESAPEAKE, Va. - For several weeks, WAVY.com has been following Lauren Johnson, the 12 year-old Chesapeake girl who started sneezing in upwards of 12,000 times per day after suffering from a bad cold. Recently, Lauren was officially diagnosed with Paediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus, otherwise known as PANDAS.

"Now we can actually treat it as something," says Lauren who is thrilled to finally have a diagnosis.

WAVY.com spoke with Dr. Rosario Trifiletti, a child neurologist treating Lauren. He explained the onset of PANDAS. "Following a common streptococcal infection, the most common of which people are familiar with, the strep throat from a few days to a couple of weeks later, there's a marked change in a child that gets this."

Trifiletti says those changes happen quickly. PANDAS symptoms include:

Cognitive inflexibility, difficult to reason with, as if stuck on an idea
Obsessive/repetitive/compulsive argumentative behaviours
TICS (repetitive vocalisations of body movements)
Tourettes Syndrome
Attention deficits and oppositional/defiant behaviours.
The good news? There is treatment for Lauren and other children who suffer from PANDAS.

"She was placed on antibiotics and has improved considerably," says Dr. Trifiletti.

However, there is some bad news.

"Lauren is at risk of getting this again, so we're probably going to place her on some sort of...a low dose of antibiotics, for a long period of time," says Dr. Trifiletti.

Lauren's family learned the PANDAS diagnosis is relatively unknown. It was discovered only 13 years ago meaning a lot of trial and error.

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/Sneezing-girl-officially-diagnosed

...There are two variants of this disease, one that causes tics and another that causes OCD:

If you are interested in more detail, I highly recommend Moretti's paper "What every psychiatrist should know about PANDAS" http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/pdf/1745-0...

Another good one that's easier to read is from the school nurse's perspective "PANDAS in the school setting" http://www.schoolnursenews.org/BackIssues/2003/09...

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/Sneezing-girl-officially-diagnosed

Climate Change UNraveling?

While the AP fact checked every aspect of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, we have yet to see any fact checking of a mere 100-page account supporting man-made global warming.

That's not surprising since it appears the mainstream media has yet to latch onto any full reporting on:

The Canadians who changed the climate debate

Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have discovered faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As Richard Foot reports, that's made them pretty unpopular in some circles.

By Richard Foot, Canwest News ServiceDecember 5, 2009

...The "Climategate" e-mails have sparked a scandal -- just ahead of next week's global warming summit in Copenhagen -- for suggesting climatologists may have manipulated data to exaggerate the threat of global warming and conspired to keep contrary points of view out of the scientific journals. But the e-mails are also conspicuous for their repeated, nasty references to two Canadians -- McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick -- who have become a serious thorn in the side of climatologists and others who say the planet is under serious threat from man-made global warming.

Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Their work has drawn attention from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Wall Street Journal, which last month called them "the climate change gang's most dangerous apostates."

McIntyre, a Toronto mining analyst and speculator, became intrigued by the climate change issue when the Kyoto Protocol was up for debate in 2002.

He was skeptical of a key piece of science in the IPCC reports of the time -- a graph, based on research by U.S. climatologist Michael Mann, that showed Earth's temperatures had remained relatively stable over the past thousand years then began rising suddenly in the 20th century.

The graph, shaped like a sideways hockey stick, became one of the most convincing illustrations in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which rallied millions to the cause of global warming. But it reminded McIntyre of the promotional graphs and statistics commonly used by mining promoters in search of investors.

He said he decided -- purely out of curiosity and not because he wanted to shake up the global warming debate -- to carry out some due diligence on the numbers.

Replicating the arcane calculations of climate modelling science would be an impossible task for most people. But McIntyre had been a math prizewinner in high school, had studied pure mathematics at the University of Toronto and had won, but turned down, a mathematics scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, choosing a business career instead.

"I read Mann's paper and thought, 'What this looks to me is like really overblown and high falutin' language for fairly simple linear regressions and matrix algebra. I figured it would be like doing a big crossword puzzle, so I went at it," he said. "I had no particular expectations that it would be wrong, I just thought it would be interesting. It sounds bizarre in retrospect, but I take up odd interests from time to time."

McIntyre contacted Ross Mc-Kitrick, a University of Guelph statistical economist who was also analyzing the science behind the IPCC reports. Together they unearthed evidence that Mann's calculations were predisposed to producing a hockey stick-shaped graph, with sharply rising temperatures in the 20th century.

They also showed that Mann's calculations ignored the data showing a major warming trend in the 15th century, much like the warming of the 20th century.

"That discovery hit me like a bombshell," wrote one scientist in the MIT Technology Review in 2004. "Suddenly the 'hockey stick,' the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."

M and M's findings sparked hearings on the science of global warming by the U.S. Congress, and an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences. Their report concluded that while the wider science behind 20th century global warming remains valid, the hockey stick graph and other long-term temperature models were fraught with "uncertainties" and that Mann's calculations "tended to bias the shape of (hockey stick) reconstructions."

Mann was required to publish a retraction about some of his statistical methods in the science journal Nature...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadians+changed+climate+debate/2306516/story.html

Election case interesting but unaccepted as fraud

Not an unexpected development in a Fayette election case. At least there was some news coverage of the denial.

Pa. top court won't hear failed Fayette County candidate's appeal
By The Tribune-Review
Friday, December 4, 2009

The state Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of a failed candidate who alleges impersonators may have voted in place of deceased voters.

In an opinion posted Thursday, the court denied Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr.'s petition to appeal a Commonwealth Court ruling that upheld a lower court's dismissal of his lawsuit. In addition, the Supreme Court denied Pritchard's emergency motions to stay the election results of the May primary and November general election.

Pritchard had alleged that Fayette County failed to purge voter registration lists, resulting in impersonators possibly voting in place of deceased voters...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_656186.html

ABC News Headlines Secret That Isn't but Revealing

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

Ronald Bailey Remember His Conversion to Global Warming

Quite a while back, Ronald Bailey at Reason Mag, wrote an article "We're All Global Warmers, Now."

We thought we'd see what Bailey wrote about the Climate-Gate emails, etc...

For comparison, read a selection of analysis and commentary...

ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/6/climategate_iii_the_mystery_of_the_missing_data/

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/2/4/climate_data_row_man_steps_down/

Just read Bailey's wording very closely. He's not convinced, even if the emails show what it appears the emails show, he's not convinced otherwise than his conversion article, "We're All Global Warmers, Now."

The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate
Can climate change science recover from the damage done by leaked emails?
Ronald Bailey | December 1, 2009

...It is reassuring to think that even if the CRU data are shown to be distorted (either wittingly or unwittingly) other independent sources of data are at hand. But that belief may not be entirely accurate. Besides the CRU temperature data, there are two other leading sources used by the IPCC, one created by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the other by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

While it is true that the scientific groups are independent, as University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. (father of Pielke Jr.) observes, the temperature data sets are not all that independent. Pielke cites the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, which noted, "Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence." The report further observed, "While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results." In 2007, Pielke and his colleagues reported, "The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise."

One of the leaked emails from CRU’s Phil Jones appears to confirm this data interdependence: "Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center." Given this interdependence, Jones’ appeal to correlation with other data sets to support the validity of the CRU data is less convincing than one would hope. To the contrary, the fact that the three data sets correlate so well may instead provoke concerns about the validity of all three.

In an email to University of Alabama climatologist John Christy I asked, "Is there a possibility that the teams that compile temperature data could all be making the same set of errors which would result in them finding similar (and perhaps) spurious trends?" Christy replied that he believed this was possible and cited some recent work he had done on temperature trends in East Africa as evidence. In that article he found that using both the maximum and minimum temperature rather than the mean temperature (TMean) used by the three official data sets gives a better indication of actual temperature trends in the region.

Christy found that the maximum temperature (TMax) trend has been essentially zero since 1900 while the minimum temperature (TMin) trend has been increasing. In his email to me, Christy explained, "As it turns out, TMin warms significantly due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, so TMean, because it is affected by TMin, is a poor proxy for understanding the greenhouse effect of 'global warming'." Or as his journal article puts it, "There appears to be little change in East Africa’s TMax, and if TMax is a suitable proxy for climate changes affecting the deep atmosphere, there has been little impact in the past half-century." So if Christy’s analysis is correct, much of the global warming in East Africa reported by the three official data sets is exaggerated. Christy has found similar effects on temperature trend reporting for other regions of the world.

Roger Pielke Jr. notes, "If it turns out that the choices made by CRU, GISS, NOAA fall on the 'maximize historical trends' end of the scale that will not help their perceived credibility for obvious reasons." On the other hand, Pielke Jr. adds that Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers finds that CRU, GISS, and NOAA researchers made temperature data adjustments "in the middle of the range or even low end, then this will enhance their credibility." The good news is that a truly independent set of temperature data has been produced over the past thirty years by NOAA satellites. In general, the global satellite temperature trends tend to be on the low end of the climate computer model projections.

The more benign interpretation of what has been going on in climate change science is that as the man-made global warming narrative took hold among climatologists, research that confirmed the dominant paradigm had a much easier time getting through the peer review process. Meanwhile research that contradicted the paradigm was subject to much greater scrutiny and thus had a harder time making it through the peer review sieve. Scientists are human too and not free from confirmation bias.

But for now, regardless of the motivations of the researchers, damage has been done. How can the world of climate science recover?...

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scientific-tragedy-of-clim

"Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us?
Ronald Bailey | November 25, 2009

Last week thousands of emails and documents were hacked from the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The emails revealed a lot of scientific nastiness and some efforts to suppress climate research with which CRU leaders disagreed.

But I've been wondering what insights about how climate data is put together by CRU researchers the hacked documents and models might hold?

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/25/climategate-forget-the-emails

It's Not Exactly "Climategate" But ....
Ronald Bailey | November 23, 2009

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/23/its-not-exactly-climategate-bu

December 1, 2009
‘Reason’ on the Real Tragedy of Climategate
Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 1, 2009 11:30 PM
According to Reason magazine’s head science writer Ronald Bailey, in his December 1 lead story, “the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/44111.html

Related

No Hole in the Blogosphere: Tracking Climate-Gate
By Daniel Foster


Update: 12/2 11:18 A.M.: Reason magazine's science correspondent Ronald Bailey provides a sober, even-handed assessment of the facts of the ClimateGate case that is great for anybody just catching up. In the second half of the piece, Bailey suggests steps that must be taken to reform the way climate science is practiced.

http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=ZTI3Njg5NTk3MzgwYjI3MWRmMTVmYjFkYWNiYjZhNmU=

Democratic Underground A Plus for Obama Afghanistan?

What IS US presence in Afghanistan all about?

That question was posed before Barack Obama was elected President when Obama included the potential during remarks while on the campaign trail to the White House.

The question is posed, now that President Obama made his decision and committed more troops in Afghanistan until, 18 months from now.

The question wiill continue to be posed by any number of thinking people throughout the oops can't say occupation, right? Can't say illegal war, right? Can't say impeachement process, right?

Let's see what happened over at Democratic Underground on the questions over Afghanistan. OK.

Net the Truth Online

Afghanistan: Obama Drops The Other Shoe

Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: November 30, 2009 11:12 AM

The sham Afghanistan strategic review is now revealed for the empty exercise it always was. Escalation was inescapable, for Obama's staunch promotion of a 'necessary war' precluded a serious reappraisal of stakes and risks. Reversing himself would have demanded the kind of courage that is wholly foreign to him. So we are left with an open-ended commitment to an unwinnable war. That outcome speaks volumes about the failings of Obama as a leader as much as his impaired judgment.

The entire process reeks with dishonesty -- a double dishonesty. The White House deceived the country in advertising a root and branch critical analysis of the reasons for our engagement in Afghanistan that never took place. Also, the White House deceived itself in making believe that endless discussions over variations of the same strategy addressed core issues. All of the participants shared the same key assumptions that never have been questioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x499566

Elsewhere

Obama’s War Speech:
An Unconvincing Flop

by Justin Raimondo, December 02, 2009

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum

After 92 days of waiting for the Word from on high, the nation received its marching orders from our commander-in-chief – and it was a flop of major proportions. As his West Point audience looked on disdainfully – applauding only twice, and then tepidly – President Obama tried to make the case that his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is really just a prelude to withdrawal. But is it?

"It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. … As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda … Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

Those who were hoping for some real change in our rhetoric, if not our foreign policy, with Obama in the White House are no doubt sorely disappointed right now, because George W. Bush could just as easily have spoken these very same words – and, indeed, he did utter endless variations on this identical theme when justifying our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the truth of the matter is that there are barely one-hundred al-Qaeda fighters in the whole of Afghanistan – so what are we doing there?

And just in case you were wondering how we are fighting a war without congressional authorization, Obama brings up the legacy of his predecessor, which he stands by without reservation:

"Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America , our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security."

We’re good, we’re legal, this war is legitimate – but is it? There’s no al-Qaeda of any consequence in Afghanistan – so, I ask again, what are we doing there? Nowhere does Obama effectively answer this question, and that is the underlying weakness of this, his worst ever speech. We also get a bit of revisionist history – the kind that isn’t an improvement over the mainstream variety:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/12/01/obamas-war-speech-an-unconvincing-flop/

JBS President John F. McManus Asked to Clarify Position Terror Trials

Publisher of the New American and President of the John Birch Society is asked to explain a response to a question which was asked in a series running in The Hill, entitled The Big Questions.

The Hill

The Big Question: How will the 9/11 trials play out legally, politically?
By Sydelle Moore and Tony Romm - 11/18/09 11:59 AM ET

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to hold detainee trials in New York City has attracted criticism from Republicans. Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing the GOP of playing politics. How will this issue play out legally and politically?

...John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/68361-the-big-question-how-will-the-911-trials-play-out-legally-politically

Notice, the republication of the Big Questions with the date November 20, 2009 with John F. McManus' responses at the JBS site does not contain the question posted on The Hill site for Nov. 18, 2009.

Also see listing of similar columns since McManus was included

http://www.johnbirchsociety.org/component/search/hill%2Bbig%2Bquestions/%252F?ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=20

The answer to that question attributed by The Hill to John F. McManus prompted formerly JBS-affiliated William Grigg's posting at Lew Rockwell Blog.

November 21, 2009
An Unexpected Endorsement of the Hitlerian “Terror Tribunals”
Posted by William Grigg on November 21, 2009 11:36 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/43366.html

Grigg and other posters ask for explanation and clarification on the question directly on the John Birch Society's republication of The Hill's Big Questions.

We'd like to see clarification or outright statement the Hill made a mistake in attributing this particular answer to John F. McManus.

The answer attributed to McManus is nothing short of a complete turnaround by the man who wrote of The Insiders, and over the decades ranted about Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission members and a design for all that would be a rejection of the foundational principles of this country, including illegal and "undeclared" wars not authorized by Congressional Acts.

In particular, how would McManus explain this:

excerpt from The Hill

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:


These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals.

Problems with this position coming from the president of the John Birch Society would be numerous. An organization that recognizes the rights guaranteed in the Constituion are unalienable - God-given - is the position of the JBS - and the sanctity of the writ of habeas corpus also recognizes the problematic situation of so-called military courts 'where no rights exist.'

And excusing the position of a military trial where no rights exist with what McManus (attributed by the Hill) says further about the 'terrorists' crimes being an act of war and posing in question form "didn't we go to war as a result?" - that is nothing short of illogical.

so from our perspective, we're holding out McManus and the JBS did not include the question and response from the Hill on its Nov. 20, 2009 piece on select questions and answers because the response was not from John F. McManus.

We could for instance envision Laurie Milroie answering that way, strongly and emphatically so, but not John F. McManus.

As for William Grigg, the situation is clouded further by postings on his blog/website concerning his firing.

Sunday, August 20, 2006
Will Grigg's Birch Blog -- The Lost Episodes

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/08/will-griggs-birch-blog-lost-episodes.html

Obviously a major rift occurred between Grigg and the John Birch Society back in 2006. But back around that time, Grigg also considered McManus his friend and colleague.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The (Murder-)Suicide of the West

...In what sense would ending the war in May 1945 have been “premature,” when the Japanese leadership had been sending out peace feelers for nearly a year – following the unimaginable horrors of the Battle of Saipan?

In January 1945, the Japanese had quietly provided MacArthur with surrender terms that were, for all practical purposes, identical to those accepted after the terror bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Had those terms “been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb,” writes my friend and colleague John F. McManus...

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=mcmanus

Shouldn't he have asked McManus directly for either a clarification or a correction before posting to the Lew Rockwell Blog on Nov. 21, 2009?

He doesn't appear to ask if a correction is in order until Nov. 29, 2009.

However, if John F. McManus and the JBS scrubbed the question and answer from their New American in-print publication and website and McManus did indeed respond in the way The Hill report shows, there will be no satisfactory explanation.

If McManus and the JBS clarify that is McManus' answer to the Hill Big Question, we believe the organization will lose its longstanding credibility.

If the scrubbing occurred that is nothing short of hiding the truth and lying for one's own benefit.

The response by what have always appeared to be principled John Birch Society members (finding out the President of the John Birch Society lied by not including the question and answer in the Nov. 20, 2009 piece) would be disastrous for the John Birch Society, not only because of the times we live in, but for future times.

Net the Truth Online

John F. McManus Answers the The "Big Questions" PDF | Print | E-mail
Written by John F. McManus
Friday, 20 November 2009 13:00

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Will Grigg said:
Here's the REALLY "Big Question" --
Why did Jack McManus, contradicting the previous JBS position, embrace the neo-con position on "terror tribunals"? --

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/043366.html

Is this one of those "ride-the-wave" decisions? Is Jack hanging ten on a Red State Fascist wave?

November 21, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

zman said:
Huh?
I see Will Grigg gets a low rating for asking a legitimate question of Mr. McManus. Perhaps Birchers are no more interested in the truth or asking tough questions than those with more "mainstream" views.

Why did The New American publish a contradictory article (on the issue of trying terrorists in public courts) by Becky Akers on the same day as this article was published?

November 23, 2009

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/948-becky-akers/2367-trying-terrorists

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

fleck said:
I would like clarification. Ne disrespect intended.
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

"The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing."

I say:
I certainly understand the problem with a civilian court procedure. I am not a big fan of military courts either. Can somebody clarify?

What exactly is the JBS position on this?

November 23, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Will Grigg said:
On the subject of needed "clarifications"....
This line from McManus' statement desperately needs one: "Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?)...."

Is it now the official JBS position that the Constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war is a dead letter? It must be, if that statement is to make any kind of sense. Otherwise, with no declaration of war, and the courts in full operation, there is no legal rationale whatsoever for trying those accused criminals before military tribunals, per the controlling precedent, Ex Parte Milligan (1866) -- see http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0

November 24, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Mr. Grigg said:
Correction, Please!
It's been more than a week since Mr. McManus endorsed the unconstitutional use of military tribunals and effectively repudiated the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war. Is this now the official JBS position, given that McManus is the official spokesman and arbiter of JBS ideology? Is the JBS going to retract or correct his statement? Or, in keeping with past performance, will JBS upper management do nothing in the hope that this embarrassment will simply go away -- and then praise itself for displaying "leadership"?

November 29, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Judge Napolitano Sadly Nothing To See Move On

Judge Napolitano: two problems the government (Obama Administration) is taking tax dollars and giving money to people to pay mortgages with... the government has no money of its own, it is borrowing and in debt... and second, the government (Obama Administration) is browbeating banks to forgive the loans/debt.

This only creates a "mess."

Hmmm. Judge Napolitano only had a couple of mninutes on Fox 'n Friends this morning to explain anything and that is negligence on the part of Fox 'n Friends.

Maybe he'll go into more on his own net programming, or other Fox appearances later in the day.

But why the teaser? Obviously to get people who are hooked on Fox to watch all of it.

Meanwhile, we remain skeptical of Judge Napolitano who has been a huge advocate of a second federal Constitutional Convention.

Please read our posts about the issue and the inherent danger of such a convention.

Namely, a convention called by the states according to Article V cannot ever be limited to proposing only those amendments pre-set as a condition to calling the Convention.

The precedent-setting first Convention (1787) call is the basis for the inability to limit delegates to the Convention to any conditions - once they are in session.

At any rate, Judge Napolitano is admirable, but he's not saying anything about the comments of Damon Vickers, either.

We haven't heard any recently and it's only been since Nov. 9. Vickers made his statements on Asia Squawk Box.

We'll check. One would think the Judge and everybody else there at Fox would latch onto Vickers' pronouncements about the coming global financial crisis = global currency = global government = new world order.

Maybe not until it's a done deal.

Net the Truth Online

Related

Joel S. Hirschhorn

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2665-does-larry-sabato-really-want-a-constitutional-convention.html

John McManus: Patriot Act Should Die

so says John F. McManus publisher of The New American magazine, and President of The John Birch Society.

We agree.

Net the Truth Online

John F. McManus Answers the The "Big Questions" PDF | Print | E-mail
Written by John F. McManus
Friday, 20 November 2009 13:00

...The Hill: The House and Senate are moving forward with different bills to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which expires at the end of the year. Will this effort divide Democrats? And will it hamper President Barack Obama's call for unity on healthcare reform?

JFM: The cleverly named Patriot Act is a huge attack on the freedoms of the American people. Passed in the aftermath of 9/11, it was read by few if any members of Congress beforehand. Rather than being reauthorized; it should be allowed to die. There are probably a few Democrats who will opt to close it down. But many Republicans will seek to have it continued because it was passed under the leadership of the GOP president George W. Bush...

http://67.227.136.225/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Related

Obama Administration Backs ‘Patriot’ Act Provisions | Print | E-mail
Written by Alex Newman
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 13:00

http://67.227.136.225/jbs-news-feed/5371-obama-administration-backs-patriot-act-provisions