Fayette Co. woman admits to forging signatures
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, March 17, 2007
A Fayette County woman admitted in court Friday she forged three signatures on what she later learned was a nominating petition for Democratic county controller candidate Sean Lally.
"I was told to get somebody out of the courthouse that was stealing money," Annette Flora, of Masontown, testified at a hearing challenging hundreds of Lally's signatures.
Mark Roberts, the two-term Democratic incumbent, claims Lally's petitions are plagued by irregularities.
Yesterday, Judge Steve Leskinen struck 15 names from the petitions, including four based on Flora's testimony.
Flora's name was removed because she is a registered Republican, while the names of her boyfriend, son and boyfriend's mother were eliminated because they were forgeries.
Flora repeatedly apologized on the witness stand, and Leskinen said she wouldn't face any penalty for the forgeries.
She claimed Kathy Winkler, a Lally supporter, gave her the petition...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_498218.html
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Candidate's Nomination Petitions Under Court Rulings
Tribune Review Report
Pet Foods Recalled Possible Kidney Failure Deaths
For listing:
www.menufoods.com/recall
KDKA Links
http://kdka.com/video/?cid=44
www.menufoods.com/recall
KDKA Links
http://kdka.com/video/?cid=44
Pet deaths prompt food recall
By The Associated Press
Saturday, March 17, 2007
WASHINGTON -- A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.
An unknown number of cats and dogs suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, Menu Foods said in announcing the North American recall. Product testing has not revealed a link explaining the reported cases of illness and death, the company said...
Menu Foods did not provide a full list of brand names and lot numbers covered by the recall, saying they would be posted on its Web site -- www.menufoods.com/recall -- early Saturday. Consumers with questions can call (800) 551-7392...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_498157.html
Recalled Cat Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
Recalled Dog Product Information
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
http://www.menufoods.com/recall/Press_Recall_03162007.pdf
Friday, March 16, 2007
Names of Electors to be checked for election bureau mailings
Net the Truth Online first-hand report (March 16, 2007)(updated March 17, 2007 with new links and expanded material)
A court hearing before Judge Steve Leskinen in Fayette County which began Thursday afternoon and continued Friday afternoon should be on the must-read and learn-from list of every voter still alive and kicking.
Sitting Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts (Democrat) filed a challenge to the nomination petitions of Democratic opponent Sean Lally citing some 318 names/signatures for disqualification. Primary Election candidates for the county office need a minimum of 250 signatures to obtain ballot access.
Should Roberts succeed in having enough names disqualified from the nomination petitions, Sean Lally's name will not appear as a candidate in the Primary Election for Fayette County controller.
Judge Steve Leskinen did the mathwork yesterday, noting a total of 436 signatures on Lally nomination petititions. Judge Leskinen said 318 signatures were under challenge. 150 of those names are contained on several nomination pages under challenge for "improper affadavit of circulator."
At the outset of the hearing the phrase was under objection by Mr. Tim Andrews, Sean Lally's attorney, for not being specific, and he continued that argument today.
Judge Leskinen permitted the matter to remain in the bounds of the challenge. He referenced Roberts' complaint during the ensuing discussion, and the citations both parties had prepared.
Apparently, some of the 150 names comprising those petitions challenged for "improper affadavit of circulator" (approximately 12-15 pages) are additionally being challenged specifically for accuracy of address, printed names in place of the requirement for handwritten names (unless the printed name is on file on the couty's voter registry), duplication of a name on Lally petitions, signer is of a different party, etc.
During the proceedings, Lally's attorney, Andrews, argued effectively that election law heavily leans in support of the voting right preservation of electors. Judge Leskinen apparently agreed as many names challenged remained on hold pending further review.
Before continuing with testimony of witnesses, Judge Leskinen first revisited the matter of individual voters not notifying the election bureau of a change in address.
Approximately a half-dozen names were held over pending review on the issue of names and addresses not matching up on the voter registration lists. More names were slated to be so challenged today.
However, before those proceeedings got underway, Judge Leskinen required something in part that we've been squawking about for a decade now.
A review of the names and addresses on Fayette County's voter registration list.
Judge Leskinen cited 25 PS Section 1901 of the Election Code. He offered that a change in address in the county only becomes relevant after a second federal election wherein an elector has not voted.
Judge Leskinen then cited legislation passed after year 2000 Bush vs Gore referencing the date January 1, 2002.
Judge Leskinen outlined two methods to cancel an elector which included the elector confirms a change in residency outside of the county and the elector has not appeared to vote (in three general elections) and has failed to respond to a notice sent by the Election Commission. (We'll have to check the record on that as Judge Leskinen moved swiftly along citing the two successive federal elections earlier).
Judge Leskinen's question: were notices sent to addresses of people who did not vote ... after May 17, 2002 and before November, 2004?
The task of finding out the answer falls on the Election Bureau. The Bureau is given until Wednesday when court reconvenes to pull out the names and addresses of some 70 names on the Lally petitions noted for disqualification regarding a discrepancy per address.
The alleged address discrepancies are going to weigh in heavily on the decision of Judge Leskinen next week. Judge Leskinen said at one point that Roberts has to show the address on the nomination petition and on the named voter's registration are not the same, the signer has moved, and the signer was given "one more chance" to vote in an election, and has voted at least once before signing the petition, and did not inform of a change in address before signing the petition.
So the findings of the Fayette County Election Bureau will be crucial to the case.
The testimony of Fayette County Election Bureau director, Laurie Lint, continued to provide a basis on which to strike more names from the Lally nomination petititions, but in another several instances names were retained for further review.
Some signatures on the Lally petitions were printed whereas election law requires handwritten signatures unless the signature is on file as printed for reasons of disability, etc.
Two lines were stricken because both names were printed with Judge Leskinen noting the pair appeared to be written the same.
One name was held for review appearing to be the name of someone who wanted to use a middle name rather than the full name as it appeared on the voter registration list.
Judge Leskinen continued to hestitate to strike out names that were potentially maiden names of married women which remained in effect for voting. At least a dozen of those names were to be checked for address listings for comparison on the voter registration and the Lally nomination petitions.
A good bit of names fell for being registered of a different party, Republican or No Party.
There was discussion when the duplicate name of Mark B. Santore appeared on Lally petitions with the determination the name was registered only at one address.
Testimony was also given by several persons who received subpoenas to appear today. The testimony at times caused complete silence in the courtroom, at other times there were mumblings from Lally supporters.
In emotional testimony, one woman testified she had changed her registration from Democrat to Republican and remained as such when she signed the petition. She repeated it was an accident, a mistake that she also signed the names of her son, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend's mother, thinking she could do so on what was expressed to her as "a petition to get someone out of the courthouse who was stealing money..." She apologized to her family, she said, and was told by her boyfriend's mother everybody makes mistakes.
Identified as Annette Flora of Blaney Street, Masontown, she was asked who was present and whether permission from them had been given to her to sign their names. She testified they were not present, were not aware of her signing their names to the petition, and did not give her permission to do so.
Explicit about how she printed the names and then signed them, she was asked whether she made any attempt to disguise the handwriting. She said no she didn't make any attempts. She further testified after signing the names of the others she was told that was alright.
She was also asked who had asked her to sign the document and she gave a name of Kathy Winkler.
Her name was stricken from the nomination petition for being registered of a different party. The other names were stricken from the Lally petitions.
During cross-examination, Lally's attorney asked about her signing the petitions in her home. She became upset and said she didn't say that she signed them at her home, she testified where she was, helping care for a mother where she was asked to sign the document.
After her testimony, Judge Leskinen said the incident is a complete "subverting of the process... as abusive of the process as anything I can think of..."
Mr. Tim Andrews, Lally's lawyer commented at one point we don't know how many are fraudulent on other candidates' petitions because all nominating petitions are not challenged.
After the woman completed her testimony, Judge Leskinen also said Sean Lally is noted as the one who is the circulator on the nomination petition.
Relatives of one woman who was not present included husband, son, and daughter-in-law testified they gave permission for her to sign their names, but they did not sign the petition themselves. Those names were stricken.
Mark Roberts' attorney, Jason Adams, made a request to strike the wife's name, but Judge Leskinen determined from testimony the woman was registered to vote and he did not think it was necessary to strike her name unless there's some penalty for someone signing another's name.
It appeared from discussion among counsel and Judge Leskinen in open court that those names were stricken from petitions which fell under the challenge of "improper affadavit of circulator."
Roberts' attorney stated some 200 subpoenas had been issued, but only about two dozen persons had shown as of the afternoon proceedings. The documents will be reissued for the hearing to continue next Wednesday at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 3.
Related
Affadavit of Circulator of Petition
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:26XDRd8TKqQJ:www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/015_nomination_petition_oy/dsbe-209short.pdf+pennsylvania+election+nomination+petition+circulator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:26XDRd8TKqQJ:www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/015_nomination_petition_oy/dsbe-209short.pdf+pennsylvania+election+nomination+petition+circulator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
Fayette County Election Bureau
http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/cwp/view.asp?a=2139&q=527565
CANDIDANCY INFORMATION
Frances D. Pratt, Director
Greene County Office Building
http://www.co.greene.pa.us/secured/gc/depts/lo/comm/elec/requirements.htm
SURE Rules Regulations
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol32/32-52/32_52_rr.pdf
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:q7sMMHVblH0J:www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol32/32-52/32_52_rr.pdf+pennsylvania+election+law+25+ps+section+1901&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
“Pennsylvania Election Code” Act 320 of 1937, P.L. 1333; 25 P.S. § 2601
http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/laws.html
Filed February 8, 2001
http://vls.law.vill.edu/LOCATOR/3d/Feb2001/001161.txt
How to Run for Political Office: A Campaign Manual for Pennsylvania Candidates
http://www.seventy.org/empoweringcitizens/runforoffice/nomination/index.html
General Instructions
http://www.co.armstrong.pa.us/votergeneralinstruct.htm
Fayette County Audit Report
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/County/MagDistJud/ctyDC14201FayetteCty081706.pdf
A court hearing before Judge Steve Leskinen in Fayette County which began Thursday afternoon and continued Friday afternoon should be on the must-read and learn-from list of every voter still alive and kicking.
Sitting Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts (Democrat) filed a challenge to the nomination petitions of Democratic opponent Sean Lally citing some 318 names/signatures for disqualification. Primary Election candidates for the county office need a minimum of 250 signatures to obtain ballot access.
Should Roberts succeed in having enough names disqualified from the nomination petitions, Sean Lally's name will not appear as a candidate in the Primary Election for Fayette County controller.
Judge Steve Leskinen did the mathwork yesterday, noting a total of 436 signatures on Lally nomination petititions. Judge Leskinen said 318 signatures were under challenge. 150 of those names are contained on several nomination pages under challenge for "improper affadavit of circulator."
At the outset of the hearing the phrase was under objection by Mr. Tim Andrews, Sean Lally's attorney, for not being specific, and he continued that argument today.
Judge Leskinen permitted the matter to remain in the bounds of the challenge. He referenced Roberts' complaint during the ensuing discussion, and the citations both parties had prepared.
Apparently, some of the 150 names comprising those petitions challenged for "improper affadavit of circulator" (approximately 12-15 pages) are additionally being challenged specifically for accuracy of address, printed names in place of the requirement for handwritten names (unless the printed name is on file on the couty's voter registry), duplication of a name on Lally petitions, signer is of a different party, etc.
During the proceedings, Lally's attorney, Andrews, argued effectively that election law heavily leans in support of the voting right preservation of electors. Judge Leskinen apparently agreed as many names challenged remained on hold pending further review.
Before continuing with testimony of witnesses, Judge Leskinen first revisited the matter of individual voters not notifying the election bureau of a change in address.
Approximately a half-dozen names were held over pending review on the issue of names and addresses not matching up on the voter registration lists. More names were slated to be so challenged today.
However, before those proceeedings got underway, Judge Leskinen required something in part that we've been squawking about for a decade now.
A review of the names and addresses on Fayette County's voter registration list.
Judge Leskinen cited 25 PS Section 1901 of the Election Code. He offered that a change in address in the county only becomes relevant after a second federal election wherein an elector has not voted.
Judge Leskinen then cited legislation passed after year 2000 Bush vs Gore referencing the date January 1, 2002.
Judge Leskinen outlined two methods to cancel an elector which included the elector confirms a change in residency outside of the county and the elector has not appeared to vote (in three general elections) and has failed to respond to a notice sent by the Election Commission. (We'll have to check the record on that as Judge Leskinen moved swiftly along citing the two successive federal elections earlier).
Judge Leskinen's question: were notices sent to addresses of people who did not vote ... after May 17, 2002 and before November, 2004?
The task of finding out the answer falls on the Election Bureau. The Bureau is given until Wednesday when court reconvenes to pull out the names and addresses of some 70 names on the Lally petitions noted for disqualification regarding a discrepancy per address.
The alleged address discrepancies are going to weigh in heavily on the decision of Judge Leskinen next week. Judge Leskinen said at one point that Roberts has to show the address on the nomination petition and on the named voter's registration are not the same, the signer has moved, and the signer was given "one more chance" to vote in an election, and has voted at least once before signing the petition, and did not inform of a change in address before signing the petition.
So the findings of the Fayette County Election Bureau will be crucial to the case.
The testimony of Fayette County Election Bureau director, Laurie Lint, continued to provide a basis on which to strike more names from the Lally nomination petititions, but in another several instances names were retained for further review.
Some signatures on the Lally petitions were printed whereas election law requires handwritten signatures unless the signature is on file as printed for reasons of disability, etc.
Two lines were stricken because both names were printed with Judge Leskinen noting the pair appeared to be written the same.
One name was held for review appearing to be the name of someone who wanted to use a middle name rather than the full name as it appeared on the voter registration list.
Judge Leskinen continued to hestitate to strike out names that were potentially maiden names of married women which remained in effect for voting. At least a dozen of those names were to be checked for address listings for comparison on the voter registration and the Lally nomination petitions.
A good bit of names fell for being registered of a different party, Republican or No Party.
There was discussion when the duplicate name of Mark B. Santore appeared on Lally petitions with the determination the name was registered only at one address.
Testimony was also given by several persons who received subpoenas to appear today. The testimony at times caused complete silence in the courtroom, at other times there were mumblings from Lally supporters.
In emotional testimony, one woman testified she had changed her registration from Democrat to Republican and remained as such when she signed the petition. She repeated it was an accident, a mistake that she also signed the names of her son, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend's mother, thinking she could do so on what was expressed to her as "a petition to get someone out of the courthouse who was stealing money..." She apologized to her family, she said, and was told by her boyfriend's mother everybody makes mistakes.
Identified as Annette Flora of Blaney Street, Masontown, she was asked who was present and whether permission from them had been given to her to sign their names. She testified they were not present, were not aware of her signing their names to the petition, and did not give her permission to do so.
Explicit about how she printed the names and then signed them, she was asked whether she made any attempt to disguise the handwriting. She said no she didn't make any attempts. She further testified after signing the names of the others she was told that was alright.
She was also asked who had asked her to sign the document and she gave a name of Kathy Winkler.
Her name was stricken from the nomination petition for being registered of a different party. The other names were stricken from the Lally petitions.
During cross-examination, Lally's attorney asked about her signing the petitions in her home. She became upset and said she didn't say that she signed them at her home, she testified where she was, helping care for a mother where she was asked to sign the document.
After her testimony, Judge Leskinen said the incident is a complete "subverting of the process... as abusive of the process as anything I can think of..."
Mr. Tim Andrews, Lally's lawyer commented at one point we don't know how many are fraudulent on other candidates' petitions because all nominating petitions are not challenged.
After the woman completed her testimony, Judge Leskinen also said Sean Lally is noted as the one who is the circulator on the nomination petition.
Relatives of one woman who was not present included husband, son, and daughter-in-law testified they gave permission for her to sign their names, but they did not sign the petition themselves. Those names were stricken.
Mark Roberts' attorney, Jason Adams, made a request to strike the wife's name, but Judge Leskinen determined from testimony the woman was registered to vote and he did not think it was necessary to strike her name unless there's some penalty for someone signing another's name.
It appeared from discussion among counsel and Judge Leskinen in open court that those names were stricken from petitions which fell under the challenge of "improper affadavit of circulator."
Roberts' attorney stated some 200 subpoenas had been issued, but only about two dozen persons had shown as of the afternoon proceedings. The documents will be reissued for the hearing to continue next Wednesday at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 3.
Related
Affadavit of Circulator of Petition
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:26XDRd8TKqQJ:www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/015_nomination_petition_oy/dsbe-209short.pdf+pennsylvania+election+nomination+petition+circulator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:26XDRd8TKqQJ:www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/015_nomination_petition_oy/dsbe-209short.pdf+pennsylvania+election+nomination+petition+circulator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
Fayette County Election Bureau
http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/cwp/view.asp?a=2139&q=527565
CANDIDANCY INFORMATION
Frances D. Pratt, Director
Greene County Office Building
http://www.co.greene.pa.us/secured/gc/depts/lo/comm/elec/requirements.htm
SURE Rules Regulations
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol32/32-52/32_52_rr.pdf
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:q7sMMHVblH0J:www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol32/32-52/32_52_rr.pdf+pennsylvania+election+law+25+ps+section+1901&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
“Pennsylvania Election Code” Act 320 of 1937, P.L. 1333; 25 P.S. § 2601
http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/laws.html
Filed February 8, 2001
http://vls.law.vill.edu/LOCATOR/3d/Feb2001/001161.txt
How to Run for Political Office: A Campaign Manual for Pennsylvania Candidates
http://www.seventy.org/empoweringcitizens/runforoffice/nomination/index.html
General Instructions
http://www.co.armstrong.pa.us/votergeneralinstruct.htm
Fayette County Audit Report
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/County/MagDistJud/ctyDC14201FayetteCty081706.pdf
Fayette candidate nominating petititions: "strike that name"
Net the Truth Online first-hand report continues March 16, 2007
What's missing from the mainstream local media news reports? A question put to the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau regarding the accuracy of the county database of registered voters.
In between afternoon court proceedings before Judge Steve Leskinen, Thursday, Net the Truth Online asked, and got an answer.
The Judge didn't ask the question, and the attorney for Mr. Sean Lally and the attorney for Mr. Mark Roberts didn't ask during questioning as that question would put the real culprit on trial - the voter registration rolls of the county.
If only there were some way to get the answer on the court record.
In order for candidate for Fayette County controller, Sean Lally to be removed from the spring Primary election ballot, less than 250 names/signatures would have to remain on the Lally nomination petititons.
A Primary candidate for the office of county controller needs to acquire a minimum of 250 signatures for ballot access.
Judge Leskinen did the math, noting a total of 436 signatures on Lally nomination petititions. Judge Leskinen noted 318 signatures were under challenge. At one point, Judge Leskinen subtracted 150 from 318, leaving 168 names, not enough to knock Lally from the ballot, he said.
150 names are contained on several pages under challenge for "improper affadavit of circulator."
Although Lally's attorney raised objection to the term for not being specific enough, Judge Leskinen allowed it for the time being. It was not clear whether some of those 150 names were additionally among those 318 highlighted for challenge for reasons noted as:
!signer was not found to be registered to vote in Fayette
!signer and address were not on the voter registration roll of Fayette
!signer was registered in the county of a different party (Republican, No Party)
!signer name was different than the name that matched the address of the signer - that address was found on the database system with a different name
!signer was registered at the given address but had signed two Lally petitions
!signer had signed both Roberts' petitition and Lally petitition - in several instances with the exception of one, Roberts' petitition had been signed at an earlier date - thus the later dated name was struck out.
Not all names challenged for the above reasons were immediately stricken from Lally's nomination petititions.
During the testimony of Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Elecion Bureau, Lint noted poll workers are to permit a voter who has moved from one location to another location in the county to vote one more time at that precinct. That information caused the need for approximately a half-dozen of the challenged names to be subject to subpoeana.
In addition, Lint testified a married woman could continue to use her maiden name at the given address for that name. Again, another half-dozen signatures could fall under that category, initiating a subpoena for appearance in court today.
Lawyers for both parties are to submit highlighted court cases which apply for the consideration of Judge Leskinen's review. He specifically noted objections from Lally's attorney, Timothy Andrews, made at the outset and during the proceedings would be taken under advisement.
Notably during Lint's testimony, the director was asked to compare signatures on the nomination petitions to signatures on the voter registration card/listing. Director Lint first explained the registration cards were scanned into the county's new database, called SURE. She further acknowledged she was not an expert witness regarding signatures.
About four such instances arose for comparison of signatures. On one signature, Lint said the signature appeared squiggly at the end on the voter registration listing with Lint suggesting the voter registration came through PennDot. It was unclear whether the name would be subject to subpoena.
Proceedings will continue today at 1:30 PM in Fayette County courtroom 3.
Net the Truth Online report (Thursday March 15, 2007 updated)
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/clean-up-voter-registration-rolls.html
Tribune Review report
Herald-Standard report
What's missing from the mainstream local media news reports? A question put to the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau regarding the accuracy of the county database of registered voters.
In between afternoon court proceedings before Judge Steve Leskinen, Thursday, Net the Truth Online asked, and got an answer.
The Judge didn't ask the question, and the attorney for Mr. Sean Lally and the attorney for Mr. Mark Roberts didn't ask during questioning as that question would put the real culprit on trial - the voter registration rolls of the county.
If only there were some way to get the answer on the court record.
In order for candidate for Fayette County controller, Sean Lally to be removed from the spring Primary election ballot, less than 250 names/signatures would have to remain on the Lally nomination petititons.
A Primary candidate for the office of county controller needs to acquire a minimum of 250 signatures for ballot access.
Judge Leskinen did the math, noting a total of 436 signatures on Lally nomination petititions. Judge Leskinen noted 318 signatures were under challenge. At one point, Judge Leskinen subtracted 150 from 318, leaving 168 names, not enough to knock Lally from the ballot, he said.
150 names are contained on several pages under challenge for "improper affadavit of circulator."
Although Lally's attorney raised objection to the term for not being specific enough, Judge Leskinen allowed it for the time being. It was not clear whether some of those 150 names were additionally among those 318 highlighted for challenge for reasons noted as:
!signer was not found to be registered to vote in Fayette
!signer and address were not on the voter registration roll of Fayette
!signer was registered in the county of a different party (Republican, No Party)
!signer name was different than the name that matched the address of the signer - that address was found on the database system with a different name
!signer was registered at the given address but had signed two Lally petitions
!signer had signed both Roberts' petitition and Lally petitition - in several instances with the exception of one, Roberts' petitition had been signed at an earlier date - thus the later dated name was struck out.
Not all names challenged for the above reasons were immediately stricken from Lally's nomination petititions.
During the testimony of Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Elecion Bureau, Lint noted poll workers are to permit a voter who has moved from one location to another location in the county to vote one more time at that precinct. That information caused the need for approximately a half-dozen of the challenged names to be subject to subpoeana.
In addition, Lint testified a married woman could continue to use her maiden name at the given address for that name. Again, another half-dozen signatures could fall under that category, initiating a subpoena for appearance in court today.
Lawyers for both parties are to submit highlighted court cases which apply for the consideration of Judge Leskinen's review. He specifically noted objections from Lally's attorney, Timothy Andrews, made at the outset and during the proceedings would be taken under advisement.
Notably during Lint's testimony, the director was asked to compare signatures on the nomination petitions to signatures on the voter registration card/listing. Director Lint first explained the registration cards were scanned into the county's new database, called SURE. She further acknowledged she was not an expert witness regarding signatures.
About four such instances arose for comparison of signatures. On one signature, Lint said the signature appeared squiggly at the end on the voter registration listing with Lint suggesting the voter registration came through PennDot. It was unclear whether the name would be subject to subpoena.
Proceedings will continue today at 1:30 PM in Fayette County courtroom 3.
Net the Truth Online report (Thursday March 15, 2007 updated)
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/clean-up-voter-registration-rolls.html
Tribune Review report
Fayette Co. supporters may testify about Lally
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, March 16, 2007
Dozens of Fayette County residents who signed Sean Lally's Democratic nominating petitions for controller might end up testifying at a court hearing challenging his candidacy.
Jason Adams, an attorney for two-term Controller Mark Roberts, intends to issue subpoenas calling several citizens to testify today about whether Lally personally circulated some of his petitions, as Lally says he did in a signed affidavit.
Roberts claims his campaign volunteers informed him that some registered voters will agree to testify that they signed Lally's petitions, but that Lally was not the one soliciting them.
In a telephone interview, Lally described Roberts' actions as intimidation tactics...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_498054.html
Herald-Standard report
50 names stricken from electon petitions
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
03/16/2007
Updated 03/16/2007 12:04:19 AM EDT
The names of more than 50 people were stricken from the nomination petitions of Democratic Fayette County controller candidate Sean P. Lally Thursday during a hearing in which incumbent Mark Roberts is attempting to have Lally thrown off the ballot.
At the end of the day, Lally's nomination petitions still contained 383 names after 53 were stricken, which is more than the 250 required to remain on the ballot. However, Judge Steve Leskinen recessed the hearing until 1:30 p.m. today, when testimony resumes regarding the validity of 150 other names, on petitions that in a separate issue Roberts alleges were not circulated by Lally.
If all of the names on those petitions are stricken, it would knock Lally off the ballot. In total, Lally obtained 436 names on his 15 petitions that he filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.
While the names eliminated Thursday were for reasons such as being registered of a different party, not being a registered voter, signing Lally's petitions twice or previously signing Roberts' petitions, the majority of names are being challenged because Roberts is alleging Lally did not circulate his own petitions.
By law, candidates must provide the name of the circulator of their petitions and a circulator must sign an affidavit verifying that they personally circulated the petitions. The circulator of the petition must be present when the petition is signed and petitions can only be signed by registered voters of the party of the candidate that live in the voting district of the candidate. Registered voters are not permitted to sign more than one nomination petition for offices in which only one is being elected.
During the course of the testimony, 14 names were erased from Lally's signatures of registered Democrats because those people had previously signed Roberts' petitions.
Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, testified regarding what dates each of the petitions was circulated. She also provided information regarding addresses and registrations of names on the petitions.
Lally did not appear at the hearing, but previously said he circulated his petitions and has written proof of that fact.
After the conclusion of the day's testimony, Roberts indicated through his attorney, Jason F. Adams, that he will call individuals to testify who will say Lally did not circulate some petitions which contain his name as circulator...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18086773&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Global Warming Skeptics Rising
Another critic of global warming. Hannity and Colmes featured two days worth of listings of skeptics of global warming. they interviewed Don Easterbrook one day and ... Timothy Ball the following day...
NewsTrack - Science Published: March 15, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
More finds
Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031310.html
‘Hannity’ Gives More Than 70 Reasons to Chill Warming Hype
Posted by Dan Gainor on March 6, 2007 - 19:12.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11232
Sean Hannity Exposes Al Gore’s Inconvenient Global Warming Hypocrisy
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 20, 2007 - 19:42.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10951
NewsTrack - Science Published: March 15, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
More finds
Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031310.html
‘Hannity’ Gives More Than 70 Reasons to Chill Warming Hype
Posted by Dan Gainor on March 6, 2007 - 19:12.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11232
Sean Hannity Exposes Al Gore’s Inconvenient Global Warming Hypocrisy
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 20, 2007 - 19:42.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10951
Clean up voter registration rolls
With voter registration rolls going unchecked for accuracy year after year, even with the implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and its mandated database of registered voters across the country, (in Pennsylvania it's called the SURE database) it's surely a duty of opponents no matter which political party to review and scour nomination petitions and make challenges when warranted.
It's time for Pennsylvania to clean up its voter registration rolls of deceased, the voters who have moved out of the state, and or out of one county into another county, now.
Update: March 16, 2007 7:38 AM Net the Truth Online Report
We attended the court hearing before Fayette County Judge Steve Leskinen regarding the challenge to nomination petitions brought against candidate for controller, Sean Lally by current Fayette County controller, Mark Roberts, seeking to retain his position for a third-term.
What Net the Truth Online learned during and in-between the testimony of Fayette Election Bureau director, Laurie Lint:
* the county permits one more chance voting after a person has moved from one address to another.
During testimony, director Laurie Lint was asked by Judge Leskinen about the possibility of a person changing addresses after the deadline for changing voter registration information and before the signing of nomination petititions. Lint responded that election officials allow the voter to vote at the old address "one more time," then the address is changed if the voter has not officially done so.
* the voter does not have to change from her maiden name to her married name on the voter registration list and can continue to vote with the maiden name.
so how is the voter registration list accurate and how is potential election fraud prevented if a female uses different names and potentially different addresses?
*the county of Fayette has not conducted a full review of the bulky (some 80,000 plus) names on the voter registration list which would include mailings to addresses in the county which may not be accurate or up-to-date.
During a short break in the proceedings, we had the opportunity to ask director Lint about the county's voter registration rolls.
Have the names - all of the names - on the listing been checked for those who are deceased, or moved out of the county as some 80,000 - 89,000 names remain on the list? Not just the potential names for these proceedings, but all of the names?
Director Lint said the county had not undergone a review of all.
Right. That review would include a mailing to those addresses which potentially are under the domain of Judge Steve Leskinen hearing the case of Roberts vs Lally, and potentially on the nomination petitions of other candidates.
The hearing resulted in actual striking of names from the nomination petitions of Sean Lally in the court proceeding. The following reasons applied:
!signer was not found to be registered to vote in Fayette
!signer and address were not on the voter registration roll of Fayette
!signer was registered in the county of a different party
!signer name was different than the name that matched the address of the signer - that address was found on the database system with a different name
!signer was registered at the given address but had signed two Lally petitions
!signer had signed both Roberts' petitition and Lally petitition - in several instances with the exception of one, Roberts' petitition had been signed at an earlier date - thus the later dated name was struck out.
The nomination petitions are also being challenged for "improper affadavit of circulator..."
See more update: http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/fayette-candidate-nominating.html
It's time for Pennsylvania to clean up its voter registration rolls of deceased, the voters who have moved out of the state, and or out of one county into another county, now.
Update: March 16, 2007 7:38 AM Net the Truth Online Report
We attended the court hearing before Fayette County Judge Steve Leskinen regarding the challenge to nomination petitions brought against candidate for controller, Sean Lally by current Fayette County controller, Mark Roberts, seeking to retain his position for a third-term.
What Net the Truth Online learned during and in-between the testimony of Fayette Election Bureau director, Laurie Lint:
* the county permits one more chance voting after a person has moved from one address to another.
During testimony, director Laurie Lint was asked by Judge Leskinen about the possibility of a person changing addresses after the deadline for changing voter registration information and before the signing of nomination petititions. Lint responded that election officials allow the voter to vote at the old address "one more time," then the address is changed if the voter has not officially done so.
* the voter does not have to change from her maiden name to her married name on the voter registration list and can continue to vote with the maiden name.
so how is the voter registration list accurate and how is potential election fraud prevented if a female uses different names and potentially different addresses?
*the county of Fayette has not conducted a full review of the bulky (some 80,000 plus) names on the voter registration list which would include mailings to addresses in the county which may not be accurate or up-to-date.
During a short break in the proceedings, we had the opportunity to ask director Lint about the county's voter registration rolls.
Have the names - all of the names - on the listing been checked for those who are deceased, or moved out of the county as some 80,000 - 89,000 names remain on the list? Not just the potential names for these proceedings, but all of the names?
Director Lint said the county had not undergone a review of all.
Right. That review would include a mailing to those addresses which potentially are under the domain of Judge Steve Leskinen hearing the case of Roberts vs Lally, and potentially on the nomination petitions of other candidates.
The hearing resulted in actual striking of names from the nomination petitions of Sean Lally in the court proceeding. The following reasons applied:
!signer was not found to be registered to vote in Fayette
!signer and address were not on the voter registration roll of Fayette
!signer was registered in the county of a different party
!signer name was different than the name that matched the address of the signer - that address was found on the database system with a different name
!signer was registered at the given address but had signed two Lally petitions
!signer had signed both Roberts' petitition and Lally petitition - in several instances with the exception of one, Roberts' petitition had been signed at an earlier date - thus the later dated name was struck out.
The nomination petitions are also being challenged for "improper affadavit of circulator..."
See more update: http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/fayette-candidate-nominating.html
Technicalities may knock some candidates off ballot
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Candidates for a variety of county and municipal offices face the threat of being thrown off the ballot as Common Pleas Court reviews challenges to their nominating petitions.
Among the more prominent hopefuls targeted in the partisan filings are Charles McCullough, a candidate for the GOP nomination for the at-large seat on Allegheny County Council; Patrick Dowd, a member of the Pittsburgh school board who is running for City Council in District 7; Rachel Cooper, the party-endorsed Democrat in District 9; and Rick Swartz, the only candidate of either party opposing the re-election of county Chief Executive Dan Onorato.
The challenges are a political rite of spring as candidates and their attorneys scrutinize the petitions and financial disclosure forms of their rivals for any flaw that could lead a court to short-circuit their candidacies. Almost every year, some candidates run afoul of the strict procedures for the content and deadlines of the election documents...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07073/769235-180.stm
Fayette controller challenges petitions
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts is challenging the candidacy of his primary opponent, Sean Lally, claiming he filed "deficient" and "irregular" nominating petitions this month.
Judge Steve Leskinen has scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m. today.
Roberts, a Democrat in his second term, is questioning whether Lally has the necessary 250 authorized signatures of registered voters.
Roberts, 39, of Uniontown, is disputing the validity of about 290 signatures, according to a spreadsheet exhibit filed by his attorney, Jason Adams.
Among those signatures, 53 allegedly were from unregistered voters and 20 from citizens who also signed Roberts' nominating petitions, according to the exhibit.
Roberts also contends Lally improperly signed an affidavit for petitions he circulated to gain about 140 names.
Adams was not available for comment Wednesday, and Roberts did not immediately respond to a message.
Lally, 38, of Uniontown, is making his second run for a public office. He did not answer a message left yesterday at his construction business.
Four years ago, he aligned himself with then-commissioner Sean Cavanagh as Cavanagh fielded a slate of candidates against four incumbent row officers.
Lally lost a primary race against Clerk of Courts Janice Snyder, who criticized him for having an active voter registration in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_497757.html
Roberts battles opponents' petition
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
03/15/2007
Updated 03/15/2007 01:00:02 AM EDT
Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts is challenging the nomination petitions of challenger Sean P. Lally and is asking a judge to throw Lally off the primary ballot.
While Roberts' challenge hinges on the allegation that Lally did not personally circulate all the petitions that have Lally's signature on them, Lally said he has done nothing wrong, and has written proof of that fact.
The challenge was presented in motions court Wednesday morning before Judge Gerald Solomon, who scheduled a hearing for the petition for 1:30 p.m. today in Courtroom Number 3 before Judge Steve Leskinen.
The challenge, which alleges deficiencies and irregularities in Lally's petitions, was filed late Tuesday afternoon in the office of Prothonotary Lance Winterhalter, on the last day to challenge nomination petitions. Attorney Jason F. Adams filed the challenge on behalf of Roberts.
While some of the signatures on Lally's petitions are being challenged as those of unregistered voters, improper addresses or as people who previously signed Roberts' petitions, most of the challenges deal with an allegation that Lally did not personally circulate his nomination petitions.
On the back of the petitions is a place in which the petition circulator must sign and notarize the petitions, verifying they indeed circulated the petition.
Lally said he personally circulated most of his 15 petitions, and kept written proof of that. "I did nothing (improper) or illegal," Lally said. "He's trying to use a technicality that doesn't exist to get me thrown off the ballot."...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18080586&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Hazleton: A Town Attempts to Control its Destiny
Hazleton mayor, ACLU square off over immigration
Official concedes some points in immigrant trial
Thursday, March 15, 2007
By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
SCRANTON -- Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta testified yesterday that his city needs another 30 police officers, but his crime-fighting priority has been creating laws to kick illegal immigrants out of town.
During five hours on the witness stand, Mr. Barletta said Hazleton is being ruined by violent crime, crowded schools and a clogged emergency room at the city's private hospital. He attributed many of the problems to what he called "illegal aliens," even though he admitted he had no idea how many such immigrants are in his city.
Lawyer Witold Walczak, of the American Civil Liberties Union, got the mayor to concede that he could not name a single instance where illegal immigrants had received service from Hazleton's fire department or health officer. Mr. Barletta also was forced to admit he had no proof that illegal immigrants were the source of schools so crowded that numerous classes have to be taught in trailers.
The ACLU is among the civil rights groups that sued Hazleton over its immigration ordinances. Mr. Walczak and other opponents of the laws say the mayor is willing to run roughshod over innocent people, mostly Spanish-speaking newcomers, in his zeal to find illegal immigrants.
Two of the laws would punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and landlords that rent to them.
Another ordinance would force every prospective renter to appear at city hall with proof of his U.S. citizenship or legal right to be in America. Hazleton would be the only city in the nation with such an investigative system for tenants.
U.S. District Judge James Munley has stopped the laws from being enforced until the issue of their constitutionality is decided at trial.
Mr. Barletta said the ordinances are necessary to stop crime. Mr. Walczak jumped on the comment, telling the mayor it was unrealistic to believe crime could be eliminated.
"Especially when you're trying to do it and you're sued," Mr. Barletta said.
Mr. Barletta, 51, frequently was combative and so long-winded that Judge Munley admonished him for making speeches.
The mayor said his estimates show that Hazleton's population has jumped from 22,000 to 33,000 in six years, mostly because of Latino newcomers. But the city's police force has shrunk from 42 officers in 2000 to 33 today. Mr. Barletta said Hazleton should have more than 60 police officers.
He said Hazleton, with a government budget of about $7.5 million, simply cannot afford to hire more police. But under pressure from Mr. Walczak, he admitted that the city had not joined a program in which the federal government deputizes local officers so they can assist with immigration enforcement.
The mayor insisted he knew little about how the U.S. government could help his town with illegal immigrants. He said Hazleton's police chief was responsible for finding out about the program.
Still, Mr. Barletta said crimes committed by illegal immigrants led to the controversial ordinances. The most notorious case was the murder last May of a man named Derek Kichline. Two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic are accused of killing him...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07074/769672-85.stm
More
Save Our State Forums forums
http://www.saveourstate.org/vforums/showthread.php?t=12964
lou dobbs hazleton
http://www.google.com/search?q=lou+dobbs+hazleton&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
Good Resource Hazleton
http://nomorespin.blogspot.com/2007/03/good-resource-about-hazleton.html
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Will New York Times get Pulitzer for Global Warming debunker?
Right. If any other body of scientists ahm got it a little bit wrong, they'd be laughed out of the gang. Not global warmers. Gore relied on their little bit of wrongness, and doesn't admit the specific errors and false claims. He just keeps on being wrong. This is like saying two plus two is five - some people just don't care to learn the true facts.
New York Times comes out with quoting the dissenters on global warming in March 13, 2007 piece From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype by William J. Broad
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The real horror however is children are being shown An Inconvenient Truth in school, in elementary school, and in high school and colleges, but are not being shown the rebuttal: The Great Global Warming Swindle. The Great Global Warming Swindle was available on Google videos Monday night, but is no longer available.
http://www.google.com/search?q=GREAT+GLOBAL+WARMING+SWINDLE&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
still available here
http://www.passionateamerica.com/global-warming-is-a-lie-the-great-global-warming-swindle-video/
Glenn Beck interviews Easterbrook and Patrick Michaels Cato Institute
glenn asks how come this has been so widely spun? Michaels agrees finally the New York Times comes out and says this isn't happening as stated... it's about the money some six billion dollars grants and so forth...
Beck says this is a milestone, the New York Times article... there's been a state of fear, its being taught in schools...
Easterbrook those who don't sign on to it are said to be stupid or said to have some financeial interest...
Easterbrook explains details! Get the transcript
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/gb.html
http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml
Check our site for more on this issue. We mentioned Easterbrook's work and criticism a while back.
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
New York Times comes out with quoting the dissenters on global warming in March 13, 2007 piece From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype by William J. Broad
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The real horror however is children are being shown An Inconvenient Truth in school, in elementary school, and in high school and colleges, but are not being shown the rebuttal: The Great Global Warming Swindle. The Great Global Warming Swindle was available on Google videos Monday night, but is no longer available.
http://www.google.com/search?q=GREAT+GLOBAL+WARMING+SWINDLE&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en
still available here
http://www.passionateamerica.com/global-warming-is-a-lie-the-great-global-warming-swindle-video/
Glenn Beck interviews Easterbrook and Patrick Michaels Cato Institute
glenn asks how come this has been so widely spun? Michaels agrees finally the New York Times comes out and says this isn't happening as stated... it's about the money some six billion dollars grants and so forth...
Beck says this is a milestone, the New York Times article... there's been a state of fear, its being taught in schools...
Easterbrook those who don't sign on to it are said to be stupid or said to have some financeial interest...
Easterbrook explains details! Get the transcript
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/gb.html
http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
New York Times
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
more excerpts
But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
excerpt
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Check our site for more on this issue. We mentioned Easterbrook's work and criticism a while back.
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Monday, March 12, 2007
New World Order Drive Behind Global Warming
That the likes of Gordon Brown want a new world order to combat global warming isn't news, not really. The United Nations issues its tilted climate report every so often, and has been desirous of a global tax, too. But the people don't notice, nor do they care. What is new is the Council on Foreign Relations actually uttering the words, "new world order..." what's up with that?
Transcript of Interview
"The New New World Order"
Speaker: Daniel W. Drezner, Associate Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Presider: Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs
February 26, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12719/the_new_new_world_order.html
Global Tax UN agenda Bill Clinton
Brown wants 'new world order' to fight global warming Mon Mar 12, 4:20 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a "new world order" to combat global warming on Monday.
According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.
Brown will praise the European Union's progress in combatting climate change after EU leaders on Friday agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.
He is set to announce domestic policy proposals that are targetted at helping Britons save energy, thereby cutting their individual carbon emissions, ahead of the government's publication of its Climate Change Bill on Tuesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025
The New New World Order
Daniel W. Drezner
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007
RISING AND FALLING
Throughout the twentieth century, the list of the world's great powers was predictably short: the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and northwestern Europe. The twenty-first century will be different. China and India are emerging as economic and political heavyweights: China holds over a trillion dollars in hard currency reserves, India's high-tech sector is growing by leaps and bounds, and both countries, already recognized nuclear powers, are developing blue-water navies. The National Intelligence Council, a U.S. government think tank, projects that by 2025, China and India will have the world's second- and fourth-largest economies, respectively. Such growth is opening the way for a multipolar era in world politics.
This tectonic shift will pose a challenge to the U.S.-dominated global institutions that have been in place since the 1940s. At the behest of Washington, these multilateral regimes have promoted trade liberalization, open capital markets, and nuclear nonproliferation, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for six decades -- and untold benefits for the United States. But unless rising powers such as China and India are incorporated into this framework, the future of these international regimes will be uncomfortably uncertain.
Given its performance over the last six years, one would not expect the Bush administration to handle this challenge terribly well. After all, its unilateralist impulses, on vivid display in the Iraq war, have become a lightning rod for criticism of U.S. foreign policy. But the Iraq controversy has overshadowed a more pragmatic and multilateral component of the Bush administration's grand strategy: Washington's attempt to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy and international institutions in order to account for shifts in the global distribution of power. The Bush administration has been reallocating the resources of the executive branch to focus on emerging powers. In an attempt to ensure that these countries buy into the core tenets of the U.S.-created world order, Washington has tried to bolster their profiles in forums ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the World Health Organization, on issues as diverse as nuclear proliferation, monetary relations, and the environment. Because these efforts have focused more on so-called low politics than on the global war on terrorism, they have flown under the radar of many observers. But in fact, George W. Bush has revived George H. W. Bush's call for a "new world order" -- by creating, in effect, a new new world order.
This unheralded effort is well intentioned and well advised...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86203/daniel-w-drezner/the-new-new-world-order.html
Transcript of Interview
"The New New World Order"
Speaker: Daniel W. Drezner, Associate Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Presider: Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs
February 26, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12719/the_new_new_world_order.html
Global Tax UN agenda Bill Clinton
THE BIG PICTURE EMERGES
The agenda of the UN under the guise of the various environmental agencies and groups is not recognized for what it actually is, and when the puzzle pieces are assembled, the big picture emerges. It reveals itself to be the benevolent (despotic) controller of not only the land and its resources, but of the people and their activities as well. Under the Wildlands Project, at least 50 percent of the land area in the United States would be returned to "core wilderness areas" where human activity is barred. These areas would be connected by corridors several miles in width. The core areas and corridors would be surrounded by "buffer zones" in which "controlled" human activity would be allowed. The words of Reed Noss clarify the real agenda, "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
"The Reorganization of Society, " as presented in their documents, is the five step plan of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to implement their agenda within the United States and the world."...
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/1997/08/global_warming.html
Sunday, March 11, 2007
UK: Get Biometric ID or You Don't Travel
Coming to the United States of America, unless people wake up. Citizens of the United States of America still don't understand they possess unalienable rights which are inseparable from them. You have the right to travel, you have unenumerated rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Every time our Congress and President implement laws which go against the Constitution, they are ignoring the Constitution and breaking their own oaths of office. Our Real ID Act is unconstitutional. It goes against the 10th Amendment and usurps the sovereignty of the states. Beware of those who claim the mandated federal Real ID card won't be used for other purposes than so-called international travel/security purposes.
It'll cost 11 billion. Sure it will. Expect cost to go up, and up, and keep on going up.
Do not miss Devvy Kidd article well researched
THE NATIONAL ID IS NOT MANDATORY
By: Devvy Kidd
August 21, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd208.htm
Excellent research
Biofuel More on Real ID
D. Mindock
Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:57:39 -0800
Yeah for Maine. I hope we can get Illinois to opt out of this big step to a
police state.
D. Mindock
By Steven Yates
February 18, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Last month, Maine became the first state to pass legislation declining
participation in the national ID system mandated by the Real ID Act of 2005.
State-level legislation either repudiating Real ID, asking Congress to
repeal its worst privacy-violating provisions, or asking for a delay while
states study the issue, exists in various stages (sometimes passed by one
House but not the other), or is being considered, in other states: as of
this writing, the list consists of Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri,
Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Washington State, and Wyoming.
In other words, a state-led rebellion against Real ID is brewing. Let's
review the relevant history.
The Real ID Act of 2005 was passed by Congress not on its own (nonexistent)
merits but folded into the larger Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsumani Relief, 2005 (PL 109-13)
as its Division B. This bill, which included appropriations for the Iraq
War, was considered must-pass by Congress and signed into law by President
Bush on May 11, 2005. This means that the Real ID Act was passed as the
equivalent of a stealth measure
federalize our driver's licenses but hand them over to the Department of
Homeland Security. It calls for the creation of mammoth databases of
information on law-abiding U.S. citizens. It places state Departments of
Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in the position of having to become domestic spies
dangers (e.g., of identity theft). It was signed into law despite the
opposition of dozens of groups all across the political spectrum.
An impact analysis released last September by the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is devastating. These groups
show that efforts to implement Real ID will create a massively expensive
logistic and bureaucratic nightmare. State DMVs have neither the technology
nor the manpower to implement this gigantic unfunded federal mandate
verification of documents. The cost to my state (personal correspondence
from the executive director of South Carolina DMV) could range from $25 to
$28 million, with recurring costs in the $10 million to $11 million range.
The study just cited estimates the total cost of implementing Real ID at
over $11 billion over a five year period, with upfront costs of around $1
billion! The costs to individual U.S. citizens attempting to obtain or renew
a driver's license? Unknown, although I have one estimate at $100!
This analysis overlooks a crucial point: the Real ID Act is
unconstitutional! The Constitution does not give any branch or any agency of
the federal government this kind of power! It should come as no surprise,
however, if no one associated with this thing has read our country's
founding document. Thus, as matters currently stand, unconstitutional or
not, Real ID goes into effect on May 11, 2008. When it goes into effect,
here is what we are looking at: without a Department of Homeland Security
approved conversion of one's driver's license or other personal ID into the
Real ID, law-abiding U.S. citizens will not be able to board an airplane,
open a bank account, collect Social Security, obtain a passport, enter
federal buildings or otherwise do business with the federal government or
other commercial endeavors requiring federally-mandated standards of
personal identification...
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68998.html
Chertoff defends Real ID mandate
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2007
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday defended the federalization of driver's licenses and asked a Senate panel not to block the Real ID law, but he urged members to make security changes in the visa waiver program.
Mr. Chertoff said he is "pretty adamant" that the new identification for all U.S. citizens go into effect May 2008.
"We don't want to keep kicking the can down the road," Mr. Chertoff told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member, will sponsor an amendment giving states more time to comply with the Real ID Act.
"It has been two years since the Real ID Act passed, and yet we don't have detailed regulations or guidance from the department setting forth the standards that the states are going to have to follow," Miss Collins said.
Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, said that if states are mandated to follow federal guidelines, the federal government should carry the cost.
"I can understand the need to get some delay if they were not going to fund it," Mr. Warner said.
The regulations will be issued later this month and will be subject to a comment period before being finalized.
"I do want to make it clear that one of the reasons it's taking awhile is we have actually done quite a bit of consultation even in the preliminary stage with state officials and privacy advocates and other folks," Mr. Chertoff said.
He also said the Senate should legislate changes in the visa waiver program to secure international flights and ensure foreign visitors are not terrorist threats or do not overstay.
"We are not going to sacrifice security for the sake of facilitating travel among our allies," Mr. Chertoff said.
The waiver program allows visitors from most European countries to travel to the U.S. without a visa for up to 90 days. About 18 million visitors enter the U.S. every year under the program.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070213-111641-9285r.htm
The Sun News
New Mexico Legislature Opposes Plan for National ID Card
Leland Lehrman
The Joint Memorial is Sponsored by Senator Michael Sanchez and Representative Ken Martinez
Editor’s Note: The happiest moment of New Mexico’s political life this year came when we found out that both houses of our State Congress will be sponsoring a joint memorial “opposing the creation of a national identification card, and the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005.” A fascist-communist style internal passport law, the Real ID Act of 2005 calls for implementation by 2008, with all costs to be borne by the states. This confrontation, which is happening nationwide between the Federal Government and the States, represents the most important State’s Rights issue since the Civil War. In this case, the State’s Rights case is excellent, since the Real ID act is both unconstitutional and totally unamerican.
http://thesun-news.com/indexold.htm
It'll cost 11 billion. Sure it will. Expect cost to go up, and up, and keep on going up.
Study Says Real ID Act Will Cost $11 Billion, be Logistics Nightmare
September 21, 2006 By Gina M. Scott
A comprehensive analysis of the somewhat controversial federal Real ID Act by the National Governors Association (NGA), National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) revealed that the Act will cost states $11 billion over the first five years of implementation. At this point Congress has allocated only $40 million for the implementation of the Act. "States feel it is vitally important for Congress and the administration to understand the substantial fiscal and operational cost of altering state systems," said NGA Executive Director Raymond C. Scheppach.
According to the results, implementing the Real ID Act will be not only a tremendous cost, but also a logistics problem. There are 245 million drivers in America, and each one must physically re-enroll at a state DMV to verify their identity with the appropriate documents, all by May 2008. "It is impracticable for states to renew all 245 million drivers' licensees in five years," said NCSL Executive Director William T. Pound. Instead, the recommendation is to implement a 10 year, progressive re-enrollment schedule, which is similar to the British Identity Act 2006. "We think states should be provided the flexibility to delay revivifying certain populations in order to maximize resources," Pound added.
Another issue is the lack of definite statutes from the Department of Homeland Security, which in turn is delaying the implementation of the cards. The report recommends that the Department of Homeland Security recognize the technological innovation of the states, recognize that some states have already moved towards compliance with similar security measures and that the Real ID Act is hindering innovation in some states where they have had to put development on hold, waiting for the final statutes.
In regards to technology, some of the "electronic verification systems which are necessary to electronically verify an individual's identification documents do not exist or are not fully operational at this time," Pound explained.
http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=101128
Do not miss Devvy Kidd article well researched
THE NATIONAL ID IS NOT MANDATORY
By: Devvy Kidd
August 21, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd208.htm
Don't want national ID? Surrender your passport
People who opt out of 'voluntary' scheme must 'forgo the ability' to travel abroad
Posted: March 10, 2007
1:15 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
British citizens who refuse to provide personal details for the planned "voluntary" national identification card have been told they will be denied passports and be unable to leave the UK.
James Hall, CEO of the Identity and Passport Service, the agency charged with running the National Identity Scheme to provide ID cards to all residents of the UK, confirmed many privacy advocates' fears this week when he revealed those who opt out of the program will be unable to obtain or renew travel documents.
Hall made the revelation during a national "webchat" where questions were submitted by the public.
In response to a questioner asking what would happen to those who refused to join the nearly $11 billion program, Hall answered, "There is no need to register and have fingerprints taken - but you will forgo the ability to have a passport."
According to a government website:
The National Identity Scheme is an easy-to-use and extremely secure system of personal identification for adults living in the UK. Its cornerstone is the introduction of national ID cards for all UK residents over the age of 16.
Each ID card will be unique and will combine the cardholder's biometric data with their checked and confirmed identity details, called a "biographical footprint". These identity details and the biometrics will be stored on the National Identity Register. Basic identity information will also be held in a chip on the ID card itself.
Additionally, applicants for the ID cards, which will first be issued in 2009 to anyone seeking a passport, will be required to supply personal details, including second homes and driver's license and insurance numbers.
Phil Booth, of the privacy-advocacy group NO2ID, told the London Daily Mail, "The idea that ID cards scheme is voluntary, and people can opt out, is a joke.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54644
Excellent research
Biofuel More on Real ID
D. Mindock
Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:57:39 -0800
Yeah for Maine. I hope we can get Illinois to opt out of this big step to a
police state.
D. Mindock
By Steven Yates
February 18, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Last month, Maine became the first state to pass legislation declining
participation in the national ID system mandated by the Real ID Act of 2005.
State-level legislation either repudiating Real ID, asking Congress to
repeal its worst privacy-violating provisions, or asking for a delay while
states study the issue, exists in various stages (sometimes passed by one
House but not the other), or is being considered, in other states: as of
this writing, the list consists of Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri,
Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Washington State, and Wyoming.
In other words, a state-led rebellion against Real ID is brewing. Let's
review the relevant history.
The Real ID Act of 2005 was passed by Congress not on its own (nonexistent)
merits but folded into the larger Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsumani Relief, 2005 (PL 109-13)
as its Division B. This bill, which included appropriations for the Iraq
War, was considered must-pass by Congress and signed into law by President
Bush on May 11, 2005. This means that the Real ID Act was passed as the
equivalent of a stealth measure
federalize our driver's licenses but hand them over to the Department of
Homeland Security. It calls for the creation of mammoth databases of
information on law-abiding U.S. citizens. It places state Departments of
Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in the position of having to become domestic spies
dangers (e.g., of identity theft). It was signed into law despite the
opposition of dozens of groups all across the political spectrum.
An impact analysis released last September by the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is devastating. These groups
show that efforts to implement Real ID will create a massively expensive
logistic and bureaucratic nightmare. State DMVs have neither the technology
nor the manpower to implement this gigantic unfunded federal mandate
verification of documents. The cost to my state (personal correspondence
from the executive director of South Carolina DMV) could range from $25 to
$28 million, with recurring costs in the $10 million to $11 million range.
The study just cited estimates the total cost of implementing Real ID at
over $11 billion over a five year period, with upfront costs of around $1
billion! The costs to individual U.S. citizens attempting to obtain or renew
a driver's license? Unknown, although I have one estimate at $100!
This analysis overlooks a crucial point: the Real ID Act is
unconstitutional! The Constitution does not give any branch or any agency of
the federal government this kind of power! It should come as no surprise,
however, if no one associated with this thing has read our country's
founding document. Thus, as matters currently stand, unconstitutional or
not, Real ID goes into effect on May 11, 2008. When it goes into effect,
here is what we are looking at: without a Department of Homeland Security
approved conversion of one's driver's license or other personal ID into the
Real ID, law-abiding U.S. citizens will not be able to board an airplane,
open a bank account, collect Social Security, obtain a passport, enter
federal buildings or otherwise do business with the federal government or
other commercial endeavors requiring federally-mandated standards of
personal identification...
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68998.html
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Argument for Libby Pardon
Remember everything -- or goes to prison?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 9, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=remember_everything_--_or_goes_to_prison&ns=CharlesKrauthammer&dt=03/09/2007&page=2
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 9, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=remember_everything_--_or_goes_to_prison&ns=CharlesKrauthammer&dt=03/09/2007&page=2
Writer poses question: Are you really a liberal?
Worth a read
March 8, 2007
Are You Really a Liberal?
By Selwyn Duke
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/03/08/are-you-really-a-liberal/
March 8, 2007
Are You Really a Liberal?
By Selwyn Duke
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/03/08/are-you-really-a-liberal/
Commentator dissects actress remarks
(We just wonder why anybody would name their baby, "America." But could really care less to dig for the answer. Maybe it'll pop up somewhere.)
(We just wonder why anybody would name their baby, "America." But could really care less to dig for the answer. Maybe it'll pop up somewhere.)
March 9, 2007
America Ferrera’s America
By Aaron Goldstein America Ferrera doesn’t know how good she has it in America.
clip
in Santa Monica, California on February 25, 2007 – the night before the Academy Awards. America Ferrera was presenting an award at the Film Independent’s Spirit Awards along with Zach Braff of NBC’s Scrubs (a show I do not watch). Braff asked Ferrera, “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?” Ferrera replied, “I guess I’m a free-spirited person and America’s supposedly the ‘land of the free,’ right? Or at least we will be in 2008.”...
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/03/09/america-ferrera%25e2%2580%2599s-america/
North American Union: Fact or fiction?
Posted: March 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Henry Lamb
World Net Daily
Reaction to reports about a possible North American Union have been robust, to say the least.
Reaction from a few conservative pundits is way beyond robust, nearing the ridiculous. Popular radio talk-show host, Michael Medved, describes the journalists reporting on the possible North American Union as '' bastards and creeps and jug-heads and drunks and reprobates.''
John Hawkins, a blogger at Right Wing News says claims about a North American Union are ''... not true at all.'' He then explains why he thinks the claims are false.
People who are unfamiliar with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or the North America Free Trade Agreement, or the Trans-Texas Corridor, or the European Union could easily believe the very superficial analysis of these two, and other pundits who have ridiculed the formation of what could easily become a North American Union.
About the only thing that is correct in the reaction of either of these two pundits is the fact that no one is admitting officially that a North American Union is under construction.
.What is quite publicly under construction is a ''North American Community,'' with the express goal of deeper ''integration'' of the economies and culture of the United States, Canada and Mexico. This North American Community is the brainchild of Dr. Robert Pastor, who, as co-chair of a special task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, produced a report entitled ''Building a North American Community.'' This report is essentially a regurgitation of Pastor's earlier book: ''Toward a North American Community.''...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54639
Court dumps D.C. gun ban
Federal appeals judges' opinion declares 2nd Amendment grants individual right
Posted: March 9, 2007
3:41 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
In a major decision addressing interpretation of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court today overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, declaring the constitutional right to bear arms is not limited to militias as the city had argued.
The majority opinion in the 2-1 decision said activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The judges also ruled unconstitutional the city's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.
Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman said the Second Amendment's "prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well regulated militia – even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia – is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms."
"The Amendment does not protect 'the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people,'" the judges asserted.
The opinion continued:
"The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document."
Silberman said in his opinion, however, the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment," including gun registration, firearms testing and restrictions on ownership for criminals or the mentally ill.
The decision overturns a 2004 ruling by a lower-court judge who told six D.C. residents – seeking to be armed for protection – they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54627
Who pulled out first?
According to the John Edwards website, Edwards pulled out of the debate co-sponsored by Fox News in Nevada, first... Read another way: The first candidate for the Democratic nomination for President to pull out of a debate co-sponsored by Fox News, and others, was John Edwards.
Ahm, he didn't want his own words during the debate to be used to show him as a waffler during Sean Hannity's commentary on the debate styled Fox news program called what's that you say, Hannity and Colmes.
Links posted at Drudge Report headline:
"War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate."
Opinion on the action
Robert Greenwald
Fox Attack: Enough is Enough
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/fox-attack-enough-is-eno_b_41902.html
Breaking: Nevada Democrats pull out of FOX News sponsored Democratic presidential debate
Reported by Chrish - March 9, 2007 - 85 comments
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/09/breaking_nevada_democrats_pull_out_of_fox_news_sponsored_democratic_presidential_debate.php#more
FOX chooses article carefully to outsource condemnation of Nevada Dems' cancellation
Reported by Chrish - March 10, 2007 - 82 comments
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/10/fox_chooses_article_carefully_to_outsource_condemnation_of_nevada_dems_cancellation.php#more
Ahm, he didn't want his own words during the debate to be used to show him as a waffler during Sean Hannity's commentary on the debate styled Fox news program called what's that you say, Hannity and Colmes.
Fox Attacks
Mathew Gross in Diaries
3/09/2007 at 8:35 PM EST
Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince sent the following email to supporters this evening.
You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.
Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."
And John's not their only target. Tonight Fox News Vice President David Rhodes is telling news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of "radical fringe" groups - meaning grassroots Democrats (that would be you) - who objected to Fox's long history of spreading Republican propaganda at the expense of Democratic leaders.
The whole right-wing is getting in on the attack; the Drudge Report is blaring the headline: "War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate."
Enough is enough. It's time to send a clear message to Fox News and their allies that their right-wing talking points and temper tantrums won't go unchallenged anymore - when it comes to what Democrats should do in the Democratic primary, we'll decide - no matter what they report:...
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/9/20352/75748
Democratic Party Dumps FOX
Reported by Chrish - March 9, 2007 - 143 comments
Official statement from MoveOn and Robert Greenwald:
MoveOn & Robert Greenwald: Major victory for real news, defeat for FOX's right-wing misinformation
Edwards, Reid, grassroots Democrats praised for principled stand against right-wing Fox; NV Democratic Party praised for making the right choice.
FoxAttacks.com/MoveOn.org petition had over 265,000 signatures;
"Fox Attacks: Obama" video had over 280,000 views on YouTube
Today, Senator Harry Reid and the NV Democrat Party announced they would drop a FOX-sponsored debate scheduled for August - citing FOX President Roger Ailes remarks last night that compared Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden as the final straw.
"We hope this sets a precedent for all Democrats - that FOX should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "John Edwards, Harry Reid, the Nevada Democratic Party, and grassroots progressives across the nation deserve credit for standing up to Fox's right-wing agenda."
John Edwards had announced he would not attend the Fox debate. Over 265,000 people signed a petition stating, "FOX is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urged that Fox be dropped. Over 280,000 people had viewed Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald's new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" - located with the petition at FoxAttacks.com.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/09/democratic_party_dumps_fox.php#more
Fox News Boss Hits Edwards' Boycott
Posted: Friday, 09 March 2007 1:45PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. (CBS/AP) -- Fox News chief Roger Ailes said any political candidate who blacklists a news organization is making a "terrible mistake."
His remarks followed Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards' decison to skip a Nevada debate co-hosted by Fox News.
Liberal activitsts say the news channel has a conservative bias and are urging Democratic presidential candidates to boycott the debate, which is also sponsored by the Nevada Democratic Party.
"Any candidate for high office from either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists," Ailes said.
Ailes, who did not mention Edwards by name, spoke at a Radio and Television News Directors Foundation dinner in Washington on Thursday night.
"Recently, pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage," Ailes said.
Ailes said that candidates "who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."
Earlier this week, Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News was part of the reason the candidate was passing on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno.
Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards' decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner.
MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."
http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/295054.php?contentType=4&contentId=367798
Links posted at Drudge Report headline:
"War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate."
Nevada Dems Nix Fox Debate
By: Ryan Grim
March 9, 2007 11:12 PM EST
The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).
The letter said Nevada Democrats had entered into the agreement with Fox, despite strong opposition from Democratic activist groups such as MoveOn.org, as a way of finding "new ways to talk to new people."
But Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.
"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," the letter said. "In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore cancelling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action."
The debate was to be hosted by Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.
A statement released Friday night from Fox Vice President David Rhodes said: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada."
Fox officials also argued that Ailes' remark about Obama, made at the Radio and TV News Directors Foundation Awards, was meant to poke fun at President Bush, not the Illinois senator.
Ailes said: "And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "
Controversy has been brewing for weeks about the debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Wednesday he would not participate, citing Fox's conservative ties as a factor. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, sent an e-mail to the liberal website DailyKos, which was posted on the site.
“We’re definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don’t see why this needs to be one of them,” it read.
The state party has been under pressure from progressive activists across the country, led by MoveOn, to cut its ties with the debate.
According to MoveOn, more than 265,000 people signed a petition sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party.
In announcing the event, a statement posted by the state Democratic Party has Reid offering high praise of the debate partnership with Fox...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
Thursday, Mar 08
Roger Ailes To Media: Pressure To Boycott Debates "Must Be Resisted"
FNC chairman Roger Ailes is apparently taking the effort to "ask the Democratic Party of Nevada to drop Fox" very seriously. During his RTNDF acceptance speech tonight, he addressed the issue head-on:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_to_media_pressure_to_boycott_debates_must_be_resisted_54649.asp
Opinion on the action
Mar. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox
Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!
Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.
But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?
But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.
You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.
The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago...
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-10-Sat-2007/opinion/13078877.html
Robert Greenwald
Fox Attack: Enough is Enough
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/fox-attack-enough-is-eno_b_41902.html
Newshounds
Democratic Party Dumps FOX
Reported by Chrish - March 9, 2007 - 112 comments
Official statement from MoveOn and Robert Greenwald:
MoveOn & Robert Greenwald: Major victory for real news, defeat for FOX's right-wing misinformation
Edwards, Reid, grassroots Democrats praised for principled stand against right-wing Fox; NV Democratic Party praised for making the right choice.
FoxAttacks.com/MoveOn.org petition had over 265,000 signatures;
"Fox Attacks: Obama" video had over 280,000 views on YouTube
Today, Senator Harry Reid and the NV Democrat Party announced they would drop a FOX-sponsored debate scheduled for August - citing FOX President Roger Ailes remarks last night that compared Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden as the final straw.
"We hope this sets a precedent for all Democrats - that FOX should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "John Edwards, Harry Reid, the Nevada Democratic Party, and grassroots progressives across the nation deserve credit for standing up to Fox's right-wing agenda."
John Edwards had announced he would not attend the Fox debate. Over 265,000 people signed a petition stating, "FOX is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urged that Fox be dropped. Over 280,000 people had viewed Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald's new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" - located with the petition at FoxAttacks.com...
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/09/democratic_party_dumps_fox.php#more
Breaking: Nevada Democrats pull out of FOX News sponsored Democratic presidential debate
Reported by Chrish - March 9, 2007 - 85 comments
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/09/breaking_nevada_democrats_pull_out_of_fox_news_sponsored_democratic_presidential_debate.php#more
FOX chooses article carefully to outsource condemnation of Nevada Dems' cancellation
Reported by Chrish - March 10, 2007 - 82 comments
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/10/fox_chooses_article_carefully_to_outsource_condemnation_of_nevada_dems_cancellation.php#more
John Edwards the wuss
Posted: March 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
World Net Daily
Good grief! John Edwards wants to be president of the United States of America!?
The person in that job is supposed to be tough and resilient. He's supposed to embody courage and fortitude. He's supposed to be strong and resolute.
It's clear now that John Edwards isn't any of that and never will be, no matter how well his hair is styled.
Think of it. Our president must have what it takes to face the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Abbas or even Osama bin Laden.
How can we believe that Edwards could do that when he's spooked by the potential of being questioned by television reporters?
Whoa, John, that is a dangerous mission. No wonder you opted not to accept.
What was the challenge? The invitation was to be part of a televised Democratic presidential debate to be held Aug. 14 in Nevada, co-hosted by the Fox News Channel, Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project. Democratic Party leaders and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., supported the event. They thought it would spread the message to voters.
But Edwards backed out of the debate, saying his campaign was keeping him just too busy and that he'd be part of other events. However, there's more to it. Edwards caved in to pressure from the real lefties in his party who objected to the fact that Fox News would host the event.
MoveOn.org, a far-left organization, put pressure on the erstwhile candidate by collecting thousands of signatures objecting to the Fox News Channel being involved. The group calls Fox News, "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."
Bottom line: They don't like the fact that Fox doesn't toe the leftist-liberal line in news coverage and, in fact, does present both sides of issues. Unfortunately, the left only accepts people who agree with them and attempts to silence anyone who doesn't.
That restriction of speech and press smacks of Stalinism, and it comes from Democrats.
Given that our Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech, the fact that Edwards caved in to such pressure raises serious questions as to his interpretation of the law of the land. If he collapses before leftist pressure on an issue like this, what will happen when he's faced with really important choices. In fact, you have to wonder why he wouldn't be able to decently explain and defend the issues of the campaign for the office to which he wants Americans to elect him.
If he can't do that, how can we possibly have confidence in him to handle those issues directly if he were elected president...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54651
Friday, March 09, 2007
FBI Don't Tell All
Originally posted: March 9, 2007
FBI abused Patriot Act
Posted by Mark Silva at 6:55 am CST
The FBI has taken unchecked advantage of the "National Security Letters'' that enable it to obtain telephone calls, emails and banking records without warrants, according to an inspector general's report to be released today that reportedly will depict far-reaching abuses of the USA Patriot Act.
FBI agents have underreported their uses of this tool they were given after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, according to the report expected to be made public before noon. As it is, the FBI had reported to Congress that in 2005 it issued a total of 9,254 national security letters involving 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents. But shoddy record-keeping resulted in the FBI underreporting its use of these letters by 20 percent, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine is said to conclude.
Some members of Congress were briefed on the report last night. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued this statement: “In late 2005, I requested that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate the use of National Security Letters and other powers granted under the USA Patriot Act. The Justice Department’s own investigation, which is now concluded, confirms the American people’s worst fears about the Patriot Act. It appears that the Administration has used these powers without even the most basic regard for the privacy of innocent Americans.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/fbi_abused_patr.html
The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01
The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
Review Ongoing Rush Holt Paper Ballot Bill
Rush Holt's bill is still pending in the House of Representatives. The bill may undergo changes... Some voting integrity and security organizations have raised objections and forwarded to Holt's office.
See Black Box Voting » Latest Consumer Reports from Black Box Voting » 2-8-07: Beware of the Bandwagon -- A concise list of problems with Holt Bill HR 811
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46667.html?1171504136
Note: Holt offers explanation for use of the term "paper ballots" in material posted on his website.
The following Post Gazette article deals in what ifs when it is apparent Holt's bill hasn't yet passed.
Holt's explanation of his bill
http://holt.house.gov/voting.shtml
http://holt.house.gov/HR_811.shtml
Pennsylvania organization, Vote PA, message board has also had a running discussion of the Holt legislation and its position on the Holt Bill HR 811.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/messages
Allegheny and other counties may have to throw away millions of dollars worth of new voting machines unless the manufacturer can develop a printer that meets proposed changes in federal law.
The new Democratic leadership in Congress is pushing for a change in federal law that would require voting machines to have verifiable paper trails so that officials can check routinely for accuracy or hold a recount if there are problems with vote totals.
If the change is approved, election officials across the country could face the same type of mad scramble next year that they had in 2006 to have approved machines in place in time for the 2008 primary.
U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said at a news conference in Pittsburgh yesterday that he is among more than 190 co-sponsors of the bill and expects it to be acted on by early summer.
The proposed change calls for all voting machines to print the type of ballot that can be stored and counted by hand, if necessary, for several years. That type of printer currently isn't available for the touch-screen machines purchased last year by Allegheny and six other counties in Western Pennsylvania and may not be available for any other type of voting machine.
"The bill right now requires a printer with archival paper. As of right now, I don't know of any system that has archival paper," said Regis Young, director of elections in Butler County.
"I hope that doesn't mean we have to scrap what we have."
Butler purchased 490 iVotronic machines from Nebraska-based Electronic Systems & Software for $1.3 million last year, about $400,000 of it local money. In Allegheny County, a $12 million federal grant under the Help America Vote Act covered the cost of 4,600 touch-screen machines.
The machines also were used for the first time last year in Beaver, Cambria, Greene, Mercer and Westmoreland counties.
Nationally, the federal government made $3 billion available last year to help counties buy new machines. Some settled on touch screens and others on optical scanners, where voters fill in bubbles with a pencil to cast their votes. None of them has the type of printer proposed under the House bill.
Mr. Doyle, who appeared at the news conference with Allegheny County Councilmen Rich Fitzgerald and John DeFazio, said the federal government may have moved too quickly last year when it allowed new machines without paper trails. There were a variety of problems across the country, including in Sarasota County, Fla., where an iVotronic system undercounted votes in a congressional race by 18,000.
"I think one of the things we're saying is we've learned," said Mr. Doyle. "This [proposed change] is an indication there were some glitches. We didn't get this to where we want to be."
The bill would provide $300 million to help counties retrofit or replace machines to meet the new standards.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07065/767130-85.stm
Different article
New voting machines obsolete?
Election bill will require paper trail
By Tom Victoria
Eagle Staff Writer
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+voting+machines+obsolete+Election+bill+will+require+paper+trail&btnG=Search
See Black Box Voting » Latest Consumer Reports from Black Box Voting » 2-8-07: Beware of the Bandwagon -- A concise list of problems with Holt Bill HR 811
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46667.html?1171504136
Note: Holt offers explanation for use of the term "paper ballots" in material posted on his website.
54 counties may be poll-axed
New federal standards could make most voting machines in Pa. obsolete after 1 year
Friday, March 09, 2007
By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Nine counties in Pennsylvania have the type of optical scanner voting machines that easily will meet proposed new federal standards. Another 54 -- including Allegheny County -- will have to buy new machines or find a way to retrofit millions of dollars worth of equipment they bought just last year, according to VotePA, a voters' rights organization.
U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has 198 co-sponsors of a bill to make additional changes to voting procedures as a follow to the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The changes would require that each voting machine have a paper trail using archival-quality paper so results can be verified, and that they be fully accessible to handicapped people.
The changes could be costly.
Last year, Congress made $3 billion available to help counties comply with HAVA. Mr. Holt's bill would provide another $300 million to upgrade or replace machines that wouldn't meet the proposed standards.
In Pennsylvania alone, 54 counties use a type of electronic machine that doesn't have an appropriate printer available, said Marybeth Kuznik, executive director of VotePA. Allegheny County, for example, used a $12 million federal grant to buy 4,600 iVotronic touch-screen machines.
Electronic Systems & Software, which manufactures iVotronic, currently doesn't have a printer available that would meet the new standards. Across the country, there are 97,000 iVotronic machines in use, including in the counties of Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Greene, Mercer and Westmoreland.
Those machines can be attached to a printer, but the only model currently available uses paper similar to a cash register receipt, which doesn't meet the standard of archival paper because it smudges with repeated handling and deteriorates.
Similar electronic machines are used in 36 percent of the nation's counties, serving 38.4 percent of registered voters.
"If a vendor could come up with a system or add on to a system, then counties wouldn't have to replace their equipment," said Ms. Kuznik. "That's really unlikely to happen in the short period of time we have [before the 2008 election]."
The other 13 counties in Pennsylvania use optical scanners, where voters fill in bubbles on a card. Those ballots qualify as archival paper, so the machines don't need a separate printer.
"It is certainly [Mr. Holt's] intent that optical scanners would qualify," said Ms. Kuznik, who worked with the congressman's staff to develop the legislation.
Mr. Holt proposed additional changes to voting machine requirements after problems occurred in some areas that used electronic machines last fall. For example, machines used in one congressional race in Sarasota County, Fla., recorded 18,000 fewer votes than they should have and there was no verifiable paper trail to correct the error.
Nine Pennsylvania counties have what is considered the "gold standard" of optical scanners -- they have scanners at each precinct and a device known as a ballot marker to allow disabled people to vote. Those counties are Indiana, Huntingdon, Fulton, Franklin, Adams, Mifflin, Juniata, Snyder and Montour.
Four other counties -- Bedford, Lancaster, Susquehanna and Chester -- use other types of optical scanners that may need different access for the disabled or have some other shortcoming that could be corrected easily.
Some county election officials have been skeptical about optical scanners because they believe they could be expensive to operate in heavily populated areas due to the amount of paper and different ballots involved. Ms. Kuznik said her research has shown optical scanners are less expensive to use over the long haul because they last longer, have fewer problems, and don't require the special-order batteries used by electronic machines...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07068/768071-103.stm
Local leaders cast votes for paper trail
By Bobby Kerlik
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Proposed changes in federal voting law that would require electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail gained support from local officials Monday.
Allegheny County Council President Rich Fitzgerald, D-Squirrel Hill, and county Councilman John DeFazio, D-Shaler, joined U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, in announcing their support for pending legislation in Congress requiring paper trails and audits that test the paper results against the electronic tally.
"Before you leave the voting booth, you would be able to look at the paper ballot, and they would be available for recounts," Doyle said. "We would like to move quickly enough for the '08 presidential election."
In 2006, Allegheny County bought 4,700 iVotronic machines from Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software for nearly $12 million. The change from traditional lever machines was mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act.
Pennsylvania does not allow for voter-verified paper audit trails because of privacy concerns, but, Doyle said, this federal legislation would trump that.
Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato said the voting machines the county bought last year can be upgraded, if necessary, to produce a paper record.
"We factored that (cost) in," Onorato said. "I'm for a paper trail."
The county locked in a price of $3 million to retrofit the machines with the capacity to print voters' results, said Kevin Evanto, Onorato's spokesman.
The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would require the machines be more user-friendly for disabled voters. For example, blind voters should get a printout in Braille to verify their votes, Doyle said.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has nearly 200 co-sponsors and would provide $300 million to the states for the upgrades.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_496315.html
The following Post Gazette article deals in what ifs when it is apparent Holt's bill hasn't yet passed.
Holt's explanation of his bill
http://holt.house.gov/voting.shtml
http://holt.house.gov/HR_811.shtml
Pennsylvania organization, Vote PA, message board has also had a running discussion of the Holt legislation and its position on the Holt Bill HR 811.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/messages
New voting machines could be trashed
Altered U.S. law would require radical changes
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Allegheny and other counties may have to throw away millions of dollars worth of new voting machines unless the manufacturer can develop a printer that meets proposed changes in federal law.
The new Democratic leadership in Congress is pushing for a change in federal law that would require voting machines to have verifiable paper trails so that officials can check routinely for accuracy or hold a recount if there are problems with vote totals.
If the change is approved, election officials across the country could face the same type of mad scramble next year that they had in 2006 to have approved machines in place in time for the 2008 primary.
U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said at a news conference in Pittsburgh yesterday that he is among more than 190 co-sponsors of the bill and expects it to be acted on by early summer.
The proposed change calls for all voting machines to print the type of ballot that can be stored and counted by hand, if necessary, for several years. That type of printer currently isn't available for the touch-screen machines purchased last year by Allegheny and six other counties in Western Pennsylvania and may not be available for any other type of voting machine.
"The bill right now requires a printer with archival paper. As of right now, I don't know of any system that has archival paper," said Regis Young, director of elections in Butler County.
"I hope that doesn't mean we have to scrap what we have."
Butler purchased 490 iVotronic machines from Nebraska-based Electronic Systems & Software for $1.3 million last year, about $400,000 of it local money. In Allegheny County, a $12 million federal grant under the Help America Vote Act covered the cost of 4,600 touch-screen machines.
The machines also were used for the first time last year in Beaver, Cambria, Greene, Mercer and Westmoreland counties.
Nationally, the federal government made $3 billion available last year to help counties buy new machines. Some settled on touch screens and others on optical scanners, where voters fill in bubbles with a pencil to cast their votes. None of them has the type of printer proposed under the House bill.
Mr. Doyle, who appeared at the news conference with Allegheny County Councilmen Rich Fitzgerald and John DeFazio, said the federal government may have moved too quickly last year when it allowed new machines without paper trails. There were a variety of problems across the country, including in Sarasota County, Fla., where an iVotronic system undercounted votes in a congressional race by 18,000.
"I think one of the things we're saying is we've learned," said Mr. Doyle. "This [proposed change] is an indication there were some glitches. We didn't get this to where we want to be."
The bill would provide $300 million to help counties retrofit or replace machines to meet the new standards.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07065/767130-85.stm
Different article
New voting machines obsolete?
Election bill will require paper trail
By Tom Victoria
Eagle Staff Writer
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+voting+machines+obsolete+Election+bill+will+require+paper+trail&btnG=Search
H.R. 811: The Voter Confidence & Increased Accessibility Act
Q: What are the bill’s fundamental requirements?
A: -- The bill:
• Requires a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast
• Requires routine random audits by hand count of the paper ballots in 3% of the precincts in every federal race, unless the race is very close, in which case the percentage of precincts required to be audited would be higher; allows states to use alternative mechanisms, if determined to be equally effective and transparent
• Establishes an Independent State Audit Board to administer the audits (but would allow the Audit Board to utilize the existing election administration personnel to carry them out). Authorizes such funds as may be necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the audits.
• Mandates that the entire process of conducting the audits be publicly observable
• Enhances the accessibility requirements of the Help America Vote Act by:
o requiring not just that voting systems be equipped for individuals with disabilities, but that the entire process of ballot verification and casting be equipped for individuals with disabilities;
o requiring that all voters be able to verify the contents of their paper ballots; and
o explicitly applying the language access requirements of the Voting Rights Act not just to the voting systems used but also to the paper ballots required by the bill.
• Provides, as a “Manual Audit Capacity” requirement, that the voter verified paper ballots “shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit”
• Prohibits the use of undisclosed software and wireless devices in voting systems, and prohibits connecting devices upon which votes are cast to the Internet.
• Mandates an arms-length relationship between voting system vendors and test labs, and publication of test results
• Establishes additional security requirements that manufacturers and election officials must meet with respect to voting systems and supplies, including maintaining and documenting secure chain of custody
• Authorizes $300 million to fund the requirements for durable paper ballots and accessible ballot verification mechanisms, and allows the funds to be used for reimbursements to states that already met the requirements and, if a jurisdiction chooses to do this, to replace systems even if purchased with HAVA funds
• Authorizes $1 million in funding for the study of improved methods by which the disabled and those with language assistance needs can create and verify voter verified paper ballots.
Q: Does the bill ban direct recording electronic (DREs) voting machines?
A: No. The bill bans voting systems that do not produce or require the use of a durable voter-verified paper ballot that is created by or made available for inspection and verification before the voter’s vote is cast and counted. Voter-verified paper ballots may be made by hand or created through the use of an assistive device (such as a ballot marking device or a DRE). Assistive devices are necessary to facilitate language access and access for the disabled. Under the bill, all such “voter-verified paper ballots” are treated as the vote of record in recounts and audits. That is, in the first instance, software counts produced by optical scan machines and electronic voting machines are permissible; however, because either is subject to error, neither can be certified without audit. Therefore, in recounts and audits, the voter verified paper ballots themselves (and not a software translation of them) must be counted by hand...
Q: What is the relationship between usage of the term “paper ballot” and requests for a “DRE ban?”
A: -- There is some confusion. Some activists are insisting upon the use of the term “paper ballot” (which H.R. 811 does use) and some are simply requesting a “DRE ban” (which HR 811 does not do).
Some, however, are arguing that using the term “paper ballot” should not be applied to DRE print-outs, because it gives “false” gravitas to something made by a machine vs. something marked by hand. Of course, thousands of voters require the assistance of a machine to create a paper ballot, and it would be inappropriate to use different terminology to refer to a “hand marked” ballot than is used to refer to a “machine-marked” or “machine printed” ballot, as the ballots of the able-bodied and those not seeking language assistance would come to be treated differently under the law.
Whether DREs are banned or not, the term “paper ballot” must apply to any machine-marked or machine-printed ballot, just the same as it applies to a hand-marked ballot, so that the “paper ballots” of all voters are treated the same.
Q: How do requests for a “DRE ban” relate to H.R. 811?
A: -- H.R. 811 does not ban DREs, nor does it require DREs. It removes the problem presented by unauditable DREs. If DREs were banned, the other requirements of H.R. 811 – the paper ballot requirement, the audit requirements, the security requirements, etc., all would remain. H.R. 811 establishes the principle of auditability that must be observed in every federal election, but H.R. 811 does not specify or certify individual equipment, systems or designs for achieving the principle. It requires only that whatever system is provided for the voter requires the use of durable paper ballots and must be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.
http://holt.house.gov/HR_811.shtml
League Women Voters
H.R. 811, introduced by Representative Rush Holt (D NJ)
The legislation requires that all voting equipment produce a paper ballot that can be verified by the voter and that serves as the official ballot in any recount or audit. As a federal requirement, it mandates that each state set up special audit boards separate from existing voting administration systems and requires that they carryout an audit of each federal election by sampling select precincts for discrepancies between electronic vote counts and hand counts of the paper ballots. Other requirements are added for voting systems as well. The effective date of the legislation requires compliance before the 2008 election. Three hundred million dollars is authorized.
A section-by-section description follows:
Section 2. Voter-Verifiable Permanent Paper Ballots
Paper Ballots
1) All voting systems must provide an “individual voter-verified paper ballot” for inspection and verification by the voter before the vote is cast and counted.
2) The voting system must give the voter an opportunity to correct any error “made by the system” in the permanent paper ballot.
3) The voting system must not allow the paper ballot to be linked to a voter after it is cast.
4) The permanent paper ballot is the “true and correct” record of the vote in the event of any “inconsistencies or irregularities” between electronic tallies and hand counts.
5) The permanent paper ballot must be used as the “official” ballot for any recount or audit.
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=7743&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
