Joseph Farah: Stop the Presses

U.S. newsrooms infiltrated: Trace dots on bias machine
Posted: April 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
...If you really want to understand how America's great and unique institution of a free press has been deliberately undermined by radical activists masquerading as journalists, backed by big business and encouraged by big government, you have to examine this phenomenon," says Farah, author of "Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution," hitting the nation's bookstores for official release today.

The Society of Environmental Journalists is one of the "activist pressure groups" Farah cites as working within the press to promote a political agenda under the guise of reporting the news.

The agenda for the next national conference, to be held in Stanford, Calif., in September, doesn't leave much doubt about where the organization stands on global warming...

..."Journalists are supposed to be skeptics," Farah reminds. "They are supposed to ask tough questions. They are supposed to seek the truth, not accept what passes for conventional wisdom. We might as well just get our environmental news from the Sierra Club as get it from an official, controlled press operating under the watchful eyes and ears of the Society of Environmental Journalists. And this is just one of several activist groups, heavily funded by corporate America, that police what we read, hear and see about the great issues of our time."...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55085

'Stop the Presses!' gets 5 stars
1st rave reviews of Farah's latest book
Posted: April 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55127

Kerry Gingrich Global Warming Urgency

Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) Each Other
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A02

Yesterday's global-warming debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich was, as the moderator put it, "advertised as a smack-down and a prizefight." But those labels were too modest for Kerry.

"Welcome to our environmental version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates," the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd in the Russell Caucus Room. "We flipped a coin, and I picked Lincoln."

But something funny happened on the way to 1858. Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, refused to play Douglas to Kerry's Lincoln, instead positioning himself as a tree-hugging green.

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read." He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. "My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there's been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut," he confided.

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug...

continued

Until yesterday, Gingrich and Kerry were not likely candidates for an embrace. When Kerry was running for president in 2004, Gingrich said the senator "thrashed and smeared and lied about U.S. soldiers" and was guilty of "consistent distortion over and over and over again on every front."

But Gingrich, weighing a long-shot presidential run, is unpredictable. He proved that by meeting with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss common ground on health care, and yesterday it was Kerry's turn to be surprised when Gingrich preemptively distanced himself from President Bush on global warming. "I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership," he said.

Even his one big difference with Kerry -- Gingrich favored tax incentives to reduce carbon dioxide rather than a government "cap and trade" program -- was negotiable. "I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer," he granted.

Kerry appeared uncomfortable as Gingrich impersonated Al Gore. The senator tapped his foot, drummed his fingers, folded his arms and looked around the room with a crooked grin. He tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

Gingrich protested this mischaracterization. "We're not arguing over whether it should be urgent," he said.

Kerry persisted: "We're arguing over the level of the urgency."

"The question of urgency isn't what's being debated here," Gingrich repeated.

Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"

Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.

"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.

"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied. "I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism," he added.

Kerry didn't know quite what to do with his agreeable opponent. "I'm a little confused about sort of where Newt comes from on this," he said at first. Later, Kerry tried to switch places with Gingrich, branding him a big-government liberal. "You know, this is a huge transition," he exclaimed. "You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457_pf.html

Larry Birkhead Proclaimed Dannielynn's Biological Dad

DNA 99.9999999999... Larry Birkhead determined to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's child, Dannielynn.

Already bought diapers... he's the father, happy to have this behind him and start a life with his daughter... he's going to the toy store!

Hey, just get out of the Bahamas as soon as possible... there's something odd about the air over there...

Newt Gingrich Visionary or Pretender?

Scenes from the Gingrich Campaign
Don't rule out Newt in 2008.
Weekly Standard
Matthew Continetti

...There was a period when Republicans weren't so enamored with Gingrich. By the time he announced his retirement from Congress after the 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich's towering ego--he once scrawled a note in which he described himself as "leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces" in the battle to renew "American civilization"--and his combative, quirky managerial style had alienated most of his caucus. And while Gingrich knew many of the men and women who would assume top positions in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, during the 2000 campaign candidate Bush had made it a point to repudiate the Republican Congress, saying, "I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor."

Suddenly Gingrich had become the Republicans' prodigal son. Out of office, newly married to his third wife--with whom last week Gingrich admitted to having an affair during the Clinton intern scandal--he was in political exile. But the exile kept busy. He founded Gingrich Communications, which handled his many lucrative speaking engagements. He created the Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit think tank devoted to fixing the health care system. He joined the American Enterprise Institute and became a political analyst for the Fox News Channel. And every so often he would surface--from the depths--and generate headlines: his attack on the State Department in the spring of 2003, his advocacy of Bush's prescription drug entitlement later that year, his disavowal of L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, his attack on Rep. Tom DeLay and the other K Street Conservatives--many of whom had been his friends and allies--in the run-up to the 2006 elections, and his pronouncement last summer that America had entered World War III.

Gingrich, like many political exiles, is a prolific writer. Always a voluminous reader, in retirement he became one of Amazon.com's top book reviewers. (He's also written reviews for this magazine.) And he has continued to write novels, alternative histories in which the forces of American civilization face down counterfactual adversity and ultimately triumph over evil. He's written two books on health policy in consultation with his associates at the Center for Health Transformation. He's written a book called Rediscovering God in America. But most important is his Winning the Future, published by Regnery in 2005, a bestseller that doubles as a policy agenda.

Winning the Future is the latest title in what might be called Gingrichiana, a literary genre that began with the publication of the future speaker's Window of Opportunity in 1984 and continued through the then-speaker's To Renew America. A Ph.D. in European history from Tulane, Gingrich has made no secret of his intellectual mentors: futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler, management gurus Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, and Joseph M. Juran; and a shelf-full of military theorists and historians. Gingrich's published writings are a condensed soup of all these thinkers. They are written in the format of management tomes--using headings like "The Five Pillars of American Civilization" and "The Six Challenges Facing America" or the bullet points and short section titles that make Winning the Future assume the character of a PowerPoint presentation--but at times read like science fiction. "We have no notion at present what benefits might accrue by interfacing a mentally retarded child and the right computer system," Gingrich writes in Window of Opportunity; "in a zero-gravity environment, a paraplegic can float as easily as anyone else."

Depending on one's point of view, by the end of these books Gingrich reveals himself as either a visionary or a pretender, a world-historical figure or a goof playing at the highest levels of national politics...

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4155

Newt Gingrich: Evidence for man-made global warming - urgency

During the debate on global climate change between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich, Kerry interrupted Gingrich's time at one point to ask:

What would you say to Senator Inofe?

I'd say there is sufficient evidence ... science... that we need to act...

Is there urgency?

There is urgency... it's a matter of differences on our approaches... which of our two models is going to incite a new generation of solutions...

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Warned you...

Great question from audience member ... you both agree on the problem, the urgency... why don't you combine the two...

Exactly, they're both the same coin...

We've written before Newt Gingrich is a globalist and he's aligned himself with Heidi and Alvin Toffler who proposed a New Constitution for America way back...

Let's make it easy for you all by posting a great piece by APFN

THE SPEAKER'S AMBITION: A SECULAR, GLOBAL STATE ...Mr. Gingrich has an organization misnamed the "Progress and Freedom Foundation", which has published a book by futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler entitled, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave. Gingrich wrote the forward for the book in which he said, "In this 100 pages you'll begin to sense what the 21st century America, the 21st century Government, and the 21st century Congress need to be." Mr. Gingrich stated, " I am proud to be a part of the third wave information revolution."

Because the Tofflers are not running for political office they do not need, nor do they attempt, to assume the conservative, Bible-thumping exterior that Mr. Gingrich does. Their book basically outlines three waves: the first being agricultural, second industrial and the third the information age. The new Third Wave civilization into which we are now supposedly entering is "based on new, non-nuclear families." They also assert that it is useless to speak of Second Wave "values, as though one could return to the values and morality of the 1950's....We will need to prepare people for work in such fields as human services....Majority rule is increasingly obsolete. It is not majorities, but minorities that count....The Constitution of the U.S. needs to be altered...the system must die and be replaced....Nationalism is (Second Wave)...as economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty." (Source: The Road to Socialism and the New World Order by Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.).


http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/03/newt_gingrich.html

Gingrich: Evidence Man's Contribution Global Warming

Newt Gingrich on Fox News pre-debate

Gingrich says biggest difference between his approach and John Kerry's approach to solving global warming is Kerry is for a Big Government solution, and Gingrich's believes in incentives, innovation ... some evidence humans have contributed to global warming... need a solution that does include China and India...

Which side is the truth? Fox News host asks

Gore computer models don't indicate his extremist are true.

...there is evidence there are some things we should worry about, more renewables, more incentives...

Well what did we tell ya...

Fayette Controllers' Ballot Keeps Two Democrats

Appellate judge keeps Lally on Fayette ballot
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

An appellate judge on Monday denied a challenge by Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts to knock his Democratic primary opponent, Sean Lally, off the ballot because of problems with nominating petitions.
In a memorandum opinion, Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey upheld findings issued by Common Pleas Judge Steve P. Leskinen after a four-day hearing last month.

Leskinen struck about one-third of the 436 names Lally turned in on his petitions, but determined Roberts failed to show enough evidence to disqualify Lally from the race...

..."Contrary to challenger's assertions, there is no support for the argument that once an affidavit of a circulator is found to be false with regard to a signature contained on a nomination petition, all of the signatures on the nominating petition must be struck," McCloskey wrote...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_501941.html

Commonwealth Court: Lally stays on ballot
By:Amy Zalar
04/10/2007
Updated 04/10/2007 10:19:29 AM EDT

A Commonwealth Court judge has ruled that Democratic Fayette County controller candidate Sean P. Lally will remain on the May 15 ballot for the position, affirming a lower court ruling allowing Lally to stay on the ballot after his nomination petitions were challenged by Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts...

...The order by Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey made Monday affirms an order filed last month by Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge Steve P. Leskinen. During testimony, Lally said he did not personally circulate all the petitions he signed as the circulator, but said he did not think he was doing anything wrong because he gave the petitions to people that he trusted to circulate.
In his opinion, McCloskey affirmed all decisions of the trial court, which held that Lally had 288 valid signatures, or 38 more than the 250 required to seek the office. The ruling also did not consider additional issues raised on appeal by Roberts' attorneys.

On Thursday, McCloskey heard oral arguments on an appeal filed by Roberts. After four days of lengthy testimony, Leskinen struck 148 of the 436 signatures Lally turned in to the election bureau on 15 petitions...

...In his opinion, McCloskey rejected an argument by Roberts' attorneys that every petition that Lally admitted he did not personally circulate or was not present for every name being signed on it should be entirely stricken although Lally signed the affidavit on those petitions as the circulator...

...On the last day of testimony, Adams called a document examiner who testified that some signatures on the petitions did not match the signature on that voter's registration card in the election bureau.

Although Leskinen found that he factually believed the examiner, he ruled he could not legally struck the names from Lally's petitions because Roberts' challenge did not specify that as a defect...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18189112&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Related

Petition problems highlighted
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, March 26, 2007

Insurance agents at AIG American General didn't give a second thought Feb. 21 to signing a petition nominating Sean Lally so he could oppose two-term Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts.
But four weeks later, 11 agents and the office secretary had to close the office because they found themselves on a witness stand, testifying about who asked them to sign and whether Lally was in their South Union Township office at the time.

Although Lally identified himself on an election affidavit as the circulator, he admitted this week he was sitting outside in a parked car while two supporters, insurance agent Mark D. Santore and former county Commissioner Sean Cavanagh, passed the petition around the office.

Roberts also contacted one business and dozens of homes to ask voters about their signatures.

Lally said he thought it was proper, but Roberts insisted those names and about 200 others should be removed for fraud or other irregularities.

The resulting four-day court battle rekindled a long-running feud within the Democratic Party between the Roberts family and the Cavanagh camp, which includes Lally and freshman state Rep. Tim Mahoney.

Stuck in the middle were many annoyed voters, the recipients of about 150 subpoenas Roberts' attorney issued last week.

"It's unfortunate when you try to do something right for the county and exercise your right to vote," said Michael Giachetti, one of the agents who testified Wednesday. "I've heard a lot of people say that they'll never sign another petition again."

While a judge struck about one-third of Lally's signatures on Thursday, the construction business owner ended up with 38 more than needed to remain on the ballot.

Roberts' court challenge scrutinized the integrity of the nomination process and left registered voters wondering whether they, too, might receive a subpoena the next time they sign a petition...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_499600.html

Fayette County Elections - Tribune Review search

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/fayette.php

Russ Diamond PA Convention Game

Russ Diamond, known for founding PA Clean Sweep back in 2005 to mount opponents to incumbents in the Pennsylvania state legislature who voted themselves salary increases and took them in the form of unvouchered expenses, and who also mounted a campaign for Governor of PA which failed, is reshaping his argument for a Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention.

Diamond's opinion-piece is posted on a Centrist at Heart which touts itself as a moderate conservative site and also published in a Herald-Standard commentary entitled: "Latecomer Rendell tries to hijack reform train."

In it, Diamond slams PA Governor Ed Rendell's consideration of adoption of a series of government reforms and equates Rendell's proposals to an attempt to hijack the "reform train."

There's no doubt Russ Diamond attempts trickery to reel in "the people" to his cause of holding a so-called citizens' convention.

Diamond again first tries to convince readers that there is a broad and massive PA reform movement darn it, there really, really is.

If you keep saying something over and over again it must be true.

Don't be fooled. There is no widespread, outraged public screaming for a PA Constitutional Convention to be held to enact reform measures the state's legislators could propose themselves and the Governor could sign.

There isn't a mass of people storming Harrisburg to demand a PA Convention be held to alter the structure and the foundation of our PA republican form of government.

Admittedly, Governor Ed Rendell has adopted the language of candidates who ran on issues of reform, but contrary to Diamond's presentation, there is no massive reform train - desirous of overhauling our PA Constitution - to hijack.

The ending of his opinion piece shows Diamond's willingness to try again to fool the people of Pennsylvania all the time on the issue of a PA Constitutional Convention.

Diamond wraps up his opinion-piece with:

if he truly believes in the right of self-governance as enumerated by Article I of the Constitution, a carefully crafted citizens' convention provides no cause for hand wringing, anguish or hesitation of spirit.

See how Diamond spins?

If you believe in the right of self-governance... there's no cause for hand-wringing with a carefully crafted citizens' convention.

I guess if one lists a really long list of the dangers of both a limited and unlimited convention, as we've done here at Net the Truth Online (and Vote Fix) ever since the issue of a convention arose in August 2005 during Diamond's speech at a PA Newspaper Association meeting, then one must not believe in the right of self-governance, according to Diamond.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 PA Constitution Did No Wrong

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 PA Constitutional Convention: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Saturday, January 27, 2007 PA Reform Populists Want Convention Initiatives Referendums

(See sidebar and archives search for more)

Don't let Diamond fool you. Those of us who have an objection to a PA Constitutional Cconvention believe in self-governance, and as well, maintaining the foundation of our nation and our state as a republic, representative government over direct democracy.

The Founders warned of democracy. Those who want an unlimited or open general convention also want initiatives and referendums which is direct democracy.

• Update: April 27, 2007 However, Diamond has responded he isn't among those who desire an open or unlimited general convention, rather, he proposes a general convention, excluding Article I. Diamond further relays he doesn't want an unlimited constitutional convention.

Lastly, it wasn't Rendell's idea to form an Office of Public Records Advocate. That's the proposal of newly elected freshman, Timothy Mahoney, whose idea Rendell obviously now supports as does re-elected Democrat H. William DeWeese.

And, the idea is an example of what can be proposed, supported, accepted, and adopted in legislation without the need for a PA Constitutional Convention.

Let the public get behind the effort for open records legislation, and all other reform measures. Educate them to become informed on the issues, and then make their opinions well-known to their representatives.

In addition, the state legislature recently adopted 31 of 32 reform measures, which again, shows there is no need to mount a convention to get the PA legislators to reform themselves.

Governor Rendell makes a well-stated case against a convention by the very action of his proposing the type of reforms he's proposed. He got the message from the defeats of a handful of the state's top leadership in the '06 Primary and General elections.

We can discuss whether his proposals have merit, but we don't need a PA Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The PA Constitution did no wrong.

It doesn't take a convention to get the state legislators and Governor to clean up their own acts. It takes the threat of people becoming engaged in their own action - at the polling place - the last election, the next election, and the next.

Latecomer Rendell tries to hijack reform train
By Russ Diamond
04/07/2007
Gov. Ed Rendell should step aside from his bid to become the state's reformer-in-chief. While some of his ideas may have merit, the governor has no more right than the average citizen to prescribe the structure of state government in Pennsylvania and his viewpoint is distorted by his position.


Perhaps his goal of a better open records policy is desirable, but his suggestion of creating an Office of Public Records Advocate might be just another plump patronage position to be filled by political pals. Maybe the people can come up with a better plan for making government more transparent.

Perhaps merit selection for state appellate judges is an idea worth considering, but what if the people would rather make all judicial races non-partisan affairs and ban contributions to those races by lawyers?

How could Rendell's proposed Appellate Court Nominating Commission, dominated by a majority of legislative and executive appointees and confirmed by the Senate, improve the independence of the judiciary?

Independence from the other two branches should be encouraged, but independence from the sovereign people at the voting booth should not.

Perhaps the governor's suggested campaign finance limits appear to level the electoral playing field. On the other hand, maybe the people of this Commonwealth realize that the voter revolt of 2006 would not have been possible under those limitations and that no financial ceiling could ever negate the current incumbency protection program.

Perhaps Rendell's legislative term limits sound like a good idea, but reality in Pennsylvania suggests that if the General Assembly was truly part-time and was stripped of the unconstitutional perks it now enjoys, term limits would be utterly unnecessary.

Perhaps Pennsylvanians want a smaller legislature, but maybe they'd like a larger one, or to keep its size the same, with some of the above mentioned features and fewer expenses. Maybe they want to look at the other 49 states to see what others are doing before deciding which path is best for the Commonwealth.

Perhaps the time has come for citizen redistricting, but Rendell's 11-member commission would include four legislators and three appointees of the governor, two of whom would be legislators.

The remaining four would be appointed by - you guessed it - the four legislative caucus leaders. Pennsylvanians just might have a slightly different notion of how a citizens redistricting commission should look.

On constitutional issues in Pennsylvania, the governor's opinion has no more real or deserved weight than the average citizen's.

Perhaps the governor has some good ideas. Perhaps he doesn't. Either way, today's climate dictates that constitutional change should not be viewed only through the myopic lens of the chief executive.

The merit of Rendell's ideas should be discussed openly among citizens, not quietly between the three branches of government. Other citizens should be able to discuss their ideas as well.

The proper forum for such a discussion is a constitutional convention. Surely, the governor would be free to provide his vision for consideration at such a gathering.

"Citizens will not rest until there is an end to perks, an end to control by private interests and an end to political rules that shut them out of the process," the governor said in a press release.

But his plan eliminates no perks, suppresses the freedom of speech in political races and utterly shuts the people out of the process of structural change.

Nearly two years after the reform train left the station as Ed Rendell signed the pay raise, the governor is using his bully pulpit to try to hijack it.

Perhaps he doesn't realize that many other citizens were on board well ahead of him. Their voices on constitutional matters deserve an equally fair hearing.

In announcing his preferred reforms, Rendell expressed trepidation at the prospect of a constitutional convention, but if he truly believes in the right of self-governance as enumerated by Article I of the Constitution, a carefully crafted citizens' convention provides no cause for hand wringing, anguish or hesitation of spirit.

A plan for such a convention of the people is available at www.PACleanSweep.com.

Russ Diamond of Annville is chair of PACleanSweep.com

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18179797&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

Also

Monday, April 02, 2007
Russ Diamond: Rendell Hijacking the Reform Train

http://centristatheart.blogspot.com/2007/04/russ-diamond-rendell-hijacking-reform.html

More

Rendell proposes major government reforms
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG -- Gov. Ed Rendell had no qualms about accepting $100,000-and-up campaign contributions when he ran for re-election last fall.

Now, though, he says that's too much; contributions should be limited to $5,000 in gubernatorial elections and $2,000 in most other races.

"There's far too much influence in the governmental process by people and organizations with large amounts of money," Mr. Rendell told reporters yesterday at the Pennsylvania Press Club's monthly luncheon.

Campaign finance limits are one part of a package of reforms the governor is putting forth.

He also wants to expand open records laws, change the judicial selection process, reduce the size of the Legislature and impose term limits on senators and representatives, all by 2012.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, held a hearing yesterday on whether to hold a constitutional convention later this year or in 2008 to address term limits and the size of the Legislature. He expects it would last three months and involve 150 delegates elected from around the state.

Several citizens groups who fought against the 2005 pay raise urged such a convention but differ over whether the agenda should be limited to just a few issues or whether any aspect of state government should be up for discussion.

Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation urged a limited agenda, saying he didn't want the process to get bogged down in controversial social issues such as gun control and violence.

Meanwhile, Tim Potts of Democracy Rising and Russ Diamond of Clean Sweep advocated an open agenda.

Mr. Rendell prefers to amend the constitution without a convention. Changes would have to be approved by two separate sessions of the Legislature and by voters during a statewide referendum.

"I see dangers in calling a constitutional convention," he said. "I don't think we can limit the scope of such a convention" and talks could drag on for months without action.

Judicial selection is a key part of Mr. Rendell's reform package. He wants them to be selected through a merit system, instead of a political one, where campaigns often are financed by lawyers or businesses that are involved in a lot of lawsuits.

Under his proposal, a 14-member committee would nominate between two to five candidates. The governor would select one for Senate approval. If the Senate rejects three candidates brought forth by the governor, the nominating panel would have final authority on an appointment.

Meanwhile, Mr. Rendell is calling for a separate committee to redistrict the state into fewer legislative districts...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07086/772842-85.stm

Related

Highlights of the Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2007 as proposed by Russ Diamond, PACleanSweep Chair

Convention to be "general" except for Article I

http://www.pacleansweep.com/ccc07.html

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

REGARDING A CITIZENS’ CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Presented by Russ Diamond Chair, PACleanSweep
March 26, 2007

http://www.pacleansweep.com/rhd032607.html

The Reformers
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Sunday, March 25, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/bumsted/s_499440.html

A Call For A Constitutional Convention In PA
Posted by Chris on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 9:32 am and filed under GrassrootsPA.

Russ Diamond
Posted Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Permalink not yet rated + -
Greg-

As an instructional aid, the 1873 convention excluded Article I. The delegates messed with it anyway and the voters approved their tamperings. This could be avoided by including fidelity to the enabling act in the delgates oath of office. I’ve done that at http://www.pacleansweep.com/ccc07.html

This would subject the convention to court challenge *if* the delegates stray from the mandate. Wasn’t thought of in 1873...

http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/13743

Written on March 26th, 2007 in News Of The Day, PA Politics, PA Government, PA Constitutional Convention, PA Constitution
by Tim Potts_DR News

A co-founder of Democracy Rising PA today asked the Senate State Government Committee to authorize the Commonwealth’s first general constitutional convention in more than 130 years and to adopt a method for selecting delegates “to achieve the goal of fair representation for all … segments of the citizenry.”

Tim Potts said Democracy Rising PA since 2005 has collected ideas for changes to the state’s Constitution. Now numbering more than 180, the ideas touch every Article of the Constitution.

Democracy Rising PA is the only group so far calling for a general convention. Others have proposed to limit the areas of the Constitution that delegates could address.

Potts said Democracy Rising PA believes it would be unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of self-governance to hold a limited convention.

To limit the convention, he said, would be “tantamount to King George telling Thomas Jefferson what he could discuss in the Declaration of Independence and to deny that those convened in Philadelphia in 1787 could go beyond the confederation to propose to their fellow citizens a more perfect union. It bespeaks a distrust of citizens that undermines the foundation of this noble experiment.”

Potts said a limited convention could forbid discussion of dozens of ideas, including...

http://papundits.com/index.php/category/around-pa/constitutional-convention/

Gingrich a Global Warmer Now Supporter?

grab our cheat sheet for the so-called debate on global warming between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry scheduled for 10 a.m. to be broadcast on C-Span today.

C-Span cleverly captures the real feel of the event in its summary.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Global Warming Debate
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich debate the government's role in confronting global warming. The event is sponsored by New York Univ.'s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress. This is part of the Center's series on the way Congress makes long-term policy decisions...

http://www.c-span.org/

Note: the government's role in confronting global warming...

That's what the pair will debate. How much regulation on industry, how much taxation, carbon offsets, and so forth. They won't be debating the role of man in contributing to global warming.

this is a smokescreen debate, but we'll be watching...

Yesterday, we found Newt's own words on the issue from an interview he engaged in with Hugh Hewett:

global warming debate Newt-John style

Newt Gingrich with advice on what to do about Iran, immigration, gay marriage, guns, global warming, and life issues.
The Hugh Hewitt Show 3-28-07 at 6:52 PM

HH: All right. Last question, global warming, do you believe it is happening? And if so, is it caused by humans? And if so, what should we do about it?

NG: I think there are prudent grounds for believing that there’s a pattern of warming underway, although we don’t know precisely what it means. And I think there are prudent grounds for believing as a conservative that if you can find an economically rational way to reduce the amount of carbon loading, it’s a good thing to do. But it should not be used as an excuse to create gigantic government bureaucracies on behalf of the left through fundamentally dishonest scare tactics, such as Gore’s movie...

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=78c606c8-4ec0-4d01-9fc2-b44e1f3c9657

global warming debate Newt-John style

Don't miss Big Guys Climate Debate between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry 10 AM tomorrow, April 10, 2007. How far apart are the pair on the issue of man-made global warming?

Cheat Sheet for Kerry Gingrich Climate Showdown

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/cheat-sheet-for-kerry-gingrich-climate.html

Climate of Fear

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-of-fear.html

Don't be surprised or shocked when Newt and John come out sounding pretty much alike... after all Newt is a futurist...

and he doesn't deny anything, he seems to merely be opposed to the Kyoto treaty...

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2649

And when you read this, you'll know Newt is a good contortionist...

Newt Gingrich with advice on what to do about Iran, immigration, gay marriage, guns, global warming, and life issues.
The Hugh Hewitt Show 3-28-07 at 6:52 PM

HH: All right. Last question, global warming, do you believe it is happening? And if so, is it caused by humans? And if so, what should we do about it?

NG: I think there are prudent grounds for believing that there’s a pattern of warming underway, although we don’t know precisely what it means. And I think there are prudent grounds for believing as a conservative that if you can find an economically rational way to reduce the amount of carbon loading, it’s a good thing to do. But it should not be used as an excuse to create gigantic government bureaucracies on behalf of the left through fundamentally dishonest scare tactics, such as Gore’s movie...

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=78c606c8-4ec0-4d01-9fc2-b44e1f3c9657

...recently heard one of Newt's Winning the Future segments where he talked about how we can "solve" global warming and reduce the "man-made effects" of it. This really concerns me. Does Newt actually believe man-made global warming is a serious problem? If so, it really discourages me. I thought Newt was much too learned and well-read to fall for a dopey scam like Al Gore's man-made global warming...

http://www.newt.org/forum/topic.asp?fi=20000001&catId=30000004&ti=400001725

Newt Gingrich, environmentalist?
Fri, 2007-03-30 10:16 — Fred Bortz
According to Publishers Weekly, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and conservationist Terry L. Maple have written A Contract with the Earth, which the Johns Hopkins University Press will publish on November 1, 2007. I will certainly review that book for my newspaper clients and post my review on my Science Shelf web site.

This is definitely a book to watch for. Is Newt Gingrich acknowledging that the time for denial is past? He will certainly advocate a different approach from the one Al Gore favors, but it looks like he is calling for bipartisan action on this issue...

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/newt-gingrich-environmentalist-12906.html

April 10, 2007
A Conversation on Global Climate Change and the Environment
Senator John Kerry, author of This Moment on Earth, and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, author of Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America, will come together for a lively discussion on the timely topics of global climate change and the environment. This conversation is part of a broader project of the John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress on "Legislating for the Future." The project is designed to ask whether and how Congress can make wise decisions about long-term policy issues such as global environmental change...

http://www.nyu.edu/brademas/programs.events/

Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown By Jeremy Jacobs April 05, 2007
Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.

The debate, hosted by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kerry-gingrich-announce-climate-showdown-2007-04-05.html

finding funny stuff all across the net

Kerry and Gingrich Prepare for Smackdown
By Mary Ann Akers | April 4, 2007; 5:00 PM ET
Out of the presidential race but still itching to be a part of it all, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) seems to be trying to position himself as the Newt Gingrich of his party. You know, the thinking man who tries to steer the debate, frame the issues that candidates should be discussing, and hog air time.

We'll see how well Kerry does in his aspiring role next week when he goes head-to-head with Gingrich in a debate on the environment.

Hosted by New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, the forum, which may seem boring on its face, has some realSmackdown potential: big hair, big egos and lots of hot air.

Gingrich, who still hasn't ruled out a presidential run, and Kerry are both skilled orators and debaters. (They're practically poster children for the National Forensic League, aka the high school speech and debate club.) And both, perhaps Gingrich more than Kerry, are convinced they know best. Kerry, after all, doesn't have the time-tested gimmick Gingrich has: a "Contract with America for the 21st Century."...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/kerry_and_gingrich_prepare_for.html

Kerry on it...

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/

We're Really Not All Global Warmers Now

Add Lindzen to the column of skeptics on global warming solely human contribution...

Why So Gloomy? By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue

...A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Election Activists in Dispute

Apparently, election activists are in dispute concerning positions which have been taken on Rush Holt's latest election bill, version HR 811...

The situation gets curiouser and curiouser. We really can't get to the heart of the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between Bev Harris of Black Box Voting and Kathy Dopp. It seemed the pair were on the same page as late as March 29, 2007

Thursday, 29 March 2007
FOUR ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS RELEASE A “ONE-PAGE CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION”

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

Whatever that dispute turns out to be, the bottom line is that the current Rush Holt Bill HR 811 for a variety of reasons has been shown to be lacking by the very activists and election integrity organizations which have had longstanding input into the issues related to the electronic direct recording machines, voting security, voter verified paper ballots, voter verifiable paper audit trails, etc.

I don't agree with everything at BBV Forum's. However, the Black Box Voting Forum goes line by line into analyzing the Holt bill in its current form and presents convincing arguments to hold off until everything is sorted out.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46591.html?1175950047

Others, dozens it appears, similarly contend

CONGRESS: HR 811 Unsafe for Democracy! Amend or End!

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/book/export/html/859

Rush Holt's HR 811 urgently needs reform

http://www.votersunite.org/info/2007ElectionReform.pdf

Coalition for Voting Integrity

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/blog.php?p=11975&cat=8

Thursday, 29 March 2007
FOUR ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS RELEASE A “ONE-PAGE CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION”

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=84

Who can possibly continue to support a bill that has major election organizations and activists so bent on opposing it? Why hasn't Rush Holt pulled his bill out of such a contentious atmosphere?

Holt responds to Bev Harris critiques of the former HR 550 introduced by Holt in the last session of Congress

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_688.shtml

Black Box Voting opposes Rush Holt bill, calling it "dangerous" By Bev Harris
Online Journal Guest Writer Apr 10, 2006, 01:50

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_677.shtml

What does Holt have to gain by keeping the current bill reintroduced as HR 811 as is with all of the continued legitimate opposition to it?

Holt Reintroduces Voting Integrity Bill

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj12_holt/020607.html

Why do supporters of the Holt Bill remain so steadfast?

In support of the Holt bill

http://rushholt.com/archives/2007/03/time_for_congre.html

Holt's bill - which amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - received attention nationwide after being presented in the last Congress.

I have to say, in 2004, I apprised my local board of commissioners sitting as the election board of the previous Holt legislation because at the time, activists were demanding a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) for all and any of the touchscreen direct recording electronic voting systems yet to be adopted by local election officials.

Since then, there have been legitimate questions posed about electronic voting machines that were implemented in compliance with HAVA even those which maintain the VVPATs. Those questions must be sorted out before any new fix-it federal legislation is proposed and adopted.

I'm not convinced that only a paper ballot is the way to go. I'm not fond of solely manual counted paper ballots.

I urged my county commissioners to adopt both the DRE system they were bent on the Hart Intercivic eSlate, and the paper ballot with optical scanner/reader Hart Intercivic eScan.

They were advised by their local election bureau director to go with only an electronic direct recording based voting system without the paper ballot.

There are apparently more than enough objections being raised now after the call for VVPATs to take a cautious route and hold off on any legislation until all of those concerns can be addressed in hopefully a public forum so all of the issues are before the voting public.

Holt's bill should have unanimous support among all of the longstanding activists and organizations dedicated to seeing clean and trustable elections. It doesn't.

I often wonder whether political motivations aren't in play just to see something passed that seems like a solution to the former complaints. On the other hand, I wonder as well why a complete block of any voting technology and reliance on paper ballots with a manual count as those have been proven to be able to be frauded, manufactured and prone to human error?

The absentee paper ballots continue to be able to be frauded precisely because of inaccurate voter registration rolls.

I wish most of the activists would also support voter identification and purge of inaccurate voter registration databases, first and foremost.

Unfortunately, many of the same orgs and activists who profess they want clean and trustable elections don't see an accurate voter registration database as a must. That confounds me.

Meanwhile, there is an election around the corner and I can just hear the people who come in to use the DRE voting machines complaining they heard this or that - no wonder they are confused when so much confusion is going around.

And still, the same complainers don't approach their local election boards and demand a purge of the deceased names, people who have moved from the state, or county, and so forth, yet whose names remain in the database ripe for abuse.

Back to Bev Harris and Kathy Dopp's dispute. The Black Box Voting Homepage doesn't clarify or name the false statement being addressed, however it contains the comment:

CORRECTION AND REBUTTAL OF FALSE PRESS RELEASE: A false statement is being propagated by an individual regarding the position of Black Box Voting and software disclosure. If you have any questions as to our REAL position on software disclosure, feel free to email or post them in the forums here.

Just say upfront what the false statement is and who made it.

I just happened to come upon the incident between Bev Harris and Kathy Dopp while searching for information about polls of all sorts from a variety of resources.

April 8, 2007 at 00:45:57
Election Reform Groups Formally Oppose Public Disclosure of All Voting System Software. by Kathy Dopp Page 1 of 3 page(s) http://www.opednews.com

Read on site: http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/BevTries2ShutDownOpEdArticle.htm

Bev Harris of Black Box Voting responds to Kathy Dopp who then responds...

A false press release and an exercise in disinformation. Requesting that the editor remove this false press release.

by BevHarris (0 articles, 9 comments) on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM

Bev - Tell me ONE thing that is not true & I'll Retract it

Bev, I've used the EXACT words of the position paper you signed to describe your opinion.

You have refused since March to justify your position for a COTS exemption.

Justify it rather than trying to hide the fact that you've taken it...

http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/BevTries2ShutDownOpEdArticle.htm

Dopp Article in full length:

http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/EIGroupsOpposePublicSoftware.pdf

Above item referenced as posted by Mark Rauterkus @ 7:34 PM on evote.blogspot.com

Reference found bottom of pages at:

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

(searching for polls)

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/search?q=poll

Item reprint, reference to original and commentary found at evote.blogspot.com

http://evote.blogspot.com/2007/04/release-election-reform-groups-formally.html

More

Friday, March 30, 2007 One Page Letter flaws in current election reform bills

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DKC6MliVScYJ:electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf+kathy+dopp+letter+bev+harris&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

National Election Data Archive (NEDA)
http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Kathy Dopp
http://kathydopp.com/

http://utahcountvotes.org/

http://www.uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=51

http://ustogether.org/election04/dopp/dopp_response.html

People for American Way

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23501&tr=y&auid=2508268

Democracy Campaign Update March 29, 2007

This is a big week for election reform – and PFAW’s work in the Democracy Campaign – on several fronts.

The Committee on House Administration is voting to mark up Rep. Rush Holt’s Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 811), which would solve many of the security and accountability problems with ALL voting machines before the 2008 elections. And the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up H.R. 1281, the House version of Sen. Obama’s Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. The movement of this bill is a giant step toward stopping individuals and groups that use intimidation and misinformation to disenfranchise voters (who are often targeted by race or economic status).

And in the states…

http://evote.blogspot.com/

Political videos free speech

Anti-Clinton Web ad draws attention to unauthorized political videos on the Internet
Thursday, March 22, 2007
By Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- It's guerrilla politics at its cleverest.

The mysterious Internet video that compares Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Big Brother is the boffo hit of the YouTube Web site.

The 74-second clip, a copy of a 1984 Apple ad for its Macintosh computer, has recorded more than 1 million views, with an enormous surge in the past two days.

While the video's final image reads "BarackObama.com," the campaign of the Illinois senator has denied being behind it.

Its creator, known only as ParkRidge47, remained hidden, protected by the anonymity afforded by YouTube and the absence of federal regulations governing most Internet political speech.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07081/771314-176.stm

PA Gov. Ed Rendell: Reform Them

Leaders tee off during reform meeting
By Alison Hawkes
04/01/2007
Updated 04/02/2007 09:49:41 AM EDT
Gov. Ed Rendell got an earful this week when he presented his six-point government reform agenda to lawmakers at his Harrisburg mansion.

Sources at the Monday night meeting said lawmakers - particularly legislative leaders - were openly hostile to Rendell as he pitched an agenda for open records, campaign finance reform, term limits, and reducing the size of the Legislature, among other proposals.

Rendell's Spokesman Chuck Ardo said the meeting was a "frank and open exchange of ideas." But one freshmen lawmaker there described the finger-pointing scene as dangerously explosive.

"It was like throwing gasoline on the floor," he said.

The invitation-only event went out to the more than 50 new members, though fewer than half showed up and came after Rendell had already presented his reform platform that morning to the Harrisburg press corps.

Leaders were apparently offended that the governor didn't consult them first, especially since his reform items mostly had to do with changes to the Legislature.

"Everyone was taken by surprise and some people were more than frustrated," said Rep. Jim Marshall, a Beaver County Republican.

Marshall said he got an e-mail invitation that did not indicate of the purpose of the meeting. He said the freshmen class hadn't met with the governor since being sworn into office in early January, and he thought the meeting would be an informal meet-and-greet event to exchange ideas with Rendell.

What they got was a formal podium presentation.

"The governor got up and said, 'While we're on this reform movement, I want to cut the Legislature in half and I want to impose term limits of eight years and we want to have campaign finance reform,' " said Marshall...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18154677&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

PA Democratic Side: Partisanship In the House

DeWeese pledges support for Pa. open records legislation
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
04/07/2007
Updated 04/07/2007 12:05:29 AM EDT

While admitting that he was not initially an aggressive supporter of improved open records legislation, state Rep. H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, said Friday that he is now unequivocally behind the push for reform.


During a taping of "Behind the Headlines" for HSTV, DeWeese accompanied freshman state Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney, D-South Union, to discuss the sea of change sweeping through Harrisburg. DeWeese gave Mahoney full credit for pushing the open records issue to the forefront.

continued

DeWeese said so far this legislative term, the legislature has accepted 31 out of the 32 changes proposed by the Speaker's Reform Commission, of which Mahoney is a member. DeWeese said the legislature will no longer be voting in the middle of the night; thus a pay raise issue will never take place again. Also, DeWeese said there is now a 24-hour waiting period before legislation is put to a vote.

summing up why he has decided to support reform legislation, DeWeese quoted French poet and novelist Victor Hugo. "Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come," DeWeese said. The majority leader said Mahoney was the "crystallizing influence" that prompted him to move forward with changes. "I have enough God-given common sense to know that if I don't lead reform, that reform will go on without me," DeWeese said.

Mahoney said while there are several reform proposals out there, including one by Gov. Ed Rendell, he is glad DeWeese is supporting his legislation. "Governor Rendell has taken my proposal and made it his own, so I'm happy Bill jumped on mine," Mahoney said.

DeWeese pointed out that he appointed Mahoney to the Speaker's Reform Commission despite the fact that Mahoney did not initially vote for DeWeese as Democratic leader. DeWeese also discussed the history of how Dennis O'Brien, R-Philadelphia, became Speaker of the House as a Republican despite a one-vote Democratic majority.

DeWeese said he hatched the plan to wrestle the speakership away from Republican John Perzel of Philadelphia County when it became apparent that DeWeese did not have the votes to win the position. "I was two or three votes short, but Perzel was seven short," DeWeese said.

He said when it became apparent that the Mahoneys of the legislature would be ascending, he made a pact with O'Brien in which O'Brien would be named Speaker and DeWeese would remain majority leader.

Mahoney said he doesn't believe if Perzel had retained the speaker position there would have been any chance of reform. "(Perzel) starting reform would be like me going back to college, where I never went," Mahoney said. He said Perzel did little for reform in the 12 years his party was in the majority in the state House. Democrats now hold a slim 102-101 majority over Republicans.

DeWeese said the only recommendation out of 32 that was not approved out of the Speaker's Reform Commission was a proposal to take away the power to substantively amend bills from the Appropriations Committee. DeWeese pointed out that the power to amend bills in the Rules Committee, of which he is chairman, was taken away at his own behest. "I gave up overwhelming power as chairman of the Rules Committee," DeWeese said.

While the power to amend bills is still preserved in the Appropriations Committee, DeWeese said it is possible that could change in the future. He said it is now a "different world" with access to the Internet than it was when records had to be accessed in person in Harrisburg.

When asked about assertions that O'Brien will be a puppet for DeWeese, Mahoney said O'Brien is not a puppet for anyone. "His heart is with autistic children and Perzel wouldn't cooperate," Mahoney said. "I don't think he's a 'yes man' for anyone."

DeWeese said that historically O'Brien and Perzel never had a good political relationship, although their legislative districts are beside each other. "They weren't rubbing elbows like me and Tim Mahoney," DeWeese said.

DeWeese said helping O'Brien ascend to the Speaker of the House position was a "sweet, sweet victory," even though DeWeese did not get to regain the job himself.


http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18180084&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Related

Confident Democrats choose DeWeese to be House speaker
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06340/743825-179.stm

Hearings in PA on Reform Measures

Uhha...

'Reform' is still the buzzword in Harrisburg

Getting the state Legislature to open up its deliberations to the public and news media used to be like trying to push a 1,000-pound rock up a steep hill. But with the backlash from the 2005 legislative pay raise and the generous 2006 staffer bonuses still going strong, the current crop of legislators can't seem to do enough toward "reform'' of the previous closed-door procedures.

A bipartisan, 24-member panel named by new House Speaker Dennis O'Brien has already adopted improvements such as ending sessions by 11 p.m. so as not to make important decisions while most people are sleeping. It has also decided to require at least 24 hours between an amendment being made to a bill and a vote being held on the bill, so legislators know what they are voting on.

The panel, co-chaired by Rep. David Steil, R-Bucks, and Rep. Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery, will hold its next meeting April 11 at the Capitol to discuss changes to the House Ethics Committee.

But now the bipartisan panel is going into phase two of its work, with three hearings set around the state in April to get public input on even weightier issues, such as reducing the size of the Legislature or imposing term limits on legislators.
The public hearings are:

April 19 at 9 a.m. in the Allegheny County Courthouse's gold room in Downtown Pittsburgh

April 26 at 9 a.m. at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia.

April 27 at 9 a.m. at the Capitol in Harrisburg.

People who want to speak, for no more than 10 minutes, should e-mail to reform@pahouse.net or call Bill Patton at 717-787-4610.

see Pittsburgh Post Gazette Early Returns

http://www.post-gazette.com/earlyreturns/

Related

February 27, 2007
Democrats Wasting Money Faster Than Republicans

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/02/democrats_wasti.html

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/state_house/

More

DeWeese signs open records bill
By:Alison Hawkes
04/05/2007
Updated 04/06/2007 12:04:23 AM EDT

HARRISBURG - More than a month after its introduction, House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese has signed onto an open records bill that would give the public expanded powers to view state government spending. DeWeese, of Greene County, announced his support late Tuesday for the open records legislation developed by neighboring Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Fayette County Democrat.

In a press release, DeWeese said he's cosponsoring Mahoney's bill because, "It's time that we revisit Pennsylvania's open records law so that the public has easier access to state information." ...

Mahoney's bill has been assigned to the House State Government Committee, but it has not been scheduled for a public hearing yet, Mahoney said.

While they all expand the public's right to review how tax dollars are spent, the three proposals have some key differences. Pileggi's keeps an existing legal presumption that spending records are private unless explicitly noted in the law. Mahoney's and Rendell's proposals turn the tables on presumption by giving the public a basic legal right to all documents, with certain exceptions for government agencies. Under such a scenario, supported by reform activists and the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, state agencies would have to prove to the requester why a document should remain secret.

All three proposals set up an open records clearinghouse where the public may appeal a denied request with an intent to cut down on the number of lawsuits.

Musselman said the presumption issue will be a key part of the open records debate, as well as which exemptions get carved out of the definition of an "open record."

"There are a lot of things that are not public ... that frankly don't seem appropriate to ask for, like people's personal information, Social Security numbers, and security," she said. "There's been a lot of attention paid to public safety since 9-11."

Musselman said she would like to see entirely new case law developed on open records, which would happen if the presumption of openness was tilted in the public's favor...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18172111&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Radio Frequency Chip ID Driver's Licenses

Driver's licenses to feature radio chips
State introducing cards that encode personal information
Posted: April 6, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire
The state of Washington announced a pilot project to introduce a driver's license "enhanced" with a radio frequency identification, or RFID, chip that would encode personal information and possibly serve as a passport-alternative if approved by the Department of Homeland Security.

Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill March 23 allowing Washington residents to apply for the $40 voluntary driver's license beginning in January.

Gregoire spokeswoman Kristin Jacobsen told WND in an e-mail the enhanced license is intended to be an alternative way of complying with theWestern Hemisphere Travel Initiative mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55058

Pelosi Foreign Travel Illegal Diplomacy?

We'd been thinking about the Logan Act and Pelosi ever since she announced the trip abroad. May be. May be not. Lots of our Congress-critters travel abroad to meet with heads-of-state - just because some may agree with a President in a time of war, or not, on foreign policy shouldn't make them any different than some who disagree...

If the Logan Act is to be applied to one, it should be applied to all...

However, should there be actual negotiations, between Pelosi and whomever head-of-state, that's a different matter altogether.

Until such time, Pelosi shouldn't be rumored guilty...

Pelosi's Syria diplomacy a felony?
Former State Department official sees possible violation of Logan Act
Posted: April 6, 2007


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus this week to discuss foreign policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad – against the wishes of President Bush – might be a felony under the Logan Act, according to a former State Department official.

The Logan Act, initiated by President John Adams in 1798, makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States," points out Robert F. Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Turner says the Bush administration "isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue."

"Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back," he suggests.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55067

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution...

continued

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law...

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Fri Apr 6, 6:56 AM ET

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home...

continued

Pelosi surely knew that as speaker - third in the succession line to the presidency - her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush's no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.


Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit." That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy.


If there's any justification for Pelosi's trip, it is that foreign travel by members of Congress is important. Many come to office with little knowledge of the world and soon need to make important decisions about it. This was starkly evident in December when the congressman Pelosi chose to head the critical House Intelligence Committee revealed that he didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites - knowledge critical to understanding Iraq and the war on terrorism.


The speaker presumably is better informed. Pelosi said she made the trip because the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged greater engagement with Syria. That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. "I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds

Headlines via Drudge Report

WSJ: 'Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus'...

USA TODAY: Pelosi steps out of bounds...

Cheat Sheet for Kerry Gingrich Climate Showdown

April 10, 2007 touted as the date Newt Gingrich and John Kerry will meet to debate global warming.

See our post Climate of Fear April 5, 2007

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-of-fear.html

The Hill posts on the debate they tag The Climate Showdown

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kerry-gingrich-announce-climate-showdown-2007-04-05.html

Don't miss our own compilation of information on both sides of the issue. See sidebar Special Issue: Global Warming

Lots of information to get you up to speed and watch carefully just how far apart, or how close, Kerry and Gingrich are on the issue of global warming.

Too bad Ronald Bailey isn't part of the debate, as well as James Spann...

And what about the Priestly Pugilist, cited on Sen. Inhofe's site

Pennsylvania Priest Mocks 'Carbon Offsets' By Offering 'Moral Offsets' To Allow you to 'Sin with Confidence,' "The size of your carbon footprint - and, according to global warming’s true believers, the blackness of your soul - is determined by how many and how much of these evil things you do. But fear not. If you’re rich enough, you can buy your environmental soul clean again by purchasing carbon offsets," Father J. Michael Venditti wrote in a March 2007 blog.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeResources.ViewNewsletter&Newsletter_id=147a8bef-802a-23ad-4359-53c1970182c1&SuppressLayouts=true

Link reference

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~stmichael/blog.htm

4/04/07 - Well, here's some news. Priestly Pugilist © has been cited (by name) by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, on the Minority Page of the committee's web site.
          Citing our March 1, 2007, post on Moral Offsets to illustrate how not all religious leaders buy into Al Gore's "global-warming-as-moral-issue" extortion scheme, your's truly is linked with...

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~pugilist/index.htm

March 1, 2007 Post Priestly Pugilist

3/1/07 - The latest blast of hot air from those perpetuating the global warming fraud is the idea of commercially available “carbon offsets.” The theory behind this new entrepreneurial opportunity goes something like this: Everybody has a “carbon footprint” resulting from all the things he or she does which damages the planet - things like driving cars, flying planes, burning garbage, burning electric lights, heating the home, eating beans, detonating thermonuclear devices, breathing and the like. The size of your carbon footprint - and, according to global warming’s true believers, the blackness of your soul - is determined by how many and how much of these evil things you do. But fear not. If you’re rich enough, you can buy your environmental soul clean again by purchasing carbon offsets. For example...

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~pugilist/02.17.07-03.27.07.htm

Lieberman McCain team up global warming law

The We're all global warmers, now crowd ever-pressing (and it's snowing in April where it shouldn't...)

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)
Jan. 12, 2007
Introduced by Sens. Lieberman and McCain

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.280:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2007
Contact: Erika Masonhall, 202-224-4041


Lieberman, McCain Reintroduce Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act

Bill Improvements, Mounting Warming Impacts Attract Co-Sponsors to Bipartisan Measure

WASHINGTON – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 280) today with his longstanding ally, Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Co-sponsoring the bill are Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who had co-sponsored the 2005 version of the bill, and Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The most bipartisan of the Senate proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the US economy, the new bill quickly won endorsements from the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=267559


Summary of McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_1151_summary.cfm

The Bill's History

First introduced into the Senate in 2003, the Climate Stewardship Act was voted on in October of the same year, receiving surprisingly strong support from senators on both sides of the aisle. Though it didn't pass, the 43-to-55 vote demonstrates that our country is within reach of passing legislation that would protect the Earth's climate without risking economic setbacks.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4315

Don't forget to check out the Great Global Warming Swindle video locate info at sidebar or search feature on this site