Posts with the tag law

Torture Prosecution Must Not Be Feared

Leo — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:12:06 EDT

Regarding the friendly disagreement between the Bard and myself, Bush and Cheney already enjoy undeserved folk hero status, and within the far right realms, they will always enjoy such status regardless of outcome.

I appreciate the debate.

Problems with USA tax laws!

Unknown user — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:44:35 EDT

Certainly not many of you follow the ongoings of cases where people try to take advantage of tax laws to benefit themselves because the law itself is murky. However, there is a case that is drawing much attention unto itself, because of the nature of the "supposed" crime.

A fellow citizen who thought himself smart saw a loophole in the way he could pay his employees. If he payed them with gold or silver, which has to still be recognized by our society as a legal form of payment, he could give them more for less. This worked in the way that the legal system binds the value of these metals, to the current standings on the market. However when tax time comes around you are only taxed on the "face" value of the metals, not the current value of the market.

Citation is here

http://www.lvrj.com/news/48145032.html

and here http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html.

Now to do this is wrong...absolutely not, seeing as the law is clear on how it wll tax its citizens and what is legal in payment. However, the point they are trying to make, is that this is fraud ...tax fraud because the person doing the action is doing this on purpose to avoid paying taxes.

OF COURSE HE IS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GAVE AWAY OUR MONEY TO BIGGER CRIMINALS (GM, CHRYSLER) AND WE HAD NO SAY IN THIS!

So he is trying to save a few people from paying more money then they have to. If I get a slip saying I can not deduct a full amount of gas receipts on my business because technically the gas is also used for personal use, then send me a letter saying I can only report 80% or something likewise...dont bring me to jail because I did not quite know you could only declare a percentage.

They are trying to say he meant to avoid paying taxes, but then so was I when I declared 100% and not 80% of my gas receipts! This is a government that stone walls other investigations which could impact this one, on purpose because they do not want to give a chance to the defendant to have the upper hand. I am talking about an unlawful seizure by the FBI and IRS and the defendants home without proper warrants prepared, yet that case which was started before this one, has yet to see the light of day, and should that case rule that the seizure was unwarranted, then it would be thrown out of court, yet you can not discuss another case that has yet to be tried, therefor, it was a tactic to stone wall that is now leaving the defendant without any options.

He payed his employees with gold, the employees could have refused and he would have paid them cash, or cheque, but they accepted....so who is really at fault...the employer, employee or the goverment for not seeing that one law presided over another?

The government sees this action as a possible sore point where people will end up paying less taxes and the value of gold keep climbing, which BTW we have no real mines left in the US, all te gold mines are off this continent, we would end up being again stuck with foreign policies dictating our current economy!

I am signing out, however I think about Obama going off to jail because he gave as a gift to someone, a friend or family member, some gold coins and was found guilty of fraud. Can a gift be taxed, I don't know ....luckily I live in Canada!!!

America celebrates the 55th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education

Ericha from Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:02:19 EDT

The landmark decision of Brown v. The Board of Education reversed the term derived from Plessy v. Ferguson of "separate but equal." Here is a glimpse into Brown v. Board of Education and Justice Thurgood Marshall.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5067-LA-School-District-Examiner~y2009m5d17-Americans-celebrate-the-55th-anniversary-landmark-case-Brown-v-Board-of-Education

The truth about special education funding

Ericha from Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:23 EDT

I realize that this is a sensitive topic, special education funding. It's a subject that must be discussed because the funding is crippling schools. The government mandates the programs under the IDEA, but makes local school districts pay. Read about schools in ruins in California.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5067-LA-School-District-Examiner~y2009m5d13-Special-education-funding-or-lack-thereof-force-school-districts-to-suffer

Honor Forgotten

Thomas Carroll — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:12:37 EDT

It is no surprise Dick Cheney and people responsible for enacting torture and cruelty to prisoners are crying foul now. Cheney and the whole bunch are criminals returning to the scene of their crimes. Finding out information by committing War crimes has no defense, whatsoever!

Looking Forward on Torture and Patriot Act

Tim Schram — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:24:16 EDT

It is my opinion that looking forward requires us to investigate the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and warrantless suveillance in the Patriot Act. If these are truly violations of the Constitution, domestic laws, and/or international laws, we NEED to prosecute.

If we let transgressions of this type slide under times of emotional response, we risk a repeat of this type of violations. The reason the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and laws forbid torture and warrantless searches (as well as all the others) is precisely so we CAN'T overreact out of fear or anger. To do nothing is to set a precedent that there are circumstances where it is okay not discard the Constitution and ignore the laws.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not. By 'looking forward' while ignoring possible abuses and violations means we are not. It also undermines our ability to hold other countries and entities to this standard. We MUST abide by the standards and principles we espouse. If we don't our country is a lie.

LAW ENFORCEMENT NEGLIGENCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MUST STOP! LED TO THE DEATH OF 2 BROTHERS IN ILLINOIS. PLEASE JOIN US IN THE CREATION OF "DUNCAN & JACK'S LAW" MOBILIZATION NEEDED

Please Help Missing Children — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:38:11 EDT

LinkedInMyra Spearman has sent you a message.

Date: 3/31/2009

Subject: CALL TO ACTION - PLEASE FORWARD

Hello Everyone: Today, I spoke with Illinois State Representative, Robert Pritchard. He is a long time proponent of abating domestic and family abuse. He needs to hear from everyone. I asked him to author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either
1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or
2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.

Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all. Please email him and let him know that you're in support of this legislation or similiar legislation.

bob@pritchardstaterep.com
If you have something better to add please feel free... anything helps...

Duncan and Jack are the 2 little children that lost their lives this week at the hand of their father. You can read the story at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-...

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the Illinois Rep. I'm going to be sending it to NYS as well.
There's not a Congressman, Senator, etc... that should say no to this.

Dear Sir:

I am creator and administrator of the web community Please Help Missing Children.
http://helpthesechildren.ning.com/

Sir, the loss of Jack and Duncan Connolly is beyond tragic. The actions of the law enforcement involved in this case was a detriment that led to their deaths. They did not take seriously the severity of their father's condition, nor did they act on the information they were given. The Amber Alert for the boys was far from long enough. This should NOT have happened. Had there been a law in effect designed to PROTECT our children in the event of a mentally ill parent, the deaths of Jack and Duncan may have been prevented.

PLEASE author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either

1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or
2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.

Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all.

Someone that may be a strong supporter of this would be Congressman Gary Miller.

Sincerely
Kathryn Comstock
Administrator
Please Help Missing Children

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Diane Tikacs, a former neighbor of the Connolly family when they lived in Algonquin, signs a poster for Duncan Connolly at a memorial in the northwest suburb. The boys were killed by their father who then took his own life. (Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo / March 30, 2009)

BATTERED EXAMINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

2 boys found dead; mom rips the courts
After 3-week search, boys are found dead with their dad in central Illinois; mother decries system that OKd unsupervised visits
By Jo Napolitano, Carolyn Starks and Joel Hood | Tribune reporters
March 31, 2009

Amy Leichtenberg worried this day would come, and she begged the judicial system to prevent it.

In court documents dating back to 2005, she detailed her estranged husband's threats against her family and fought unsuccessfully to keep him from having unsupervised visits with their two sons. Michael Connolly violated the orders of protection against him six times, police records said, and he often vowed to kill himself rather than be separated from the boys.

Connolly, 40, disappeared with Duncan, 9, and Jack, 7, on March 8, prompting a nationwide search. Their bodies were discovered Sunday near a Christmas tree farm in a remote area of Putnam County.

Police described the deaths as a double homicide and a suicide, but released few details about the killings. The boys' bodies were found in the back seat of their father's 1991 Dodge Dynasty, while Connolly's body was discovered about 60 yards away.
Leichtenberg declined to comment Monday, but she issued a statement lashing out at the judicial system that allowed Connolly unsupervised visits.

"No parent should have to bury their babies," she said. "Duncan and Jack, Mommy loves you to the heavens and back.

"I feel that the judicial system failed me," she said. "I pray that the courts listen to the warnings from other parents like me."

Though Connolly and Leichtenberg lived in northwest suburban Algonquin for several years, much of their bitter custody battle took place in LeRoy, a small town near Bloomington where Leichtenberg moved with the boys after ending her marriage. She received orders of protection against Connolly there, including a current order, barring him from contact with her.

Connolly, an unemployed pharmaceutical salesman, violated the order six times but was only charged with four misdemeanors between July 2006 and October 2007, McLean County State's Atty. William Yoder said. He met with Connolly for an hour a few months ago at Connolly's request and believed him to be "unbalanced," Yoder said.

He declined to discuss his office's specific involvement in the custody battle.

"This was a tragic event," Yoder said. "This had the worst possible outcome."

Police began a search for Connolly and the boys three weeks ago when he failed to return them after a scheduled visit. McLean Sheriff Mike Emery conceded there was a delay in the Amber Alert about the abduction, saying the department's initial attempt did not meet all of the criteria required for the notification. Pressed to discuss the delay, the sheriff said he would not criticize the investigation.

At LeRoy Elementary School, where Duncan was in 3rd grade and Jack was in 2nd, the brothers' desks had been left untouched since their disappearance. Blue and green ribbons, the boys' favorite colors, were tied to trees, and parents taped pictures of the missing brothers inside their car windshields.

"In small towns something like this affects the whole town, not just one pocket or one neighborhood," LeRoy Supt. Gary Tipsord said. "We had prepared for a lot of different outcomes, but I don't think any of us expected this."

Putnam County authorities discovered Connolly's car about 5 p.m. Sunday near a Christmas tree farm about 8 miles south of Hennepin. Police say they do not know of any connection between the family and the secluded site.

Police would not say how long the bodies had been there, if they suffered obvious injuries or whether a weapon was recovered.

Connolly's aunt, Joyce Connolly, said his family rarely saw him after the couple separated.

"I feel sorry for Michael," she said. "I know that sounds terrible, but he must have been so tormented."

Court records and police accounts portray Connolly as an abusive husband who tried to force Leichtenberg to stay in their marriage. He threatened to cut open her and her parents and once told Jack that he would find "a younger, prettier, nicer mama," according to court documents.

When Connolly sensed Leichtenberg was about to leave him in 2006, she said he pressured her to sign a paper giving him custody of the boys if they divorced. He also demanded his wife make a videotape in which she claimed to abuse her sons, Leichtenberg said. It's not clear she did either.

"He went into a rage again and told me if I didn't get home he would kill me. I went home, and he told me if I ever take his boys again he would hunt me down and kill me and my parents and cut us open," Amy Leichtenberg wrote in her petition for an emergency order of protection in July 2005 in McHenry County Circuit Court.

Neighbors realized something was wrong with the couple's marriage shortly after they moved into their Algonquin neighborhood in 2003. Friends described Connolly as "controlling" and "manipulative" toward his wife and sons. Leichtenberg often would use neighbors' telephones to call her parents because her husband didn't like her speaking with them.

"She could never live a normal life," former next-door neighbor Jim Gerardi said. "That's the sad part about it, because he was watching every single move she made."

While Connolly was out of town on a business trip in 2006, neighbors said they helped Leichtenberg pack her car, and she and the kids sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter.

Leichtenberg filed for divorce in May 2006 in McHenry Circuit Court. In her petition, she described hundreds of harassing phone messages her husband left for her and her family.

In the messages, Connolly outlined stipulations for the divorce: He wanted visitation with his sons alone and one day a week with Amy alone and promised not to hurt them, court documents said.

Leichtenberg withdrew the petition without explanation in December 2006. She returned to the family's home in Algonquin, but neighbors said she hid inside the house and rarely socialized after the reconciliation.

The couple separated again a short time later, and Leichtenberg moved to LeRoy, where a bitter custody battle ignited. She wrote in court documents in April 2007 that he had called her home and her cell at least 18 times.

In a Tribune interview after the boys disappeared, Leichtenberg said Connolly was granted unsupervised visitation rights in December. She said she begged the McLean judge to deny the request.

"All Michael would do is file his own motions, and the judge was basically tired of him and gave him what he wanted."

Tribune reporters Andrew L. Wang and Stacy St. Clair contributed to this report.

<a href="jnapolitano@tribune.com">jnapolitano@tribune.com</a>

<a href="cstarks@tribune.com">cstarks@tribune.com</a>

<a href="jhood@tribune.com">jhood@tribune.com</a>

<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-mar31,0,3316104.story?page=2">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-m...</a>

MISSING CHILDREN - IMMEDIATE WEB CIRCULATION NEEDED - PLEASE HELP

Please Help Missing Children — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:21:03 EDT

Daniel Zamlen - Endangered Missing - Minnesota

Nathaly Alonzo 12 - Abducted - Delaware

Joshua David Avara 11 - Abducted - Texas

Sandra Cantu 8 - FOUND DECEASED

JACK CONNOLLY 7 - FOUND DECEASED - KILLED BY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHER WITH VIOLENT HISTORY - NO SUPERVISED VISITATION

DUNCAN CONNOLLY 9 - FOUND DECEASED - KILLED BY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHER WITH VIOLENT HISTORY - NO SUPERVISED VISITATION

BRITTANY WELLS 17 - SUSPECTED RUNAWAY - NORTH DAKOTA

Rochelle Denise Battle 16 - MISSING - MARYLAND

ALLYSON CORRALES 4 - ENDANGERED MISSING - MISSOURI

Mariah Sparks - MISSING CHILD - ALABAMA

Amber Leeanne Dubois - Endangered Missing - California

Haleigh Cummings - Endangered Missing - Florida

Tierny Perry 16 - Endangered Runaway - Florida

Adji "Ji Ji" Desir - Endangered Missing - Florida

SAMANTHA CHER HOWELL 15 - ENDANGERED RUNAWAY - NEW MEXICO

Jeff Renaud - Missing - Ontario

Crystal Ann Fox - Missing - California

Mystic Dawn Salazar - Missing - Colorado

Omar Qutaiba Mahoud - Abducted - New Mexico

Nadia Mahmoud - Abducted - New Mexico

Pebbles Jace - Missing Endangered - California

Max-Gian (Max-Jon) Alcalde 7 - Missing - Idaho

Ashley Nicole Lopez 18 - Endangered Runaway - New Mexico

Wendy Rameriz-Beristain - Endangered Missing - Florida

Marlene Torales - Endangered Missing - California

Claudia Vanessa Yat - Endangered Missing - California

Tangena Hussain 2 - Endangered Missing - Michigan

Jaliek "Jay" Rainwalker 12 - Endangered Missing - New York

Elian Amilcar Majano 2 - Endangered - Texas

Benjamin “Ben” Melvin Roseland - Missing - Iowa

Yasmin Acree - Missing - Illinois

Amy Fitzapatrick - Missing - Spain

Adrian Gonzalez 7 - Endangered Missing - Florida

Neida Rodriguez-Gonzalez 3 - Endangered Missing - Florida

Thor Danielsson Wang 1 - Endangered Missing - California

AMBER ADELIA BITTINGER 15 - ENDANGERED RUNAWAY - NEW MEXICO

Latoya Fleming 6 - Endangered Missing - New York

JOANNA CANO 15 & ANGEL 6 mo. - "PERSON OF INTEREST" WANTED FOR 1ST DEGREE MURDER - NORTH CAROLINA

XYLONIA BEGAY - MISSING - NEW MEXICO

MADELEINE MCCANN 4 - MISSING - INTERNATIONAL

Tabitha Tudor 18 - Endangered Missing - Tennessee

Kyle Fleischmann - Missing - North Carolina

Justin Gaines - Missing - Georgia

Donna Jou - Missing - California

Jason Michael Rourk - Missing - Georgia

Jennifer Keese - Missing - Florida

Mark Degner - Missing - Florida

Brian Hayes - Missing - Florida

Maura Murray - Missing - New Hampshire

Tabitha Tudors - Missing - Tennessee

Branson Perry - Missing - Missouri

Suzanne "Suzy" Gloria Lyall - Missing - New York

Karen Wilson - Missing - New York

Michael Mayfield - Endangered Missing - Texas

Pamela Mayfield - Endangered Missing - Texas

President and the Law

Marilyn from Bennington, NE — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:54:55 EST

I was just wondering who has the right to arrest the President of the United States of America? I heard it was the US. Marshals'. Do any one know the answere to that question? I wouldn't think it would be the local police, it would seem to me that it would have to be high officals that can do that. but who?

Bush defends honor of Lisa Marie Presley

Kenneth — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:48:45 EST

I saw in the paper two years ago while eating breakfast in a charming diner in West Oakland a picture of Junchiro Koizumi the prime minister of Japan trying on a pair of sunglasses once worn by Elvis in the presence of, in order away from him, Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, George Bush, and lastly Laura Bush.

A singularly powerful image, A Japanese leader enmeshed in a peculiarly American romance or glamour, Looking through glasses or borrowing the perspective of the chief archetype of that glamour, a sotto vocce declaration of willingness to lay aside hard truth in favor of the sublime dream that is the central motif of American media.

A whirlwind tour had apparently been arranged for the Prime Minister. Below in the story written by two staff writers at the New York Times an event was described in which the Prime Minister grabs Lisa marie by the waist while singing Hold me Close after which George claps him on the shoulder and shakes his hand. This is seen by the writers as the president putting a stop to a morally questionable action or perhaps as the protection of Lisa Marie. This presumes either that Lisa Marie was unable to handle herself in that situation or that the Prime Minister was subject to an, by American standards, offensive moral ideology. This impression is intensified by describing the president as an ex drinking and incredibly fit hero wandering around in the palace of The King, who was famous for his lascivious and drug addled lifestyle.

One may at a casual glance presume that morality and law are very similar. In fact one may go so far as to assume that law is to society as morality is to interpersonal relations. This connection is dubious at best. Legally they are like heat and light, always co-existent but not the same.

We are the proud inheritors of a constitutional republic. In essence our political system, here in America, is a democracy tempered by a constitution. The function of the constitution is to disallow egregious insults on the rights of any citizen and to define the extent to which morals may intrude upon law.

Morals are subjective. One may find the exposing of flesh inappropriate. It would then behoove that person to wear a lot of clothing. Others however may feel or even be constrained by religion to wear as little as possible. The more politically inclined among these populations may make an effort to legislate their moral leanings, thereby infringing the rights of their opposition. This is made impossible, presumably, by the constitution by circumscribing the extent to which morals may intrude upon law.

The war on Terror is an interesting effort legally. It engages the misunderstood powers of the presidency in times of war and creates a schism in the crisp differentiation between moral beliefs and law. Examples are rife these days. Same sex marriage, pornography, school prayer, drug and alcohol policy, flag burning, abortion, all of these exploit subtle differentiations within the law concerning the separation of law and religion or moral ideology.

The degree of extremity of belief seems to be the turning point. If a group within the general population believes with sufficient extremity in a moral proposition it must then be considered by law. The law is, again, prevented by the constitution from legislating morality and from an abridging of the rights of the few by the vote of the majority.

Rochester Youth Means Change

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:24:00 EST

Lets get started.

the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"

Kenneth — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:46:13 EST

The war on Terror has come home. It has been on its way but is now fully through the door and has been invited. Here in the United States we passed the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"

Here is a quote from the homeland security webpage about the bill; "We must intervene before a person crosses the line separating radical views from violent behavior, create an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, and instill in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 The full text of the bill, "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".

http://homeland.house.gov/about/subcommittees.asp?ID=287&SubSection=0&Is This is the DOHS's brief on the above bill.

http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm This is a page from the DOHS website. It outlines the "Centers for Excellence" program and lists the institutions involved with links and the tasks each is charged with.

This is a disturbing development in the world of counter+errorism. A self empowerment which outlines plans to snip in the bud, the, according to the authors, evolution of radicals to terrorists via a plethora of studies by institutions both public and private collated and made judgment upon by a central commission whose sole responsibility is to, "Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important."

A report was mandated within eighteen months, submitted to the president and congress, it was to consist of "Findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex."

Also there is to be formed a network of cooperative "Centers for Excellence" Check the link above for a list Here is the relevant quote from the bill… "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b). `(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism"

Of course the beginning of the bill contains definitions; here are some of them,

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

I am speechless, probably because I am holding my breath until that report comes out. Unfortunately there will be a classified annex to the report which we the public will not have access to. I guess you noticed that the "Centers for Excellence" are charged with training and informing operatives within the DOHS.

This appears to be outside the parameters of the bill as written and allude to a future time in which the information gathered and the obvious agenda are brought together, decisions made and acted upon that presumably shall imperil political dissidents all over the nation. I wonder; will they be considered innocent before proven guilty? What will be the determined definition of guilty? What of the quote from the DOHS's webpage which appears earlier in this blog that reads, "Instill in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future". What does this mean, this instilling?

On an arm being borne.

paulec — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:30:18 EST

"In a dozen uses of 'bear', nowhere is the meaning closed or hidden, even to 'bear a grudge' is something seen by its bearer. To carry in view is to (hope) to scare off adversary; but is there a Second Amendment 'right' to conceal or hide 'arms'?"
I posted this question about the word as well at change.gov. Thank you again, and HNY!

Unocal Test & Israel: Thoughts on the recent/ongoing/future airstrikes

Zeenah from Chicago, IL — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:20:38 EST

In business, when a company is being threatened by a hostile takeover, they are allowed to take defensive measures to safeguard their company and shareholders. The defensive measures must meet the standard test set forth in the Unocal case: 1. The company must believe there is a legitimate threat and 2. The defensive measures must be reasonable and proportional to the threat being imposed.

We set such strict guidelines and rules for companies so that we can protect shareholders and give them the best possible deal. Why is the law black and white when it comes to protecting corporate rights, but so gray when it comes to human rights?

This test seems to be a very simple concept and easily applicable when reviewing a nation’s defensive measures. Even if there is no independent board reviewing a country’s decision to attack, each country can use their own standard to make an objective decision as to whether this particular defensive measure was proportional and reasonable to the threat being imposed. The only additional factor I would include is whether this attack of self defense are beneficial to the particular country’s citizens as well as your particular country. Nation’s do not conduct affairs in a vacuum and their actions have an effect on the entire world stage. For example it may promote terrorism worldwide or harm your economies.

If America were to use this standard, the question would be posed as such: Did Israel believe there was a legitimate threat from Hamas? If they did, are 4 days of airstrikes on a strip a little larger than D.C. a reasonable and proportional defensive measure to the threat imposed? Finally, will these airstrikes benefit Israeli, Palestinian, and American citizens?

I don’t know the answer. Every part of my being says No to every part of that question, but I am not a world leader and do not have the necessary information to make that kind of decision. But here are some factors that need to be considered:

1. Negotiations with Hamas prior to air strikes
2. The effect on Palestinian citizens: food, medical supplies
3. The effect on Israeli citizens: potential of additional attacks
4. America: potential of additional attacks, ostracizing citizens by not keeping a balanced act in the territory
5. Economic factors: possible boycotts, money invested into airstrikes, foreign investment used in airstrikes

The list goes on and on, but the point is the same. Let’s keep an objective eye on Israel and then make a decision whether we support its defensive measures. This has nothing to do with taking sides. We won’t be in Ahmedinejad’s corner if we decide these attacks are not reasonable or proportional. We would be using an objective test and taking the reasonable actions to either condone or reject the defensive measures.

Proposed New Federal Law to Prevent Future Home Foreclosures

JimBO — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:11:05 EST

I propose a new federal law, that protects home buyers from ever losing value in their home by no fault of their own. If a home ever goes under what it was originally purchased for the mortgage company will be required to take a loss and write off the principle. At first I'm sure you are saying no way, this is wrong, and maybe even unAmerican. But what does it mean to be an American? Does it mean that we corrupt and like it that way? Does it mean that we do not look out for one another, and try to pull each other down anyway we can whether or not it's ethical or moral? It seems to me that alot of the times now a days that's exactly what it is. And we allow it to go on and turn the other cheek and just say to ourselves that's just the way it is and nothing can change it. Well not nothing. We can change it if we want to. I have put a little thought into this new law and I think it may very well be the correct solution. Let's think about it for a second. If there was a law that required a mortgage company to write down a principle if a home went under that value originally purchased, do you think maybe banks would make sure they are making good loans? Ummm absolutely. If they don't get the home value right, they will take the loss. Not the buyer. Do you think they will make sure they are not handing out risky loans? Absolutely, we all know what happens now when you have too many foreclosures. Would this create a real estate market that was fair and stable? Yes, a market that is as safe and stable as a FDIC insured savings account and a market that people would want to invest in again. One of the big problems now is that people do not trust the market anymore, and just don't want to take such a risk anymore. The law is simple and straightforward, the banks take the loss. After all they are to blame as well. They are taking the risk of whether or not you are going to pay back the loan. Now things are so bad, no one wants to pay the loan and they are risking their entire companies. Why? They're reputations are now that they cannot be trusted and now no one wants to do business with them.

Now the only problem I forsee with this law is that banks may end up dictating home prices. That's a big maybe.. I think the reason they require 20% or 10% down is just in case you pay to much for a home. So if you put 20% down and the home is worth 20% less well, the bank wouldn't take that loss. That would be on you. But if it goes beyond the 20%, then the law would state the bank would be required to write down the principle of the loan to the home value minus the 20%. This is only fair that the bank would do this. After all you've already lost everything you put down. You took that much risk. The bank should take the rest.

If anyone has any thoughts or ideas for or against proposed law, please add it to this blog.

$700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT

WEBMASTER — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:42:33 EST

Monday, December 15, 2008 10:29am EST / Posted by Dave Rochelson, Change.gov Newsroom

In case you have some questions about how the Treasury Department is spending the $700 billion of taxpayer dollars that Congress authorized, you're not alone.

The Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) is tasked with answering just that question.

Established by the same law that made the $700 billion fund available, COP is chaired by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren - a bankruptcy expert who has written extensively about the credit crisis for the blog Credit Slips.

Over at COP's homepage, COP.Senate.gov, she recorded a short video to tell you a little bit about the panel and the work they'll be doing.

In their first monthly report, the panel lays out 10 questions about the use of the economic stabilization funds, including "Is the strategy working?" and "Is the public receiving a fair deal?"

To answer those questions, COP is going to be holding hearings with officials from the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and elsewhere to make sure that your money is being put to good use. But they're asking for your help and your involvement.

Watch the video, read the first monthly COP report, and share your story of how the economic crisis has affected you at COP.Senate.gov.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

DC ALCOHOL LAW

WEBMASTER — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:42:46 EST

Senators Feinstein and Bennett Urge DC Government To Reverse Emergency Alcohol Law

WASHINGTON, DC / Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), and Senator Bob Bennett, Member of the JCCIC and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, today urged the Mayor and City Council of Washington, DC to reverse the emergency legislation passed last week to allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol until 5 am during the week of the inauguration.

“We have reached out to Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Vincent Gray because of our grave concerns about the unintended consequences of this legislation,” said Senator Feinstein.

“What is clearly meant as a boon to local businesses may instead create tremendous problems for already overwhelmed law enforcement agencies.”

“Security needs to be the number one priority during the Inaugural ceremonies and extending the sale of alcohol until 5 am in DC will only divert law enforcement resources away from their primary focus on security measures and crowd safety,” said Senator Bennett.

Text of the JCCIC Letter

Dear Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Gray:
We are writing today to urge that City Council and the Mayor reverse emergency legislation approved by the Council last week that permits nightclubs, bars and restaurants to sell alcoholic beverages until 5 a.m. for four nights during the Inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President.
With projections as high as 4 million people planning to visit the city during this time period, we are deeply concerned that the plan approved by the City Council could seriously strain law enforcement resources that need to be focused on the large crowds and security requirements of the Inaugural and its impact on the City.
There is great cause for celebration at this historic event. But we believe that the benefits of this emergency legislation, passed with little public notice, are far outweighed by its possible consequences.
We understand the pressures you face from the different constituencies in your city. But we also know the importance of standing firm to ensure the safety of residents, workers and visitors who will be in Washington, D.C., participating in this historic event.”

Sincerely,
Robert F Bennett and Dianne Feinstein

UPDATE: I spoke with the Mayor's office this morning. They stated that there will be another meeting on this issue in the near future. I recommend those reading this post call the Mayor and cast your vote for security.

The number for Mayor Fenty is 202.727.5011 - Vincent Gray's number is 202.724.8032

DOesn't anyone think a church spending 40 million to Ban rights is WRONG

Ed from Fort Lauderdale, FL — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:47:40 EST

Why isn't anyone questioning the spending of 40 million dollars by the MORMON church to ban gay marriage. The IRS has established laws against this and here they are: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf Second: Why is a church spending 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage when the money could have been used to feed the poor, help the homeless, pay mortgages for members losing there homes, pay or help in someones medical bills and the countless other ways to help people. Why is not a member of this congregation even questioning the use of 40 million dollars in this manner. As a Catholic, if my church spent 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage they would never see a dime from me FOREVER yet these people who give their church money are happy with the way it is being spent. IS this what following the bible is all about and YOU PEOPLE THINK it is ok for a church to be using its donations for this purpose? This is proof that these people are stupid ignorant brainwashed people who cannot think for themselves and this church's motives are political and NOT charitable and thus should lose their non-profit status immediately. LETS hit where it hurts in the pocketbook since the morons who belong to this church seem to be incapable of thinking rationally for themselves. WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS AND PROSECUTORS on this..THEY BROKE THE LAW

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

WEBMASTER — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:20:44 EST

Justices of the United States Supreme Court who witnessed an OBAMANATION of HOPE

Justice ANTHONY KENNEDY
Justice ANTONIN SCALIA
Justice DAVID SOUTER
Justice CLARENCE THOMAS
Chief Justice JOHN CLOVER ROBERTS
Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG
Justice SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR - retired
Justice STEPHEN BREYER
Justice SAMUEL ALITO

INSPIRED BY OBAMA

MEDISEN — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:20:11 EST

FROM ASTROLOGY EVOLVED ASTRONOMY

FROM ALCHEMY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY

FROM RELIGION EVOLVED PHILOSOPHY

FROM POLITICS EVOLVED MIRACLE

Perhaps the world would not have witnessed the woes of social illness and sickness of poverty.

Eear of unacceptance is the greatest fear.

Barack Obama spells hope not only to AMERICA but for the multitude of millions of human beings allover the world who believe in themselves , trust others and hope for betterment of world.

I AM INSPRIED BY YOU MR OBAMA.

AND I AM PROUD TO BE YOUR CONTEMPORARY INHABITING THIS PLANET IN YOUR TIME.

DO NOT GIVE UP , BE VALUE BASED, CHERISH, HUMANITY, GOVERN WITH A POSITIVE ATTITUDE.

THE IMMINENT THREAT OF THIE ECONOMIC CRISIS MIGHT LOOM LARGE BUT YOU CAN

YES YOU CAN

for now it is not JUST AMERICA BUT THE WHOLE WORLD THAT YOU HAVE WON OVER WITH GOOD WILL AND CHARM

YOU CAN

YOU WILL

YOU MUST

STRIVE NOT TO BE THE THE BEST BUT BE JUST

WITH LOVE AND GOODWILL ON BEHALF OF MORE THAN A BILLION INDIANS

DR SENTHIL KUMAR SANRAN

America - Together (post election)

Alex Karoub — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:44:40 EST

..... Contact: http://Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

WHO IS THAT GUY BARACK OBAMA? HE IS US.

We have made historic headway by together pointing our nation in the right directions. After decades, we have America focused on the issues of fundamental importance. Now, each of us acting in concert can together move our country to lead the world to the fruitfulness of moral goodness. I have no doubts about my abilities and the abilities of fellow Americans to work smart and hard to achieve these goals.

Barack Obama has the visions, leadership, and integrity for us to correct and redirect our country to once again lead the world for the fruitions of good. Let's closely listen, learn, and move forward based on that which we know deep inside is good and which we can validate with our hearts.

I hope that those who had but a few reasons to support Obama, look further into the other issues more deeply. I found the more I explored, studied, and listened to Obama the more I found us in agreement. The couple of issues that I did not have depth of knowledge of, quickly became obvious in need. This was unusual for me since I have always refused to be any kind of a follower, and still am not. I find Obama to be a deep thinker who is articulate and inspirational; and, of most fundamental importance, Obama makes excellent moral sense.

Hopefully, our country has learned lessons from the past of mistakenly following leadership blindly, as was done with Nixon and Bush. There are leaders who are simply in it for themselves and will cater to individuals or groups in order to grab for their own benefit. Corrupt and bad leaders hide at all levels. This is especially true in city government as well as county and state government. The corrupt deals of politicians need to be exposed, and those responsible need to be weeded out in the coming local elections. Others need to be investigated by law enforcement and be prosecuted for illegal dealings; for deals they often make for their hidden personal agendas. Let’s look at the bad experiences of the past as bitter medicines, let’s eliminate the need for such bad medicine in the future. Let us use what we know is good to go forward.

I believe we have chosen wisely, not by greed and not by misguided retaliatory anger. I believe this time our country has chosen with open eyes, with each of us listening and examining our choice of leadership closely, driven and validated by our hearts.

I hope we can continue to make our efforts even more inclusive (in many more ways than I touch on here). Far right republicans will be stubborn to change, but we will need to include them to change if we are to succeed. Sure a few more will leave our country, but that is not the American way. No, we really don't need their false fronts of power, money, insider knowledge, or other trappings that they have taught many to 'respect?'. Let's recruit as many as we can, that's the American way, evolving and changing together as one nation. Try to be understanding as we move forward; by better understanding each as individuals and people with various desires and needs we will find ways to reach out with friendship and have them join our causes of good.

Be on the lookout, and root out bad leadership in government and business. Do not be intimidated by those who use the false fronts of power and give a false sense of security in order to lead. Be extra leery of those who say or imply ‘Trust me’; those who give a sense that they somehow omnipotently know better. No longer will Americans be dazzled by phony displays of brilliance or baffled by baloney. There are government aristocrats and business leaders who still believe in the old adage of: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle em with bullshit”. We can embrace complexity by demanding true, fundamental, and understandable explanations. We can root out falsehoods by not accepting double speak. We as Americans know how to grow ourselves by first believing in ourselves. Don’t be a follower. Don’t be a follower of followers.

However, when we find leaders who are good; a leader that thinks, speaks, and acts from their heart; one that is honest, has integrity, and leads by sincere examples; then we need to in a big way, join them, support them, and promote their causes of good. From much research, investigation, and scrutiny, I believe Barack Obama is such a person. I hope we search for and find many more who are similar, who we can add to service at all levels of government. We need to add/replace leaders in business with ones that have honesty, integrity, and show quality in leadership. We need more people in leadership roles who are moral, like Barack Obama.

Remember, we are not fighting a battle, we are the artisans and sculptors of the future for ourselves and generations to come. Rarely do societies have opportunities to make such dramatic moves forward as we now have in this opportunity of today. Take pride and practice in being inclusive as we stride forward. In moving forward, create opportunity not only for yourself, but also for all. Hope is a wonderful thing to behold; but without opportunity, hope can become but a dream never achievable. We can, will, and must, create opportunity.

In the coming year I hope that we do not lose our spiritedness, but instead continue to build and make headway. I hope we all continue our campaign for change in government and business. We will succeed in moving forward once again, it will take much effort and good oversight on the part of each of us. We will make great strides in the months and years ahead in order to achieve the fruitions of good. Let's keep our enthusiasm progressing through these coming toughest of times. Let us use the light of goodness and love to motivate us with historic momentum.

I have chosen Barack Obama because he best represents my deepest beliefs in America. Please take time to read the issues that Barack Obama has published on this website. Also, give your attention to see how he leads us to move our nation forward in the time ahead. Most importantly, be part of America's great future, participate in the greatness that together we will make. Participate!

We will each and all flourish, if we think, speak, and act, by using the love in our hearts.

Your reply is welcome. Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

legalize weed and get rid of cigs(get high or die?)

Matthew from Tomah, WI — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:10:42 EST

ya i might just be a teenager but u know cigs kill more people than weed does. god put weed on this earth to be smoked it cant just dissapear i mean i know so many people that smoke and grow their own now im sure if obama legalized weed i think the fucking skin heads just might not accually try and kill him and u know i give obama a shit load of credit for being the first black president. but i mean i will start wearing all obama every day and everything if he ligalized weed i dont care if u have to be 18 or what ever. ii will go get a job and give obama my whole paycheck. i understand that weed makes u stoopid but cigs fucking kill people. i would rathere get high than die. no im not one of those juggalos im just a teenager but still that doesnt matter i think u should let me know legalize or not? i would love to find out what alot of u people think. ne ways just if u comment on this just put legalize if u agree and not if ur a fucknut

7 days

Josh In Michigan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:58:10 EDT

It's hard to believe, but there are only seven days until the most important election of our lifetimes. Seven days until change - seven days until Michigan has a partner in the White House again. But, none of it will happen without your help. We need you more than ever in this final week to help Get Out The Vote -- the most critical part of our campaign.

Sign up to help Get Out The Vote! It's the most important time of this campaign and we need your help!
Students! Help out on your campus getting out the vote and join Michigan Students for Obama!
Lawyers! We need your help protecting the rights of Michigan voters - sign up to join the Obama Voter Protection Team!
With our Neighbor-to-Neighbor tool, you can make calls from your home, and print lists of your neighbors to canvass!

McCain Campaign Violated McCain-Feingold law with Palin Clothing Purchases

liberal — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:32:52 EDT

Change we don't need:

McCain Campaign Violated McCain-Feingold law with Palin Clothing Purchases

“In what has to be one of the most embarrassing turn of events for the McCain campaign thus far, it appears that in purchasing $150,000 worth of clothes for Sarah Palin and her family, McCain and his campaign and/or the RNC have violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.”

Voting Attire, No Political Flare

Brandi Lou — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:42:26 EDT

Subject: No Political Attire When You Go Vote

From Grace: (Ohio)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ADVISE EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT GO TO THE POLLS WEARING ANY OBAMA SHIRTS, PINS, OR HATS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW AND WILL BE GROUNDS TO HAVE THE POLLING OFFICIALS TO TURN YOU AWAY. THAT IS CONSIDERED CAMPAIGNING AND NO ONE CAN CAMPAIGN WITHIN ‘X’ FEET TO THE POLLS. THEY ARE BANKING ON VOTERS BEING EXCITED AND NOT BEING AWARE OF THIS LONG STANDING LAW THAT YOU CAN BET WILL BE ENFORCED THISYEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE BANKING THAT IF YOU ARE TURNED AWAY, YOU WILL NOT GO HOME AND CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES. PLEASE JUST DON'T WEAR OBAMA GEAR OF ANY SORTS TO THE POLLS!! PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION; AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ALREADY AWARE, THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE. THANKS.

My initial response: (Portland, Oregon)

we vote by mail in oregon, but i'll pass this along to everyone in the case that it is true and let you all forward it at will to any other non-oregonians! it seems to me this would infringe upon our constitutional rights of freedom of speech/expression... but i don't really have time to look into this at the moment!? feel free to get back to me if you do!!! anyway, i'm thankful i can vote from home in my jammies or in the nude... assuming i was into that, of course, which i'm not ;)

take care, all, and happy voting incognito!?! much love, B. <3<3<3

From Annie: (Sulphur, Louisiana)

Of course this is true Fran! It is totally illegal to campaign at voting centers which makes a lot of sense to me. You are just imagining people wearing the clothes they want to wear, but the point of the law is to cut down on bullying and threats. It did used to happen in the old days when those in charge did not respect the secrecy of voting and would actually accompany folks into the booth. It's just an old law left over from different times.

My response:

fran, i do get the rationale behind it and can see how things were likely very different back in the day... i was just saying that i had never really thought about it (voting attire) that way before... you know, as "campaigning" rather than just "supporting" yer candidate... besides, i would think that most people go to the polls knowing who they're gonna vote for and aren't gonna be swayed by someone's flare ;) the threats/violence/intimidation/harassment rationale makes better sense... anyway, i got this response from mark this morning:

From Mark: (Hickory, NC)

I was just watching the morning news and remembered an email you sent. The email said not to wear obama shirts or the like to the voting booths because you could get rejected. well WBTV reported taht you could wear anything you like supporting your canidate, but you may not speak to anyone else about who they should vote for all campaigning must be done 50 feet from the voting establishments steps. So wear what you want and keep the chatter down. Later love ya!

From Annie: (SW La.)

Our news said that people would be asked to turn their shirts inside out when they got within 50 feet. Allow me to explain why we have laws that skew the line between supporting and campaigning and why they are to our benefit: As you know, Louisiana has a rep. for crooked politicians and a lesser known fact is that we are one of the most mob run states in the nation. This does cause problems at the polls. When it gets to the point of an area being run by thugs, what is there to do? Nobody can help you. Go into a higher court and everyone is covering up for each other. A comment such as "All we were doing was talking to people and rallying for their support," can put a person behind bars who was in actuality standing in a voting booth with a gun to someone's back, but just hasn't been proven to have done so. Wearing a T-shirt (in the old days buttons) or holding a sign could be a warning to the people of the presence around them (such as the KKK). You have to remember that a lot of these guys were doing things like hanging black folks and had such extreme control over the areas that they seemed unstoppable. One parish had a long time sheriff who literally went to war with the national guard over control of his area. This same concept is why intelligent people vote to keep Louisiana's archaic sex laws around. When a person has obviously committed rape, but it's a he said she said with the question of consent, the DA can put a person away for decades based on an act that they admitted to performing. This is scary, but law is a scary liquid creature that we can not live without. For that reason it is probably more important to pay attention to judge and DA elections than it is to pay attention to presidential elections. I forgot that we had an election Saturday and got a little sick over it. We were voting on judges and a new DA.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Vote? ~ Will Dress Code Affect Your Right To Vote?

Richard Owl Mirror — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:53:36 EDT

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Vote? ~ Will Dress Code Affect Your Right To Vote?

(CBS/AP) In Pennsylvania, two Pittsburgh-area elections officials are suing to permit a dress code at polling places, after a Pennsylvania Department of State memo advised counties last month that voters' attire doesn't matter.

In Virginia, where backers of both Barack Obama and John McCain are pushing for registration of college students in this battleground state, many students were wrongly advised by officials that registering could adversely affect their parents' taxes.

In Michigan, campaign officials are suing to prevent lists of foreclosed homes being used to prevent voters from voting at their local precinct.

And in Ohio, a legal skirmish over same-day registration and voting has not prevented hundreds from casting absentee ballots a month before Election Day, even though they do not plan on bring out of state come November 4.

Across the country, voter registration leading up to a highly-anticipated presidential election has been up, but so are concerns that bureaucracy, misreadings of election law, or just plain stupid mistakes may cost many Americans their right to exercise their vote.

continued . . .

~@~

Interestingly, the four states mentioned are states that Senator Obama is leading in the Polls.

Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan and Ohio

Pennsylvanian Sue Nace thought election volunteers were joking last spring when they told her she would have to remove her T-shirt to vote in the U.S. presidential primary.
But it was no laughing matter to the poll workers-turned-fashion police, who said Nace's Barack Obama shirt was inappropriate electioneering - and made her cover the writing before casting a ballot.
At least four states - Maine, Montana, Vermont and Kansas- explicitly prohibit wearing campaign buttons, stickers and badges inside polling places, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and state officials.

In Kentucky, elections officials last month told poll workers they should admit voters decked out in campaign apparel, after e-mails circulated warning that Obama supporters would be turned away if they wore shirts and pins.

Sorry, You've Been De-Registered

To obtain an absentee ballot, an absentee application form may be submitted. Because of a printing error on an application form sent out by the McCain campaign in several states, thousands of voters who requested absentees were rejected if the voter failed to check a box that needn't have been on the form in the first place.
http://www.canivote.org/
http://www.votersunite.org/info/RegInfo.asp

Lost Your House, Lost Your Vote?

Michigan election officials say they will remind local clerks that home foreclosure lists are not sufficient to challenge voting status.
State elections director Chris Thomas said foreclosure lists alone aren't enough to contest a voter's residence. A person whose home is in the foreclosure process still could be living at the address on the foreclosure list.
The notice could ease an ongoing flap about disputed allegations of possible challenges to Michigan voters in Macomb County, considered a possible key area in the presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.
The Obama campaign filed a lawsuit to prevent the Michigan GOP from using foreclosure lists as a residency challenge.
Marion County GOP Chairman Tom John told the Indianapolis Star that while his party has no plans to pursue such challenges, he wouldn't rule it out.
"I think it would be a solid basis for asking someone to vote provisionally," John said.

Old Enough To Vote, But Not Here?

In late August, a notice by a Montgomery County election official aimed at clarifying the voter registration process for Virginia Tech students actually mislead potential voters, creating a firestorm. It read in part,

"The Code of Virginia states that a student must declare a legal residence in order to register. A legal residence can be either a student's permanent address from home or their current college residence. By making Montgomery County your permanent residence, you have declared your independence from your parents and can no longer be claimed as a dependent on their income tax filings."

The statement also warned that students could lose their scholarships as the result of an address change.

After the IRS disputed the tax claims, the official released another notice which clarified some aspects but still caused concern that students would not be allowed to vote, in part because of the vagaries of declaring an "abode" and a "domicile."

~@~

Who in their right mind, anywhere in the United States could vote for a candidate who will resort to such tactics as trying to keep citizens from voting through deception? I hope you will pass along these tips to inform people who might be affected as well as letting voters know the lengths the Republican Party and John McCain are willing to go in preventing them from their Constitutional Right to Vote.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news.php

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/states.php

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/topics.php

Senior National Securty Advisor, Richard Danzig, for Obama Knows What He Talking About!

Josh and Kade — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:50:18 EDT

Richard Danzig said he believes it would be smart for Obama, if elected, to consider people like Robert Gates who have served in Republican Administrations.

"I personally believe that an administration that took advantage of some of the skills of people who are Republicans, or independents as well, would be a stronger administration," he said. "That doesn't translate to a prediction about Secretary Gates."

www.yahoo.com (article)

(what are the chances the Obama team incorporates all members from different party's into one whole party?

Sounds like a dream come true for my friend Kade, being that it is her who created the Third National Party concept. The TNP members are a combination of key political party members, of differerent afilliations placed into one whole party. Here, she believes, everyone would have a voice, including U.S. citizens.

Over ten years she collected information in order to write the TNP programs and policies. She utilized what isn't working into what will work for generations to come. She pretty much found a way to solve the U.S governments over wellming -policy- problems.

A problem solver is no trouble maker. She is a true public servant, being that she pulled this off by not telling a soul until she was ready.

I was told over a year ago that she proposed the TNP to the intelligence community and both republican and democrats. Which one took interest? it appear the democrats did.

I love it!

Really tho, I think it is time for kade to run for office. She would make one hell of a moderate President, first woman president I might add. Will we be ready for her then? Damn right we will be!

E-Verify program @ the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security and it's effects on immigrants and refugees

Richard Owl Mirror — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:35:09 EDT

~@~ National Security Debate ~@~

There are many facets which make up National Security and Immigration, I would like to focus on the E-Verify program @ the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security and it's effects on immigrants and refugees.

E-Verify (formerly the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an online system operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Participating employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. More than 69,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 4 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.

E-Verify is free and voluntary, and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

~@~

Employment Eligibility Verification and Antidiscrimination Protections

NILC Advocacy and Services
Since 1979, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) has been dedicated to protecting and promoting the rights of low income immigrants and their family members. In the past 20 years, NILC has earned a national reputation as a leading expert on immigration, public benefits, and employment laws affecting immigrants and refugees. Our extensive knowledge of the complex interplay between immigrants' legal status and their rights under U.S. laws is an essential resource for legal aid programs, community groups, and social service agencies across the country.

WHAT WE DO
Policy Analysis & Advocacy.
Impact Litigation.
Building Coalitions & Capacity.
Technical Assistance.
Trainings and Conferences.
Publications.

NILC's Website.
Our website contains NILC memos and analyses, articles from our newsletters indexed by topic, community education materials, and links to key organizational and government web sites.

http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/

~@~

http://www.cato.org/videohighlights/index.php?highlight_id=84

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10X7BO6uvPo
Fact-checking Glenn Beck

~@~

Immigration of individual human-beings across imaginary borders has occurred throughout mankind's existence. Hunters and Gatherers crosses into competitors fields and farms. Industrious human-beings create commerce opportunities, which in turn demands the employ of a workforce. I believe my description is an example of a basic human right.

This function within any society should not be impeded yet, it must be managed due to National Security concerns. It is obvious that the one requirement necessary to manage such a function is the ability to identify all individuals who are within our National borders. With the advent of technology, this task has become easier. The core problem with implementing such a program so it functions efficiently is cooperation by all parties.

I do not believe the millions of people who cross over our border, under extremely dangerous conditions are all criminals. It's simply the method of least resistance due to the rules for application of entry to our country is impossible for most to comply.

I have advocated that using technology such as an Identification card which can be produced as easily as we obtain our drivers licenses, preferably one-day service which would be valid for a 6-month employment stay could relieve this problem.

This identification card could also be used as the holders Employment ID card at their place of employment. As easily as an ATM card, the user slides it when they are clocking in and again when clocking out at the end of the day. This way, the government can verify constant employment and be alerted if the individual is not complying with the agreement for obtaining the entry card.

Most immigrants come to America to work as seasonal workers, therefore I believe a 6 month time-frame would be an agreement those seeking entry would voluntarily comply with. Cooperation is the key to success.

I believe granting honest, hard-working people the opportunity to purchase this entry card for $183 plus a background check, would relieve much of the problem of illegal immigration. Employers would be more able to be in 100% compliance with the Immigration laws because they need only opt-in to using the Immigration Time Clock system. Naturally there would be penalties for non-compliance yet, I believe companies would welcome such a solution as a safeguard against improperly being accused for hiring illegal workers. Perhaps we could also collect $1.00 for every hour worked by a migrant worker rather than them paying into Social Security. This money could be designated towards a specified program or budgetary need.

~@~

What have the candidates said about resolving the National Security implications of Immigration ?

http://www.barackobama.com/ vs. http://www.johnmccain.com

Let's be clear: John McCain is offering nothing of substance

Richard Owl Mirror — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:16:15 EDT

Senator Obama will strive to provide tax cuts for the middle class, affordable health care, and a new energy economy that creates millions of jobs. He will seek to end the war in Iraq responsibly, focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restore America's standing in the world.

Senator John McCain offered no solutions for the challenges Americans are facing in their daily lives. Nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad that he has supported more than 90% of the time in the Senate.

An example of how failed a Leadership role John McCain would bring to the Presidency is Obama's assertion that McCain "said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us," a reference to McCain's repeated refusal -- during an interview with Radio Caracol WSUA 1260 AM in Miami -- to say that as president, he would refuse to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. As evidence of the truth for this claim, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann reportedly wrote that "there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred" and that McCain in fact "refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview." Indeed, during the debate, McCain did not assert that he "misspoke" during the Radio Caracol interview, but rather responded to Obama by saying, "I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States."

Questions exist, whether McCain forgot which country Zapatero leads, got confused about Spain's geographic relationship to Latin America, or confused Zapatero with the Zapatista rebels from Mexico. In either instance, this incident reveals a danger of possible confrontation could explode due to his complete lack of understanding World Leaders and events.

During the debate Obama said, "Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers," and, "When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks." During the debate, McCain repeatedly purported to correct Obama by saying Kissinger would not support presidential-level talks with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each time, Obama made clear that was not his contention -- that, instead, he was accurately saying Kissenger supported talks between the United States and Iran at levels below the president.

Was John McCain simply confused or was he attempting to provide a misdirection because Senator Obama clearly showed how Senator McCain doesn't even understand what his own Advisors are advising ?

Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:

Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.
Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?
But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

One final observation I have regarding John McCain

McCain Suspends Campaign to Work on Wall St Plan

The Arizona senator announced he would suspend his campaign, pull television advertising, halt fundraising and return to Washington on Thursday to try to help negotiations over a stalled $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street.

"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said, urging Obama to join him.

~@~

I believe Senator John McCain made a strategic blunder in his forcefully and public move in going to Washington DC for discussions on the Financial crisis. John McCain used Bluster to place his actions into the limelight and boxed himself in to a retraction. I believe if he had true concerns as a servant of the people, he could have silently traveled of his own accord to Washington DC and offer his assistance toward solving a problem, then not having acheived his objective, simply call and cancel his participation in the debate at the last moment.

This shows me a lack of thoughtful planning and leads me to view his actions as reckless. It's akin to someone going out publically and making sure their neighbors see them praying to God or announcing they have performed good works, all the while seeking the approval of those witnesses alone.

A senior McCain adviser made clear McCain would not attend a Friday debate unless a congressional rescue deal was sealed.

"If the package is reached and the country is saved, there will be a debate," the aide said. "But if there's no deal, how can you get on a plane . . . for a debate?"

Is this the type of Leadership America wants or deserves ? I think not !

Let's be clear: John McCain is offering nothing of substance in his political rhetoric, same as his running to Washington even though he had nothing of substance to add in resolving the crisis.

He is what my Grandfather would call a Flim-Flam Man

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.

The Geneva accords of 1988, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in early 1989, left the Afghan government in ruins.

Senator John McCain said he would not repeat the mistake made by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush ? I thought both of these Leaders were his Hero's and mentors ?

Have you folks heard the latest news out of Alaska ?

September 26, 2008
Palin should step down, conservative commentator says

(CNN) – Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

The criticism in Parker's Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.

It was fun while it lasted," Parker writes. "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league."

~@~

McCains claim of taking out Bin Ladin

**Senator McCain said it most concisely in June.***

"Look," he said. "I know the area. I've been there. I know wars. I know how to win wars. And I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden. Or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it. I know how to do it." Sen. McCain seems to be quite serious, that he and he alone, not the CIA, nor the U.S. Military, nor the current President can capture bin Laden. Thus we must take him at his word that this is no mere ludicrous campaign boast. We must assume Sen. McCain truly believes he is capable of doing this, and has been capable of doing this, since last January. "We will capture Osama bin Laden. We will do it. I know how to do it."

If John McCain knows how to accomplish this task, why hasn't he told anyone how to implement his plan of action NOW rather than waiting until he is elected Commander in Chief ?
Does he simply want all the Glory and Praise for himself ?

Above the law?

Memsahib — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:49:07 EDT

So, the news has it that Sarah Palin et al will not honor the court subpoena that has been issued on her husband and her minions. Since when could a subpoena be ignored? I thought that the very nature of subpeoenas meant that the person HAD to appear in court or else be subjected to "contempt of court" and sent to jail.

Why is this gross disrespect for the court process not being subject to punitive action? Why are the politicians above the law?

Alaska judiciary - please take action, otherwise you cannot and SHOULD NOT enforce subpoenas for ordinary citizens too.

Why I'm campaigning for Obama!

Marianne — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:34:15 EDT

Why I campaign for Obama?

First of all, too put it mildly, I was really dissappointed that Bush won the last TWO times! But that's neither here nor there. That's not why I'm campaigning for Obama.

And then, Sarah Palin? Seriously? What were you thinking, John McCain? I think Sarah Palin was a symbol for the republicans to get excited about. They saw the crowds Obama was gathering and they felt left out. So this gave them a venue to play too, but I believe her 15 minutes of fame are up. The more she lies and gets called on it, the more facts that come out about her, the more she's proving to be Bush in a skirt. She's petty, vengeful, heartless, secretive, evasive, uneducated, her cabinet in Alaska consists of her inner loyal circle since high school and family. I can go on and on, but she's not worth my breath. She's an insult to me as a woman and a mother. She's not my leader. Not MY president. And with McCain at 72 with Melanoma, I don't want her waiting in the wings.

Finally, Why I'm actively involved in the election this year like never before, campaigning for Barack, knocking on doors, going to meetings, wearing my pin, and talking to everyone who might be undecided? Because I see greatness in Barack Obama, and I can't do nothing. I'm reading his first Memoir, Dreams from my Father, to get it straight from the horse's mouth, in the mindset of when he was just coming out of Harvard... before any publicly elected office. He lived a fascinating life. I've been constantly doing research, looking up everything I can and cross-referencing. Thorough research is important so I can speak intelligently and don't hurt the credibility of the campaign. There's a lot of mis-information out there. I may have inadvertently passed on wrong information that I have found in my searches, but it's a process.

The more I learn about Obama the more respect I have for him. It seems his whole life, in all his struggles, in all his experiences, and his education, he's been unknowingly groomed to be a great leader. He is INSISTENT about having people in his circle who span the ideological spectrum so he can hear and see all sides. When he was professor of Law at the University of Chicago for 12 years, he was known to have standing-room only debates in his class. He invited the discussions to be completely open and the debates got hot, but that's how he approaches decisions. Out of that, and in the midst of seeming chaos, he has a talent for empathy and focus that calms the herds. He thinks on his feet and his mind is razor sharp.

One thing that I've noticed from this book, is how he dealt with being half white and half black. He grew up in a white household, mostly in Hawaii, four years in Indonesia. His father, who was from Kenya, left when Barack was two. His father's name was also Barack. The book is fascinating. Anyway, from about 10 years old, after he moved back to Hawaii, he was starting to see how black people were treated differently in America and he was trying to find out why and what it meant to be a black American. This was also the age when his father came to visit for a month. Basically he was exposed to a variety of different cultures and world views growing up, and the black/white issue in America was another cultural curiosity in which he was immersed. As time went on, the more people he spoke to and became friends with, while he put himself in their shoes, it still wasn't him. He still had to decide who HE was. So he was outside looking in at the same time as being in it. He became a student of sociology. He questioned and analyzed everything about the black-American psyche. He dissected it until there was nothing left. Then he was able to communicate all those questions and conclusions so well, that for the first time in my life I've gotten a whole new understanding of the black American culture myself. I'm not done with the book yet, right now I'm where he went to Kenya for the first time after his father's death and he met so much of his family. Another immersion, a home coming to a place he had never been. Fascinating!

Now, this skill of his. to immerse himself in different world views, empathize with people, analyze objectively, communicate, and focus. That's what I want in the white house.

And I can't sit back and be a bystander on this election. I have to do something.

Marianne

Antitrust law: How can these guys call themselves "conservatives" when they are trying to nullify laws older than your grandfather?

Disillusioned former member — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:01:30 EDT

In his 9/11 interview, John McCain identified Teddy Roosevelt as one of his heros. But Roosevelt brought antitrust laws to the United States.

Modern Republicans hate antitrust law and the Republican members of the Supreme Court have written scathing opinions,refusing to follow established precedents in the field. The judges that John McCain singles out as the ones he most admires (especially Scalia) have been vociferously opposed to antitrust law.

Now, the Republican Justice Department wants to issue new enforcement guidelines so extreme that three of the four commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (all appointed by this administration) issued a statement saying that the policy was “a blueprint for radically weakened enforcement” against anticompetitive practices. They said the Justice Department guidelines allowed monopolies to act “with impunity” and “would make it nearly impossible to prosecute a case.”

The FTC is the other organization (besides the Justice Department) responsible for enforcing the antitrust laws. In sensible times, FTC and Justice collaborate on these cases. Here, we see a split so fundamental, they are airing their differences loudly, in public.

How can Republicans call themselves "conservative" when they want to wipe out marketplace protections passed in the early years of the 20th century? How can these people call themselves "law and order" when they refuse to prosecute people for violating criminal laws that have been on the books, and actively enforced (until 2000) for almost a century?

10 Reasons I'm Supporting Obama

Elana Fertig — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:11:27 EDT

1. Obama was a lecturer in constitutional law at one of the most respected law schools in the country, University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Both of these positions require high grades and achievements while in law school and take a top level intellect. He has backed these positions up with 10 productive years in both local and national politics, with state and federal service.

2. Obama recognizes the important of federal ethics and public accountability. His first task as a new senator was to bring an ethics reform bill to the senate and in 1998 passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. He also reached across the aisle and with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow the public to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. Having previously worked for a government contractor, I recognize the necessity of having both public and government oversight to avoid million dollar hammers.

3. Obama is surrounding himself with experts with diverse opinions to get a broad view on all the issues. He expects and inspires a healthy and productive dialog among people with differing opinions that produces cogent, well thought out, and productive actions and policies. Moreover, his superb communication skills enable him to explain these complex ideas to the general public and inspire action in otherwise apathetic groups of people. This has been exemplified in how much he has inspired the youth of this country. Also, though a religious man , Obama recognizes the sanctity of the separation of church and state and refuses to change his principles to appeal to the religious right in his attempts to court their votes. Moreover, he refuses to let religion play a role in education, promising science-based education and more realistic sex education.

4. Even Americans like myself with insurance covered by employers are feeling the effects of rising medical costs. Obama has a carefully constructed a health care plan that would oversee insurance companies to reduce costs and provide health care for those who cannot afford it (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/) In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage. He also understands the need for women's health care, and in Illinois and Washington and has created a task force on cervical cancer, provided greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helped improve prenatal and premature birth services.

5. Obama has first hand experience devising solutions for the less fortunate that empower them to build themselves up through work opportunities, not merely accept a check from the government. He is back ing this commitment up with ideas to support parents through reasonable health care and day care plans that would enable parents to better balance work and family. On a state level, Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

6. Obama recognizes the importance of strong public education to put future generations of Americans at the same level as their international counterparts and to have opportunities in a society with increasingly fewer "blue collar" jobs. He has promised to fund all levels of education, from zero to five early education to supporting more student loans and need based assistance at the university level. He has promised to back this up by recruiting more teachers, and paying them the salaries they deserve for all the hard work that they put in. This area is one of Obama's greatest strengths politically. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama20has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.

7. Obama listens to scientists in his policies, including support for stem cell research and science based education, not biblical public education. He is also pushing for more funding for science research and education, which have historically been responsible for many of America's accomplishments and status internationally.

8. Obama has strong environmental policies, and is pushing for additional jobs and national security through funding of real alternative energy policies. His policies are based on the scientific necessities outlined in the Nobel Prize winning International Panel on Climate Change document. Though this document is controversial in the media, speaking as a PhD scientist in Numerical Weather Prediction, I can verify that this document is well accepted within the meteorology, environmental science, and broader scientific community. Because of the importance of these environmental issues, Obama has not succumbed to short-term and short-sighted bandaids like a gas tax holiday or off shore drilling.

9. In spite of the rumors to the contrary, Obama has been consistently strong on Israel, introducing the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, co-sponsoring the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, and publicly supporting Israel in its war against Hezbollah. Though he has been outspoken against the war in Iraq, Obama recognizes the=2 0need for force in the fight against terrorism, and is calling for our forces to be redeployed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Quada are alive and well. Moreover, he's also willing to negotiate with our enemies with much needed dialog and has no intentions of acting as a unilateral force.

10. It seems very likely that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint two supreme court judges in his next term. Obama has pledged to appoint scholars of the constitution and people not swayed by political hot issues like abortion. While I have tried to keep this positive for Obama, I must mention here that in an appeal to the religious right, McCain has pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade, even in cases of rape and incest. Any moderate should think carefully about this before voting McCain and remember this is a life time appointment that has far longer lasting consequences than any actions of an individual president.

Palin is Pentacostal!

Marianne — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:35:38 EDT

She's Pentecostal. Don't take my word for it thought. Listen to this...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332540&sc=emaf

It's not her faith that bothers me, but ideologically what drives her!

Spiritual warfare? (Hmm, Who Would Jesus Bomb!)
God's will?
Assumption of God's will? (... that she gets to impose on others?)

Can we yell, "EXTREMIST!!!!!!"

I doubt with her limited education that she has a clue as to the merits of separation of church and state. What is it with Governors who think they're above the law, claiming a higher law. Maybe she should go to law school before she gets to veto them!

PALIN NEVER WENT TO LAW SCHOOL!!!

Marianne — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:33:48 EDT

That's a HUGE contrast between Obama and Palin, or Biden and Palin for that matter.

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for a semester in 1982, majoring in Business Administration. She transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College. In 1987, Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science.

Obama was the first African-American elected President of the Harvard Law Review!

Mortgage Industry Insider Blows Whistle!

Jeannie from Frisco, TX — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:41:10 EDT

MORTGAGE INDUSTRY INSIDER BLOWS THE WHISTLE!

Senator Obama,

Ted Krager, the whistle blower and his book, "Dirty Little Secrets of the Mortgage Industry," has just been released to the public. It is timely and focused to help the consumer. What will you do to assist Americans in this debacle with the mortgage industry? Ted Krager is helping to assist and further educate the consumer and expose the mortgage industry secrets.

Who:      Ted Krager, veteran of the mortgage industry for 15 years.

What:     Ted exposes the mortgage industry's secrets of how they to take
                  advantage of the American Consumer and make a killing off
                  of them in the process, including how Legislators are part of
                  the problem.   Inspires American Homeowners to take back
                  the power to control their mortgage, money and future.

Mortgage broker or mortgage banker: why you should choose one over the other

Hidden paperwork tricks designed to hide more expenses

What to do to guarantee the lowest interest rate

Trade jargon you must understand to reduce your closing costs

Distracting buzz words applied to confuse you

How to recognize cost savings loopholes

Why: Homeowner Advocate - Ted wants to help the consumer to save their homes. Ted tells the American Consumer how to avoid the traps, what to look for, how to control the financing/refinancing deal, and how to get the best mortgage, whether financing or refinancing a home.

Análisis de la Ley AETA para su eliminación en la Legislación Americana

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:57:16 EDT

1- Cualquier ley federal o estadal (AETA) esta subordinada a la Constitución. Ninguna ley puede contradecir la Constitución. Por ejemplo, si el Congreso promulga una ley que entra en conflicto con la Constitución, el Tribunal Supremo puede encontrar que la ley es inconstitucional, y declararla nula. Para revocarla se solicita el principio de stare decisis, ejecutada por la Corte Suprema

La Ley AETA contradice la primera enmienda constitucional (Proteger los Derechos) por lo que se puede pedir su nulidad y revocación inmediatamente

2- El Preámbulo de la Constitución no otorga ninguna autoridad o poder al gobierno federal para actuar sobre los Derechos de las personas. El término "Nosotros los pueblos", legitima la autonomía del pueblo en sus derechos legados

La Ley AETA no reconoce la potestad que tiene el pueblo para establecer Justicia y asegurar los beneficios de la libertad contenidos en esta constitución. En otras palabras es un instrumento legal represivo que priva los derechos legalmente adquiridos por el pueblo

3- El contenido de la Ley AETA no es representativo del pueblo americano ("Nosotros los pueblos") porque es individualista al representar el sector empresarial biomédico

4- Si AETA es una ley estatal también contradice la ley federal porque atenta con la regulación de derechos civiles. Algunos artículos de la AETA violan la libertad de expresión, de prensa, libertad de reunión y la libertad de la petición en activistas proanimal. Si AETA es una ley federal necesita la aprobación de todos los Estados para su aprobación

5- AETA niega los principios contenidos en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos y desconoce los Derechos Humanos contenidos en los tratados y convenios internacionales donde incluso USA esta suscrito

6- Así mismo AETA niega la Declaración Universal de los Derechos de animales y las leyes de protección animal vigentes. Una nueva Ley no puede ser contraria a las que están establecidas previamente.

7- AETA no reconoce la ideología política del sistema democrático porque reprime su propia esencia y su implementación en la legislación solo demuestra que el sistema democrático es frágil, sensible y vulnerable.

8- Algunos sistemas democráticos consideran que tradiciones o costumbres mantenidas por mucho tiempo en una comunidad, se convierte en Ley (Desconozco si en USA existe esta aceptación como parte de conservar la cultura de un pueblo) Si USA considera esto, el trabajo proanimal debe ser considerado legalmente como un derecho adquirido en el tiempo. Esto podría legitimar la lucha social como parte de la cultura americana.

9- Esta ley AETA castiga severamente la libertad de expresión por lo que sus métodos amenazantes, violentos, autoritarios y vejatorios de los derechos humanos representan una dictadura disfrazada de democracia.

10- La Ley AETA ha considerado el término terrorista para algunas acciones proanimal que no están definidas por la Real academia de lengua americana ni por los organismos internacionales. La mayoría de las definiciones consideran el término como uso de la violencia para crear terror con fines políticos, Considerar un grupo de personas que quieren ejercer su derecho a la libertad de expresión como terroristas, es algo ridículo e ilógico.

11- Un país que aplique la represión de los derechos constitucionales es un ejemplo de terrorismo de Estado.

12- Desde el punto de vista de la moral, esta Ley ha sido creada y propuesta por empresas biomédicas que de manera continua han violado las leyes federales. Considerando estos antecedentes, sería un hecho inmoral, aprobar una ley que carece de credibilidad ante un sistema de justicia que pretende ser correcto

13- La implementación de la ley AETA marca jurisprudencia para considerar en el futuro como actos terroristas a cualquier tipo de lucha social que se desarrolle en territorio americano.

14- Las actuales leyes federales consideran la seguridad ciudadana por lo que la ley AETA es innecesaria

Todo esto nos permite concluir que existen suficientes argumentos para abolir esta ley y una vez eliminada del sistema legal, deberá anular todos los procedimientos aplicados o en curso de activistas sentenciados por esta ley. Una vez liberados, estos podrán apelar a un juicio para demandar al Estado por crímenes de lesa humanidad (encarcelación, tortura, persecución por motivos ideológicos, encarcelamiento u otra privación grave de la libertad física en violación de normas fundamentales de derecho internacional, contra la integridad física o la salud mental o física)

También organizaciones de protección animal, podrán considerar una demanda justificada como Crimen de apartheid (considerando el contexto de un régimen institucionalizado de opresión y dominación sistemática sobre grupos de activistas proanimal)

saludos

Solicitud para abolir Ley (AETA) contra la libertad de expresión proanimal

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:43:38 EDT

Estimado Senador Barack Obama

Como ciudadanos que siempre hemos gozado de las virtudes de la libertad de expresión como un derecho humano contenido en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948 y amparada en los tratados internacionales de Derechos Humanos, sentimos una gran preocupación por la tendencia a eliminar las libertades civiles de una nación que, históricamente, representó un ejemplo de esperanza en todos los pueblos del mundo. Respetuosamente nos dirijos a ustedes para exponer lo siguiente:

El 27 de noviembre del 2006 la propuesta de Ley titulada: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act S. 1926 y HR 4239 (AETA) fue aprobada a pesar de que el Diputado Dennis Kucinich la cuestionó porque violaba la Primera Enmienda Constitucional que prohíbe la creación de cualquier ley que atente contra la libertad de expresión. 160 Grupos (National Lawyers Guiad, American Civil Liberties Union, New York City Bar Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of the US, American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, entre otros) y miles de electores también se opusieron, por cuanto esta Ley define cualquier actividad proanimal (protestas pacíficas, boicots, campañas, investigaciones encubiertas para exponer la crueldad animal, publicaciones en la Web, entre otros) como acto terrorista.

Como defensores de los derechos comprometidos con esta causa, vemos con preocupación la imposibilitad de nuestros activistas aliados , para participar en protestas o campañas pacíficas , por temor a ser enjuiciados como terroristas Considerar por ejemplo una manifestación a favor de la protección animal como un acto terrorista en un país que supuestamente apoya la libertad de expresión, resultaría contradictorio e inconstitucional con los derechos civiles de un pueblo. Si esta Ley se amplía para otras luchas sociales, terminaríamos considerando a todos los líderes de derechos como terroristas. Una gran deshonra para luchadores como Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, y Mahatma Gandhi que también serían considerados como terroristas.

La legislación aprobada en virtud de que la actual administración está muy sesgada a favor de proteger a las empresas que abusan de los animales, ha puesto en tela de juicio la moralidad del pueblo americano al otorgar a los promotores de esta Ley (empresas biomédicas) beneficios, a sabiendas de que estas de manera reiterada violan constantemente las leyes federales en América. Así mismo ha deslegitimado las leyes de justicia al pisotear la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (Derechos Civiles) y los Derechos Animales, violar acuerdos y tratados en Derechos internacionales, atentar legalmente contra la Primera Enmienda Constitucional y todo tipos de legislación animal vigente.

Por último, nos preocupa el lugar de Estados Unidos en materia política-económica ante la comunidad internacional por cuanto es un hecho ampliamente conocido , que la intervención en conflictos bélicos en otros países, ha venido debilitando, el emblema de justicia y libertad de expresión que caracterizó al pueblo americano .Desde el punto de vista económico los ciudadanos de otros países vemos con temor la legalidad de expandir una Ley represiva contra la libertad de expresión con las grandes empresas biomédicas en el mercado internacional

Al mirar hacia la elección de un nuevo presidente, aspiramos que el nuevo líder americano , reflejé un modelo de gestión, donde la libertad de expresión sea el mejor aliado de confianza en las relaciones internacionales con otros países del mundo

Agradeciéndole de antemano su reconsideración para restituir la libertad de expresión en las luchas sociales proanimales

Atentamente,

Activistas por la libertad de expresión proanimal

Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1oGvzTUuXc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqT1FR1XxPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_31ryvOTH_0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkft4j4iRvQ

Petition online

http://www.gopetition.com/online/21319.html

http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop4239/petition.html

Web site:

http://terrorismoestadoanimal.blogspot.com/

Motivational Note

Friends of President Barack Obama — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:19:02 EDT

Even though it may not look like it or feel like it, you are making progress.

Continue working towards progress instead of perfection.

Nothing or no no one is perfect.

Just keep taking steps.

Keep making those phone calls.

Continue following your plan.

Remain focused on your goal.

Do what you have to do right now to get to the next level.

Complete every task.

Keep every promise and commitment.

Don't look back.

Stay on track.

Let no one weaken your walk of faith and determination.

Remain teachable.

Place yourself in a blessing position by associating with people on-the-grow.

Talk with teachers.

Walk with winners.

Climb with champions.

Study successful people.

Something great is about to happen for you!

Start giving thanks right now before you can even see the outward manisfestation of your prayers and desires.

Everything you do from this day forward will take you further away or closer to your potential for successful living.

-by Dr. Jewel Diamond Taylor, Motivational Speaker & Author

The Keating Five Legacy

Nia "Hussein" J. — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:27:21 EDT

I often call McCain "McKeatingFive" Here is the story behind it that was emailed to me today:

The Keating Five Legacy
http://www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opinion/keating-five-legacy

William K. Black is Associate Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He was counsel to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and was a whistleblower in the Keating Five scandal. His book on the crisis is "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One."

Twenty-one years ago today five U.S. senators met with federal savings and loan regulators at the request of Charles Keating, who controlled Lincoln Savings and Loan. They became known as the "Keating Five"�€"Alan Cranston, D-Calif., Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., John Glenn, D-Ohio, John McCain, R-Ariz., and Donald Riegle, D-Mich. The Keating Five meeting was the event that transformed the S&L debacle from a story buried in the business section to one of the worst financial and political scandals in U.S. history (though the current financial crises have proven even worse).
The Keating Five, including McCain, were perfectly situated to take action to protect their constituents. They could have held oversight hearings. They could have warned the widows. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," an anonymous commenter one said (in a statement generally, but inaccurately, attributed to Edmund Burke). These men did nothing.
Lincoln was (and remains) the most expensive S&L failure of an insured U.S. depository, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. Keating recruited the senators because the regulators were about to remove his control over Lincoln. The regulators had discovered that Lincoln had large losses and was engaged in widespread fraud and forgeries designed to hide its violation of the "direct investment" rule. That violation was the largest in history �€" over $600 million. S&Ls that had large amounts of direct investment always failed. Direct investments were fatal not because of their intrinsic risk, but because they were superb aids to accounting fraud, the "weapon of choice" of financial firms.
When Keating launched a jihad against the proposed direct investment rule in 1984, he used politicians as his most important ally. He began in the House of Representatives. Within a few weeks, he was able to get a majority of members to co-sponsor a resolution intended to kill the direct investment rule. The supporters included John McCain (then a congressman), Jim Wright, D-Texas, (soon to be the Speaker of the House), and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., (soon to be Wright's nemesis and a strong critic of his aid to fraudulent S&L owners). McCain was, and remains, a strident opponent of financial regulation. Federal Home Loan Bank Board chairman Edwin Gray, convinced that direct investments posed a critical threat to the taxpayers, went ahead with the regulation.
Second, Keating tried to get President Reagan to fire Gray. Keating's lobbyist, "Mickey" Gardner, reported that they found significant support within the administration for this effort�€"particularly in the office of Vice President Bush (who chaired the administration's financial deregulation task force). The (Republican!) lobbyist reported in disgust that he couldn't get Gray fired because "like so many before him in this Administration, [Gray] would have to be criminally liable or worse before they would be removed."
Third, Keating followed Gardner's advice to stage a hostile takeover of the regulator in 1986. He had already used large political contributions and the lobbying of Alan Greenspan to recruit the "Keating Five." He now used several of the congressmen, principally McCain (the only Republican among the Keating Five), to help convince the Reagan administration to appoint two of his cronies to the Bank Board (which would have given Keating majority control of the agency).
Keating needed the senators' help to overcome rival candidates and internal opposition to the nominations. Phil Gramm, a more senior Republican senator on the banking committee, pushed the nomination of Durward Curlee, a Texas lobbyist representing the most notorious S&L frauds in Texas and, after Keating, the strongest opponent of S&L regulation. Keating was a major contributor to President Reagan, but he had never held elected office. His ability to convince the Reagan administration to reject Gramm's proposed nominee and agree to appoint both of Keating's proposed nominees was an astonishing demonstration of political power.
Keating also had to overcome serious internal opposition within the Reagan administration. The administration attempt to nominate Keating as U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas in the early 1980s had to be abandoned in embarrassment when it was revealed that Keating had signed a Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree to settle allegations that he had defrauded a financial institution. The White House personnel director, Robert Tuttle, was in charge of vetting Keating's proposed nominees. He called Republican contacts in Arizona (where Keating lived) and learned that Keating's had a reputation "for buying politicians." Tuttle recommended against the Keating appointments.
Keating's flaws were immediately obvious. In addition to his SEC problems, he was arrogant, domineering, rude, nasty, and a virulent bigot. Senator Garn (R. UT) refused to meet with him again after their first meeting. Treasury Undersecretary George Gould, instructed the Treasury guards to bar Keating from entry after their first meeting. Nevertheless, President Reagan rejected Tuttle's recommendation and tried to appoint both of Keating's choices. Had he succeeded, the cost of the debacle would have grown tenfold and the political scandal would have dwarfed Teapot Dome. Fortunately, Senator Dole blocked the nomination of one of Keating's choices.
President Reagan did make Lee Henkel a recess appointment in 1986. Henkel became Keating's "mole" on the Bank Board. His first substantive act was to propose an amendment to the direct investment rule (secretly drafted by Keating's lawyers) that would have immunized Lincoln's massive violation of the rule. (The amendment was cleverly drafted in a manner that did not mention Lincoln, but fit it like a glove.) Unfortunately for Keating and Henkel, I spotted the effort and blew the whistle. Henkel was severely criticized by the media and resigned in a deal with a Justice Department (in return, they dropped their investigation). (Years later, the Bank Board's successor agency "removed and prohibited" Henkel from the industry for his misconduct.) The Keating Five knew that Henkel had sought to amend the rule to immunize Lincoln, and they knew that he had resigned in disgrace. Appropriately, the resignation became public on April Fools' Day �€" the day before four of the senators ( Riegle was a surprise no show) met with Bank Board Chairman Gray at Keating's request to urge Gray not to take any action against Lincoln's violation of the rule.
The Keating Five waged Keating's fourth political campaign against the direct investment rule. The context of the campaign was the Bank Board's effort to "recapitalize" the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation ("FSLIC Recap) in order to secure funds to further its top priority �€" closing the fraudulent S&Ls like Lincoln. The FSLIC Recap bill had a second vital element �€" it would restore the Bank Board's lapsed powers to close many state chartered S&Ls like Lincoln. This meant that Keating had a vital need to block passage of the bill.
Senator Cranston, at Keating's request, blocked passage of the bill in the Senate by placing a secret "hold" on the bill. House Majority Leader Jim Wright, D-Texas, and Representative Pryor openly blocked the bill in the House. Wright extorted Gray, demanding favorable treatment for Texas frauds Pryor, demanded that fewer Arkansas S&Ls be closed and sanctioned. (He would later serve on the Senate ethics committee investigating the Keating Five �€" so they truly had a jury of their peers!) FSLIC Recap was the Bank Board's ultimate priority. The FSLIC fund was down to $500 million �€" to insure an industry of over $1 trillion in liabilities that was insolvent by perhaps $100 billion in 1986. The S&L frauds' political allies had total leverage over Gray and he repeatedly made concessions demanded by Majority Leader (and Speaker of the House in January 1987), Jim Wright. The CEOs of each of the S&Ls that Wright sought favors for were looting "their" S&Ls �€" inclu ding Vernon Savings (after Lincoln, the worst S&L fraud).
Keating knew that adding the Keating Five's political clout in the Senate to Speaker Wright's domination of the House would doom the FSLIC Recap bill (which was reintroduced in 1987) and put irresistible pressure on Gray to back off from taking enforcement action against Lincoln. He made the threat explicit by telling Undersecretary Gould that he could induce five senators to either be a great help or strong opponents of the FSLIC Recap bill. (This is the conversation that caused Gould to bar Keating from the Treasury building.) By April 2, 1987, Speaker Wright's House allies had made a travesty of the FSLIC Recap bill �€" reducing the funding from $15 billion to $5 billion and mandating "forbearance" provisions designed to gut the Bank Board's ability to close failed S&Ls. Our only hope was that the Senate would pass a better version of the bill and that the conference committee would favor the Senate version. Keating had arranged for the Keating Five to pressure Gray at exactly the time they had maximum leverage over him.

Keating Prepares the Senators for the April 2, 1987 Meeting

Keating prepared the Senators carefully for the April 2 meeting. He sent them detailed explanations of how severely a Bank Board enforcement action would limit his ability to control Lincoln. He explained how passage of the FSLIC Recap bill would allow the Bank Board to end that control. He called Gray a "Mad Dog" and a "Nazi." He asked the Senators to convince Gray not to take any enforcement action against Lincoln in return for his promise that Lincoln would begin to make home loans.
Senator DeConcini hosted the April 2 meeting. He carefully set up the meeting for deniability. His staff instructed Gray not to bring any staffers. Each of the Senators came to the meeting without any staff. The chances of that happening without prior agreement were non-existent. The meeting was designed to make sure that if things went badly it would be the word of five senators against that of Gray. The senators thought there was safety in numbers. They were disturbed that Senator Riegle did not attend the April 2 meeting.

McCain's Attendance at the April 2 Meeting

Senator McCain has said that upon reviewing Keating's written materials about what he wanted the Senators to do in their meeting with Gray he decided that Keating's requests were improper because they called for the Senators to negotiate an agreement to escape enforcement action on Keating's behalf. McCain informed Keating that he would not attend the meeting. Keating met with Senator Riegle and told him of McCain's decision �€" and said that McCain was "a wimp." Riegle's aide told McCain what Keating had said. McCain, enraged, summoned Keating to his office. Keating, who dominated virtually every conversation, could not get a word in during McCain's tirade. Keating's insult, of course, was absurd. McCain is the last person in the world that anyone would believe was a "wimp." Keating, however, apparently knew how successful his taunt would be with a man who still felt (against all reason) that he had not always sufficiently resisted his North Vietnamese torturers. McCain, des pite believing that what Keating wanted the Senators to do was improper, decided to join his colleagues at the April 2 meeting.

The April 2 Meeting

Senator DeConcini began the meeting by stating that "we" wanted Gray not to take enforcement action against Lincoln and that in return "our friend" Charles Keating would ensure that Lincoln would begin to make home loans. He was speaking on behalf of the group �€" and no Senator expressed any disagreement or difference with the position he articulated. The Senators also complained that the agency was harassing Lincoln and demanded Gray's explanation for the abuse. Gray told them there were 3000 S&Ls and he did not know the details of Lincoln's regulation, but that he had total confidence in the Bank Board's regulators for Lincoln at the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLBSF). He said that if the Senators needed the details they would have to talk to the FHLBSF supervisors. Gray informed several of us at the Bank Board of what had happened at the meeting immediately after the meeting.

The April 9 Meeting

All five of the Senators attended the April 9 meeting with James Cirona (FHLBSF President), Michael Patriarca (chief supervisor), Richard Sanchez (Lincoln's supervisory agent), and me. I took the only notes of the meeting. They are extraordinarily detailed. I circulated them to the other FHLBSF participants to ensure their accuracy and Gray sent Riegle a copy. Each of the Keating Five testified that the notes were accurate and complete. The Senators again excluded their aides from the meeting. Senator DeConcini began the meeting by again using the word "we" and proposing Keating's "quid pro quo" of dropping any enforcement action against Lincoln's violation of the direct investment rule in return for Lincoln making some home loans. No Senator disagreed or distinguished his position.
Senator Cranston accentuated the group nature of the Keating Five.. He was the floor manager for a bill that was very important to him and was coming to a critical vote that night, yet he left the floor and came briefly to Senator DeConcini's office to state that he supported his colleagues' position. Each of the Senators was aware of the group position supporting Keating's efforts to immunize the massive violation of the direct investment rule.
At the meeting, because it was the only way to treat to get the Senators to back off their pressure, we revealed to them that we had decided to make criminal referrals against Lincoln's leaders because of widespread fraud. Mike Patriarca guaranteed that Lincoln would fail if it continued its investment practices.

The Keating Five Prove Lucky in their (Initial) Regulatory "Opponents"

The paradox is that the Keating Five proved so unlucky in their choice of Keating as their ally and so lucky in their initial regulatory "opponents." We were not the Keating Five's opponents, but that is how they perceived us. We were their public servants trying to warn them that they were being manipulated by a fraud that was causing enormous harm to their constituents and exposing the Senators to scandal. Had Gray caved, Lincoln would have been untouchable. Lincoln would have been able to resume its extraordinary growth and expand its direct investments. No line supervisory would have dared to take on Keating. Lincoln's losses would have grown at an even faster rate than its asset growth. By the time it collapsed losses would likely have exceeded $10 billion. The Keating Five's decisive role in producing these catastrophic results would have been undeniable. Gray, however, refused to be intimidated. Keating's timing, which had seemed so perfect, proved too late. Gray had d ecided that Speaker Wright simply increased his demands when Gray gave in to his extortion, and that he could not in good conscience continue to give in to Wright's pressure. The Bank Board moved to close Vernon Savings (the second worst S&L fraud) and publicly criticized Wright's efforts to secure regulatory favors for Vernon.
The Senators also proved lucky in that, while Gray did not cave in to their pressure, he also could not afford to criticize them publicly given the tenuous fate of the FSLIC Recap bill. Gray's term ended on June 30, 1987. (Wright and Treasury Secretary Baker had agreed at a secret meeting that Gray would not be reappointed.) Gray's successor, Danny Wall, was acceptable to Wright. Wall, while a Senate staffer, had encouraged Gray to give in to Wright's extortion. Among his first acts was to issue a gag order forbidding me to speak to the press.

The Keating Five Prove Unlucky in Allying with Keating

Keating proved to be the worst of the S&L looters, and Lincoln the most expensive failure at $3.4 billion. Deposit insurance meant that there were no identifiable individual victims when S&Ls failed. Lincoln's parent company, however, sold uninsured, worthless junk bonds out of Lincoln's branches. Worse, it targeted widows. This created individual victims who lost their life's savings �€" and the face of the victim was your grandmother. Keating then compounded the Senators' problems. The Associated Press recently reported the story as follows:

The banker's attitude was summed up the day a reporter asked whether his political donations to the senators encouraged their intervention..
"I want to say in the most forceful way I can, I certainly hope so," Keating replied.

The AP quotation is correct, and it is obviously the worst possible thing Keating could have said from Senators' perspective. The first sentence of the AP story, however, is wrong, and it shows that the reporter did not grasp the trait that made Keating the worst of the looters �€" audacity. Keating called a press conference, but he did not allow the reporters to ask any questions. He read written answers to questions he had prepared. This was a planned statement, not off the cuff.

Keating adds Speaker Wright's Pressure to that of the Keating Five

Wall, the self-described "child of the Senate", came into office determined to avoid conflicts with powerful politicians. He promptly ordered the FHLB examination and the enforcement investigation of Lincoln halted. Both actions were unprecedented. They followed a meeting between Bank Board staff and Lincoln's leadership. The FHLBSF was not informed that the meeting would occur. It was consulted prior to the order to stop the examination.. Wall then ordered that the agency re-examine the FHLBSF's findings. This was unprecedented. The review disappointed Wall because it supported the FHLBSF's findings and found no basis for Keating's complaints against the FHLBSF. Despite these facts, the Bank Board refused to consider the FHLBSF's recommendations to place Lincoln in conservatorship or take stringent enforcement actions based on the violation of the direct investment rule and fraudulent acts. (FSLIC Recap passed in August 1987, and restored the Bank Board's lapse conservatorshi p powers.)
The Wall Bank Board also refused to be briefed by the FHLBSF on its recommendations. Both refusals were unprecedented. Wall then sought to induce the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (FHLBS) to permit Lincoln to transfer to its jurisdiction. The FHLBS declined, stating that it agreed with the FHLBSF's concerns and that they were disturbed by Keating's response to their question of why he was neither an officer nor board member of Lincoln: "I don't want to go to jail." This action was unprecedented. While the Bank Board Chairman Wall and Board Member Martin declined to be briefed by the FHLBSF, they met several times with Keating. This was unprecedented.
When Bank Board and FHLBSF staff members were to meet with Keating in early 1988, Keating demanded that I be excluded from the meeting, and the Bank Board acceded to his demand. At another meeting with Lincoln's leaders the FHLBSF was allowed to have only one representative present �€" and only on the condition that he would not be permitted to speak. All of these actions were unprecedented.
Remember that by this juncture the Bank Board had confirmed that Lincoln had committed the largest violation of a rule in history, was engaged in widespread forgeries and other forms of deception that had led the agency to file an extensive criminal referral, was investing primarily in assets (direct investments) in quantities that had proved fatal in every S&L, and was growing rapidly. By any logical standard it should have been the agency's top enforcement priority. Instead it got unprecedented favors that destroyed the agency's integrity and exposed the taxpayers to enormous losses. Fear of Keating's political power was the only possible explanation for these actions. James Boland, Wall's chief of staff, emphasized this fear in discussions with the FHLBSF's top supervisor, Michael Patriarca. He said that Keating was so powerful that: "he can get you in ways you'll never know you've been got."
Keating's and Wall's mutual problem, however, was that the FHLBSF refused to back down. Keating's top priority became another unprecedented demand �€" Wall must remove the FHLBSF's jurisdiction over Lincoln. Keating now used the Keating Five to recruit Speaker Wright as an ally and to make Wall aware of that alliance. He used Senator Cranston to set up a late afternoon meeting with Wall for January 28, 1988. He used Senator Glenn to set up a luncheon with Speaker Wright on the same day. At the luncheon meeting Keating experienced the second occasion in which a prominent politician dominated the conversation. Speaker Wright dominated it, denouncing Gray and me. The Speaker then invited Keating to come to his chambers and work with his staff. Wright urged Keating to get me fired and to sue Gray and me. (He soon sued both of us for $400 million �€" suits eventually dismissed by the courts.) When Keating met with Wall he first made clear that he had just come from a meeting with Speaker and Senator Glenn. Keating next told Wall:

That is one man in Congress you would get along with much, much better if you took care of the problem in San Francisco. There is a red-bearded lawyer that's a real problem. If you took care of that problem, you would get along much better with Speaker Wright.

Keating was referring to me. Unfortunately, for Keating (and Wall), Wall could only fire me "for cause" and he had no cause. The only way to take care of the problem was to remove the FHLBSF's jurisdiction over Lincoln Savings. Wall promptly ordered his staff to reach an "amicable resolution" with Keating. The only way to do that was to remove our jurisdiction. In addition to that unprecedented act (which sent shock waves throughout federal regulators), Wall agreed that the FHLBSF's examination findings (which the Bank Board had confirmed to be accurate) could not be used. This too was unprecedented.
The result of Wall's surrender to political intimidation was devastating. Lincoln remains the most expensive insured depository failure in U.S. history. Lincoln's parent defrauded over ten thousand widows. The Bank Board's reputation was destroyed (the 1989 legislation terminated it). Wall, of course, denies that he capitulated to Keating's political power. To admit that he did so would have destroyed Wall's efforts to remain head of new S&L regulatory agency. The facts, however, falsify Wall's denial.. Note that the Wall Bank Board never took any enforcement action against Lincoln's massive violation of the direct investment rule even though it agreed that it was the largest regulatory violation in the agency's history. This immunity is precisely what Keating sought to achieve through his mole's (Lee Henkel's) proposed amendment to the direct investment rule and the Keating Five's effort to induce the Bank Board not to take an enforcement action in return for Lincoln begi nning to make home loans.

McCain's Relationship with Keating

Senator McCain is the only member of the Keating Five still in office. He was unique among the group on several dimensions. He was the only Republican. He had the longest, closest relationship with Keating. The relationship was social �€" Lincoln's airplanes flew Senator and Mrs. McCain, their children, and a nanny to stay at Keating's vacation home in the Bahamas. Senator McCain blames his failure to reimburse the expenses (which he was required to do by law), on his staff. He reimbursed only years later after the scandal broke. No other Senator had a close social relationship with Keating or similar airplane use issues. Keating was a bully and a nasty bigot, whom many politicians refused to deal with once they knew him, but Senator McCain viewed him as a personal friend (and major contributor) for a decade.
Only Senator McCain (and Lee Henkel) had a financial conflict of interest involving the direct investment rule. Senator McCain's wife and father-in-law were engaged in a direct investment with Lincoln. Had the Bank Board taken enforcement action against Lincoln's violation of the direct investment rule Senator McCain's wife and father-in-law's investment would have been placed in substantial risk of loss.
Only Senator McCain was in the House at the time Keating enlisted a majority of the House to co-sponsor his resolution designed to kill the direct investment rule. He was the only member of the Keating Five, therefore who was a co-sponsor. More generally, Senator McCain was the Senator most opposed to financial regulation in general and Gray's "reregulation" of S&Ls in particular. As his March 25, 2008 speech on the ongoing mortgage crisis makes clear, he continues to call for greater deregulation of the kind that is causing our financial crises to become more severe and more common.
Senator McCain's efforts to convince the Reagan administration to give Keating de facto control over the Bank Board by appointing two nominees chosen by Keating to run the agency were not unique among the Keating Five, but he was the most important support for Keating's effort because he was a Republican.
Senator McCain was not unique in not giving direct aid to Keating after the April 9 meeting. It is important to consider how Keating shaped Wall's perspective of the Keating Five's support. He used both Senator Cranston and Senator Glenn's active, continuing support (in February 1988, almost a year after the April 2 and April 9, 1987 meetings) to show Wall that he retained the Keating Five's loyalty and he used Senator Glenn to help recruit Speaker Wright as an ally �€" knowing that Wall had advised Gray to give in to Wright's political pressure. Wall had no way of knowing that Senator McCain and Senator Riegle were no longer taking affirmative actions to help Keating get the Bank Board not to bring an enforcement action against Lincoln.

Omission and Commission

None of the Keating Five members helped protect their constituents by supporting regulatory efforts to end Keating's looting of Lincoln. We told them in fair detail at the April 9, 1987 meeting that it was a fraudulent institution and that it was guaranteed to fail if it continued its policies. The Keating Five were well aware of their political power and Keating's political power. They were aware that the Wall Bank Board was taking unprecedented actions in favor of Keating. We could not act. We were gagged. We were forbidden to examine Lincoln. We were excluded from meetings or ordered to remain silent. The new examiners were forbidden by Wall to speak to us about Lincoln.
I noted that the senators structured the April 2, 1987 meeting to ensure deniability by designing it to be the word of five Senators against one "bureaucrat" should things go wrong. They knew that the meeting was dangerous because they knew agencies are supposed to take stringent enforcement actions against massive, intentional violations of rules �€" particularly when the nature of the violation causes failures. They also knew that Keating's mole, Lee Henkel, had just resigned in disgrace after we had blown the whistle on his attempt to immunize Lincoln's violation of the direct investment rule. This is why they excluded all staff from the April 2 meeting. When the meeting became public, along with Gray's criticism of their effort to pressure him to agree to Keating's quid pro quo deal, each of the Senators lied about the meeting. They lied by claiming that Gray had lied about their support for Keating's deal. (Eventually, it emerged that Senator DeConcini was reading from a staffer's memorandum that expressly stated the quid pro quo.)
The Senate ethics committee ignored the Senator's false statements about the meetings. (It also failed to investigate the impact of the Senator's actions in Keating's behalf.) I believe that structuring a meeting to set up a lie, lying, and defaming another person you know has told the truth (i..e., claiming that Gray's statement about the quid pro quo proposal was false), demonstrate severe character flaws and should be considered unethical in the context of the U.S. Senate.

Anger over Obama's support for FISA

Carlos from Long Beach, CA — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:12:33 EDT

SHAME ON YOU!

I can't believe that Sen. Obama has willfully violated the protections enshrined in the Constitution by voting for the FISA bill. Sen Obama earlier had promised to work against this bill.

Actions speak louder than words.

Don't Fall into the Trap of Perfectionism

Prof. Susan L. Smith — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:44:03 EDT

There are many issues where I have some difference of opinion with Obama. I have a slightly different position on immigration, on FISA, etc. But, I still believe he is different.

I've watched him speak, read his articles in Foreign Affairs and elsewhere, read his books, kept up with the news. Based upon what I see and hear, I believe he is different.

I believe he is a genuine, authentic human being who cares about people, who cares about justice, who cares about peace, and who does not value wealth or prestige or material consumption or corporate power.

He has taken a unique path to seek the power of the presidency -- one that relies upon each of us being willing to put aside our differences and work toward a greater good.

I believe he seeks power to make the world a better place. He has been willing to enter the lion's den of Washington,D.C. and speak truth not only to power, but to all of us who try to simplify life into one or two or three big issues.

I know for sure that I'd rather have a U.S. Supreme Court considering the constitutionality of FISA that has Obama appointees than Republican appointees. And that goes double for the rest of the federal courts. Believe me, federal court appointments may well be the most enduring legacy of the King Bush II administration. A Supreme Court that believes the Constitutional Convention imagined individual rights to AK-47s, submachine guns, and bazookas. A Supreme Court that thinks a punitive damage award of a few million dollars will change the reckless conduct of Exxon Mobil in using drunks to pilot oil tankers. Dozens of cases would have been decided differently if Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II had not been presidents -- and America would be a different place.

This is a time for being honest about our differences...and our disappointments... but being realistic about how drastic a change Obama would be compared to McCain. We need that change. We desparately need that change!

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

I'm taking Your Banner Message Seriously

Linda from Newark, DE — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:51:01 EDT

The message in your banner says, " I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington, I'm asking you to believe in yours." I do believe. And I believe that our ability to change Washington begins with the grassroots effort to change YOUR mind about your intent to vote for a FISA bill with Telecom immunity. VOTE NO on any bill that contains Telecom immunity. Please. The administration will not tell us the truth about its domestic wiretapping policies. The only way to find out even a little bit about the breadth of this program is to allow the court cases to go through the system. And it is so simple. If the Telecoms did nothing wrong, then the law will sort it out. If they allowed illegal wiretapping because they feared losing contracts (as did one major company that would not agree to the White House demands), then that is illegal, the general public was damaged and the law will determine the appropriate punishment. VOTE NO on any bill that contains Telecom immunity. Please.

Security versus the Law

David Rothmiller — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:35:38 EDT

Retroactive Immunity does not address the issue of unlawful activity.

I believe Mr. Obama's attempt to "put security first" helps his poll numbers with the frightened masses. BUT - a strongly worded caveat must be in place - if laws were broken for expediency, to do the bidding of a rogue Executive Branch (and remember FISA was constructed to prevent just this behavior) then these laws must be followed with consequences meted out to the lawbreakers.

At least a fine - please.

DR

Protect the Constitution

Franklin — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:04:07 EDT

Senator Obama,

America is at a crossroads.

Year after year, the Republicans have managed to erode and try to destroy the rule of law, based on the Constitution, adopted in 1787, that made this country unique in a world perpetually torn by the worst abuses of government power. You have taught the Constitution, so I don't need to remind you of its importance.

This February, after Senator Dodd endorsed you for president of the United States, you released a statement in which you promised to carry on the good work Senator Dodd has done to restore the rule of law in this country.

But you have backtracked on your promise.

Guantanamo Bay and the Problem of Forgiveness

PrayersForAmerica — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:18:10 EDT

The June, 12, 2008 Supreme Court ruling gave Guantanamo detainees the right to a hearing within a federal court of law. It also raised the issue of forgiveness, justice, and mercy and how to view these.

___________________

The Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 invalidated a 2006 law which stripped Guantanamo Bay inmates of the right to file 'habeas corpus' petitions in U.S. courts. The court's majority opinion (5-4) in a rebuke to the Bush administration and Congress, held that inmates at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay are protected by the Constitution and may seek release in federal court.

Our view of the treatment of Guantanamo detainees and the attitude we hold toward those who wish to do us harm, rests on an inner balance that each of us carries concerning justice and mercy. This balance, which also applies to those who have committed crimes and may be incarcerated elsewhere, is of Divine origin, and contains two currents of Divine will – that which meets out justice along the lines of reciprocity, namely, "what ye sow ye shall reap;" and that which distributes mercy along the lines of "forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."

The balance between the desire for justice and the desire for mercy determines, in large measure, what we will think of the Supreme Court ruling and of similar rulings that pertain to the incarcerated or to those awaiting justice within our criminal justice system.

Both justice and mercy must exist within a society of law, yet one that cares about human rights. This is not only true because such a balance is the way of preserving order and harmony within such a society, but also because the social matrix in which we live - the criminal and the non-criminal alike - is meant to reflect a Divine prototype which brings to bear upon our view of human action, a higher consciousness of what human beings are, and are meant to be.

Justice is necessary within any stable society to insure the rights of all and to prevent those who would trespass against these rights from doing so. It is a necessary deterrent, establishing a barrier which says about certain behaviors: this cannot be allowed. Justice makes necessary whatever arrangements are deemed appropriate to contain behavior that is harmful to others, and to prevent such behavior from occurring in the future.

Mercy, on the other hand, is rooted in the understanding that even criminals are souls, and as such have certain inalienable rights bequeathed to them because of their essential humanity, not because of their actions. These rights derive from the common essence that we share with others, and cannot be suspended on the basis of behavior because 'behavior' and 'essence' are two different things. Mercy contains within itself the 'principle of forgiveness',

Whereas justice is based on reciprocity, mercy is based on the need to separate the person from the action, and to accord to that person dignity, selfhood, and the right to be held as innocent until proven guilty. Mercy derives from the capacity to see all human beings as souls, guided by lower instincts in cases where there is a violation of the rights of others, but, nevertheless, still more than any individual behavior.

The Supreme Court ruling of June, 2008, shifts the balance of judgment regarding Guantanamo detainees from one that is more heavily weighted in the direction of strict justice, toward one that retains a greater balance with the current of mercy. This allows for the maintenance of individual legal rights for detainees, irrespective of their past actions. It also reaffirms the principle of American civil versus military jurisdiction, namely, that despite the fact that such detainees are not U.S. citizens, they exist within the authority and convention of the U.S. legal system and are therefore subject to the laws and regulations derived from the Constitution. Such laws apply to the handling of all criminal cases.

The Supreme Court decision is a hard one to grasp for some who may find it difficult to show mercy to those who have caused death and disruption to countless lives, and who, in the present, may go so far as to declare that they wish to continue doing so. Such declarations, especially, create the 'problem of forgiveness' for a great many people.

Forgiveness, to be real, must rest on the principle "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." But when individuals declare that they know what they are doing and would keep doing it if they had a chance, it is difficult to say that they "know not what they do." The 'problem of forgiveness' therefore resides in this question: Under what conditions shall those who have committed crimes be forgiven and shall mercy be shown?

The answer to this question must rest, first, on an understanding that forgiveness applies to the person, not to the action they commit. An unrepentant convicted felon may be dangerous in an ongoing way and therefore need to remain in custody with future potential actions curtailed. However, treatment of the person, as opposed to the action, is a different matter.

The 'problem of forgiveness' ultimately has two answers, the answer of the human heart and the answer of the Divine heart. The human heart that is wounded or that has suffered real loss often does not want to forgive those who have been the agents of such loss, even when they are repentant. The Divine heart, on the other hand, says even about those who are unrepentant – "they know not what they do." It seeks to hold a circle of love around the soul-essence of each one, no matter what they have done. This heart understands that souls who are separated from the light of truth and from their own hearts can grow up to feel hardened and cut off from their essential humanity. This may make of them criminals on the outer level, but on the inner level, it makes of them souls who have lost their way. Pure justice might, according to certain perspectives, legitimize the deprivation of legal and human rights as a fit act of retribution. Yet, justice balanced with mercy would support the Supreme Court decision and the light that it carries, for this light has not only returned to the detainees the right to be heard in a court of law, but has also reaffirmed our relationship to the Divine prototype of justice balanced with mercy, upon which a true democratic society must stand.

* * *

By Julie Redstone from the June 23, 2008 Light Omega Newsletter

New FISA Agreement

Laura Tattoo — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:21:14 EDT

I am not happy that the house passed what many are calling the Cheney-Rockafeller-Hoyer FISA compromise law.

A McCain Court could allow recriminalization of homosexuality

Brian Schmidt — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:08:51 EDT

(Cross-posted from Backseat Driving).

Conservatives think that the potential for making appointments to the Supreme Court will work to McCain's advantage. While I agree that on some issues the public is to the right to the Court's present position, the public is also to the left of where McCain's appointments could take it.

Overturning Roe v. Wade so that abortion is banned outright in some states is one real possibility. Recriminalizing homosexuality is another that's received no attention, and whatever the general public thinks about gay marriage, I don't think they want homosexuals arrested in their homes.

Objectives of the Tax Policy Blog

Richard Lee — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:37:07 EDT

This blog is dedicated to developing ideas in tax policy, particularly those that can attract support from both the left and right. In the area of tax policy, Barack's team has developed ideas that fail to match his rhetoric. For example, eliminating federal income tax for seniors who earn under $50,000 is pure pandering of a type Barack rejected with respect to the gas tax. One group Barack needs to reach out to is family business owners. Historically that group has supported Democrats as well as Repubicans. Republican success has atrracted them in rescent years, but Republican tax policies actually favor Wall Street Business over Main Street Business. Yet Barack is passing up an opportunity to attract family businesses to his campaign by advocating lifing the income limit on the self-employment tax. This change would add 12.5% tax to every dollar of earned income for family business owners.

Richard

GUANTANAMO BAY PRISONERS

Thomas Streda — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:46:17 EDT

How do you feel about the legal status of the persons held in Guantanamo Bay without rights, on leased land from Cuba, without any U.S. Court juristiction. How do we prosecute the military or non-military combatants there without a court having no juristiction overe them?

Rules and application

Jim — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:51:15 EDT

The Clinton Campaign is essentially arguing that the rules only apply when the Clinton Campaign wants them to apply. While she agreed with both Senator Obama and ex-Senator Edwards to NOT campaign in Michigan and Florida, she decided that those rules don't apply to her. We already have a president that has decided that rules and the law don't apply to him.

Hillary broke the verbal agreement.

Mary — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:53:29 EDT

Legal Binding Agreements and Verbal Contracts

"When parties agree the terms of the contract by verbal statements, the binding terms of the contract are more difficult to ascertain. Usually a court will look to the history of the statements made by the parties and the performance of the parties to obtain assistance in determining what was actually agreed by the parties."

There is enough evidence between what all the nominee's agreed on concerning Mich and Fla and the media coverage as written evidence to prove that Hillary Clinton broke the legally verbal agreement to leave Mich and Fla alone. She is backing out of her verbal agreement made along with all other democratic nominees. She won't take it before a judge because she knows as a lawyer that the judge would find her as breaking the terms of the verbal agreement.

Legal information on legal binding agreements and verbal contracts below in link.

REMEMBERING COLUMBINE SCHOOL ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SHOOTINGS

Mary — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:08:42 EDT

On April 20, 1999, the Columbine High School massacre took place in Littleton, Colo., as two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, shot and killed 12 classmates and one teacher before taking their own lives.

Columbine School Shooting - Tribute Eve 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvcj2eNwWmg

They cling to guns.... they cling to hatred.... Who are they? They are anyone...... They could live next door to you.... They could go to the same school as your child..... Why? Why? Times are changing and it's time to remember that though guns are a right we also carry the heavy weight of responsibility.... CHANGE!!!!

We all have a responsibility in this. Like I said, yes we have the right to bear arms but it also comes with the great burden of protecting against violent crimes like school shootings. No one wants their child to die like this! I don't want to think that because I supported someone I'll end up with innocent blood on my hands.

ANNIE OAKLEY CLINTON and supporters need to lay their guns aside!

AND THINK ABOUT THE PAIN ONE BOY HOLDING A GUN CAN CAUSE!

Crime and Punishment

Josh and Kade — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:19:47 EDT

[Criminals who are leading the war on terror are proposing, or have already proposed to abolish punishment for crime/criminals. This means peace and justice advocates are terrorist? ha ha ha. Stupid criminals. You people who commit crime are freeloaders; to lazy to earn your own keep, easier to steal from everyone else! You crooks must remind yourselves that there are more law abiding then criminals. How do you suppose to force us honorable citizens into your "wanting?"]....GOOD LUCK

Author unknown

Crime and Punishment

Anyone who watches television or reads a newspaper has seen examples of the lack of justice in America. We have a justice system that, though it may not be perfect, was established as the most capable of punishing crime and protecting law-abiding citizens.

In the beginning, we punished criminals for their crimes, removed potentially dangerous persons from society and protected victims while also seeing to it that their losses were repaid by the offenders, as far as possible. We have all heard stories from our grandparents how they felt safe going for late night walks, leaving their houses unlocked and sitting on the front porch swing. However, all that has turned into burglar bars on the windows, high-tech security and alarm systems, remote car alarms and well-trained guard dogs. We live in fear of ruthless gangs, drug dealers and drive-by shootings. Persons who fall victim to crimes, or even witness a crime, are frightened to come forward for fear of retaliation from the criminal. Most people do not feel that their local law enforcement can adequately protect them. We have things like the "Witness Protection Program" because we can not guarantee that even after a criminal is convicted, he will not return for revenge against those that helped put him away.

What has gone wrong here? Why are criminals running the streets while law-abiding citizens must lock themselves behind deadbolts and bars? The answer can be found in the "new mentality" that permeates our society today. This new way of thinking and analyzing has crippled our justice system and flooded our courts with frivolous suits and hearings. We have reached a point in society where no one accepts responsibility for their actions. Everyone wants to be a victim of something. They use this "victimization" as a scape-goat to justify their actions. Many people are convinced that a criminal who commits a haneous crime must have had some traumatic experience as a child that caused him to act on this anger years later. Rather than punishing criminals for their actions, we instead sympathize with them and attempt to help and comfort them with tax-supported mental evaluations and treatment. We have even gone so far as to use this "reduced mental capacity" excuse for criminals who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol they voluntarily took themselves.

This type of "there's always an excuse" mentality has no end. I would venture to say we all have had some "rough" periods in our lives. How many of us were picked on in school by a bully? How many of us have parents who are divorced? How many of us lived poor in comparison to some of our neighbors? How many of us have had some traumatic experience like a car wreck, becoming deathly ill or loss of a loved-one? All of these and then some have been used as excuses for criminals attempting to justify their crimes.

Our law-makers have even enacted legislation that continues to uphold these perverted values where the criminals have more rights than the victims. The Supreme Court has tipped the scales of justice in favor of the criminals at the expense of the rights of law-abiding citizens. Punishment of crime no longer exists in this nation. Punishment of crime is as necessary to securing safety for our citizens as having police to catch criminals. Punishments should serve two purposes. One, they should protect society while the criminal works out his problems; and two, they should serve as deterrents to other "would-be" criminals. Instead, jails have become mere warehouses for criminals where the quality of life far exceeds that of the average citizen. Inmates enjoy satellite TV, well-equipped workout gyms, free high school and college education, well stocked libraries and full medical coverage, all at tax-payer expense. Jails were never intended to be used as warehouses. Jails were designed to get criminals off the streets so they could no longer be a threat to society. For those non-violent criminals who have a hope of being rehabilitated, jail is a place for them to spend time working on their problems and contemplating their actions before they are released at the end of their sentence. Violent criminals and those with records of repeating their crimes have proven that they are not safe for society. They should never be released back on the streets, nor should they be "warehoused" in prison at tax-payer expense. These criminals must be eliminated through Constitutional capital punishment. Their only jail time should be spent waiting for trial and then awaiting their execution dates once convicted. "Life in prison" should never be a sentence given a criminal.

Many people feel that capital punishment is against the Constitution. They argue that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment. I say that such people should go back and re-read the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment very clearly states that capital punishment is an acceptable form of punishment for certain offenses. In fact, the Fifth Amendment mentions the "loss of life" twice as a proper form of punishment when administered under "due process" of law.

We must also eliminate the endless appeals criminals are allowed. Anyone convicted of a felony should be allowed one appeal if they can present sufficient evidence for a judge to warrant such. After a second conviction on appeal, the sentence should stand and be carried out fully. Such programs as early release, parole and probation do nothing to serve the criminal or society.

"The demand of the hour in America is for jurors with conscience, judges with courage, and prisons which are neither country clubs nor health resorts. It is not the criminals, actual or potential, that need a neuropathic hospital; it is the people who slobber over them in an effort to find excuses for their crime." - Judge Alfred J.

Talley

We must also return to the premise that once convicted of a felony, a person gives up their natural rights except those presented at the time of arrest. The right to vote, own a firearm and file law suits are forfeited until the sentence is up and the person is released into society once more. Many criminals make a life-time habit of bringing to court endless law suits for such things as better books in the prison library, different food in the cafeteria, changing to the upper or the lower bunk in a cell, or wearing different clothes other than the designated prison outfit. These endless law suits, about 95% of which end up being tossed out due to lack of any merit, cost the tax payers millions per year to defend. Society should also hold a criminal accountable for the damages they do. Retribution to the victim or society itself should be mandated in all criminal cases. Work programs such as the so-called "chain gangs", where criminals repair streets, pick up trash on the roadways and maintain parks, should become the "norm". Where have we stepped on a criminal's rights when we expect him to pay back what he took from society in the first place? I say we have not.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment

Josh and Kade — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:26:05 EDT

The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and graft of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

As noted in the discussion 69 in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted

[regardless of what corrupt officials think they did with it, the titles of Nobility and Honour is still a part of the U.S. Constitution, so therefore it is law of the land. Screw private contracting companies and their supporters who think they have the right to exploit the rest of us, at our expense!]

The Letter of the Law and the Spirit

Sam Teigen — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:57:37 EDT

A storyline is building in the Democratic primary of two kinds of leadership, more or less: the hard worker verses the prophet. The line tends to continue... this is what the worker has accomplished, but the prophet just talked.

But let's run the line in a slightly different way. My lait understand of a major difference in British and US law is that the US loves the letter of the law. The clarity that this activity is governed by that regulation, and here are the things you can do and this is what you for forbidden. The British conversely say these are principles we have to govern our actions, how we want it to work, but let's not get into details until we have a specific case with details.

In the US we see often see the negative implications in things like three-strikes, or the regulatory differences between regular and investment banks, or hedge funds and derivatives. More recently there was the TSA stomping on the civil rights of the poor woman with the nipple piercings. I'd argue that you also nurture a legal personality that parses words to build in loop holes, as we see with HRC. Sometimes the burden of keeping all that parsing clear becomes too difficult.

The problem with conflating the letter of the law as the best means to attain the spirit is that the letter is of the law is merely a means of measurement, but not a true representation of what is. "What is" takes context, descretion, consideration of impact, things that seem soft with out context, but crucial in the heart of any difficult problem.

Obama on the otherhand, while not being so detailed in the interest or tax rates, carries a heavy burden to deliver principles. Principles aren't so vulnerable to context. Principles see the effects of the details and realizes that the means of enforcement need to change (where the three strikes, the TSA fair particularly poorly). I would further argue that principle broken is far less likely to happen than campaign promise broken.

Obama vindicated on law-school title

Franklin — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:29:05 EDT

After another insinuation by the Clinton's, Obama is once again cleared. When are they going to stop?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_vindicated_on_lawschool_title.html

What's in it for me? What's in it for you?

Roberto HUSSEIN Palitos — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:24:14 EDT

Quality of life in the US--and world--has a much greater chance of moving in a positive direction under the inspiration, aspiration, perspiration, and fine example set by Senator Obama--and his terrific staff & advisors.

To listen--truly listen; to value diversity for its inherent superiority--yet occasional angst; to act in respectful, sincere, and intelligent ways in the face of adversity; and to get traction on ideas and put them into practice are remarkable abilities that few leaders have. Some may have much of it but can't walk the talk.

No other candidate, I believe, has the qualities necessary to be nearly as effective as Senator Obama in the face of contraints, challenges, and anger (here and abroad) that are tearing our world (and country) apart--rather than uniting us. Barack Obama will most certainly be a tremendously capable in guiding us through the obstacles along our journey.

Of course we need to do our part. If Senator Obama can't pull us together, it's very dubious that any of the "conventional" candidates would have the slightest chance--in my opinion.

I'm in favor of "war" provided that: (1) nobody gets killed and (2) no property gets damaged. Unfortunately, most wars don't work that way.

The rule of law and our "nation of laws"--have taken a severe beating over the last 8 years--or more. The level of secrecy, censorship, and bold lying have risen to un-PRESIDENT-ed heights--or is it depths. It is very encouraging that we will soon have a president that understands the constitution, believes in the constitution, and will obey the constititution.

The paradigm of transparency goes hand-in-hand with transcendancy and is embodied in the innate sensibilities of Senator Obama--as has been displayed repeatedly throughout his career. Imagine a bit of honesty in politics. Now, imagine the "straight talk express." Who really cares, relates to the plight of people around the world, and can speak from the heart--sincerely--without patronizing?

One guess. I won't tell you his name but his initials are BARACK H. OBAMA.

funny new bill maher video

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:20:53 EDT

i have voiced frustration by what i deem ignorance or gullibility of people who succumb to fear tactics or are skeptical of positive change...

those that not only cast doubt... but spread these fraudulent claims against OBAMA simply because they are unable to logically beat him on the issues or his natural ability to lead...

his ability to get results by uniting people of diverse backgrounds...

a skill OBAMA proved as far back as the first black president of the harvard law review... negotiating between colleague's liberal and conservative views...

harvard is a intellectual pool filled with opposing points of views and to succeed he learned to balance those interests...

something OBAMA proved successful in his remarkable record in state senate for 8 years, his current role in the US Senate, and record management of his presidential campaign...

the lies against his character and religion have been debunked, but still repeated to this day...

some may believe these terrible mischaracterizations and others should be ashamed for knowingly using such lies to scare and mislead...

i'm sad for those people, and yet, i'm angry at them too.... afterall, we are living in the 21st century...

and the deductions they make are so ridiculous and uneducated that bill maher's mockery is very much an accurate simulation of how such people approach their rationale...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NJpoLj4RK04

funny new jon stewart - stephen cobert video

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:47:04 EST

i have voiced frustration by what i deem ignorance or gullibility of people who succumb to fear tactics or are skeptical of positive change...

those that not only cast doubt... but spread these fraudulent claims against OBAMA simply because they are unable to logically beat him on the issues or his natural ability to lead...

his ability to get results by uniting people of diverse backgrounds...

a skill OBAMA proved as far back as the first black president of the harvard law review... negotiating between colleague's liberal and conservative views...

harvard is a intellectual pool filled with opposing points of views and to succeed he learned to balance those interests...

something OBAMA proved successful in his remarkable record in state senate for 8 years, his current role in the US Senate, and record management of his presidential campaign...

the lies against his character and religion have been debunked, but still repeated to this day...

some may believe these terrible mischaracterizations and others should be ashamed for knowingly using such lies to scare and mislead...

i'm sad for those people, and yet, i'm angry at them too.... afterall, we are living in the 21st century...

and the deductions they make are so ridiculous and uneducated that jon stewart and stephen cobert's mockery is very much an accurate simulation of how such people approach their rationale...

http://www.youtube.com/v/-RcwLWk5laY

Professor Obama (Everyone should read this and pass it on)

Shammikka — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:16:01 EST

This is pretty cool, and as someone in Law School, I know there are some SCATHING evalutations out there, and there are those professors that you try your best not to get "stuck with". Barack's evaluations don't surprise me in the least, I wish he was my Con Law professor!! (but the one I had is pretty awesome too :-) )

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/19/121546/34/810/424306

Instead of trying to fight our opponent on her terms, we need to concentrate on getting more positive things like THIS out there :-)

Obama's Original Sin

Justin from New York, NY — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:35:55 EST

I just noticed that when Obama was born (1961), his birth was actually illegal in 22 states.

I'm not sure whether I should be impressed by how far we've come or depressed by how far our parents hadn't.

An Episode from Hillary's Past

jgabriel — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:59:19 EST

Interesting Politico/Newsday finding from Hillary's days in law..

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_client.html

About this blog...and a first post on mandates...

Peter — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:08:22 EST

I'm an attorney admitted in good standing in Massachusetts and Maine. I am an ardent supporter of Barack's candidacy.

I have created this blog because I believe that Barack's proposals for solving the major problems facing the U.S. are the best out there, and I'd like to spark some analytical discussion as to why they are so.

At the moment, I am particularly concerned about the mandates contained in the healthcare reform proposal of Barack's opponent for the Democratic nomination (ie: Clinton). It struck me that little discussion has taken place as to the political and constitutional viability of mandates. I want to hear what others think.

The U.S Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to directly require any citizen to purchase health insurance from a private, for profit insurance company merely as a condition of U.S. citizenship or residency. The commerce clause gives Congress the authority to regulate commercial transactions in which citizens freely engage, but I have found no case which suggests that it gives Congress the authority to force citizens to engage in a transaction they would otherwise shun. The states may have the authority to force their citizens to purchase health insurance-- depending upon their state constitutions-- but the federal government cannot force the states to force their citizens to make such a purchase. This is the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal government can offer incentives for states to pass legislation, but the incentives cannot be coercive in nature. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987). The incentives must be closely related to the program for which the federal government seeks state enforcement. You cannot threaten to withhold highway funding in order to compell mandates on healthcare, for example.

So against that backdrop, let's look at the Clinton proposal to mandate that citizens purchase private health insurance. First, such a proposal cannot directly mandate such a purchase. It must work through the states. But such legislation cannot be coercive in nature. It cannot punish states that refuse to enforce the mandate. It can only offer incentives to encourage the states to enforce the mandates, and the line between what is an incentive and what is coercive is not well defined. But the Court in South Dakota clearly suggested that threatening to withhold excessive amounts of federal funding would be coercive, and thus unconstitutional.

So Clinton's mandates can be foisted upon the states only by a threat of witholding some small portion of federal funding. (In the South Dakota case, the Court allowed the witholding of five percent of federal highway money as an 'incentive' to get the states to raise the minimum drinking age.)

Where health insurance mandates are concerned, I ask, is it realistic to assume that every state in the union will go along with such a mandate program? And if some states balk and refuse, even to the extent of surrendering 5 percent of some federal funding program, won't that create an even bigger mess than we have now?

Barack Obama's plan seems to account for this. Barack seems to have responsibly taken into account both the political and the constitutional factors in fashioning a plan that does not rely upon broad citizen mandates. A plan that seems designed to achieve some important goals while recognizing that achieving a perfect system is, for the moment, unlikely. (A perfect system for me would be single payer national healthcare.)

I'd be interested in hearing from others. Is my analysis valid? Please don't hesitate to be critical. We all seek the best solution.

Policy Idea for a Return to An America Which Treats Defendants Equally Before the Law

Speaker for the Dead... Policies — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:45:10 EST

One of the largest components of growth in jail populations during the 1980-2000 period was of defendants held pretrial (see Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ website). The defendants have not actually been convicted of a crime and are being held in spite of the dictum "innocent until proven guilty". Nonetheless, these defendants present a significant risk to public safety. Across the USA, pretrial programs are the least funded component of the criminal justice system, yet after police, they potentially interact with more persons than any other component of the criminal justice system. Pretrial programs are supposed to assess defendants for risk to abscond and risk to reoffend. Most pretrial programs are unable to perform this function due to lack of funds. Pretrial programs that are properly funded can recommend to judges and magistrates the placement of thousands of defendants currently causing jail overcrowding into release on recognizance and pretrial supervision. The potential cost savings are enormous. First, low risk offenders can be placed into the community with no supervision and nearly no likelihood of endangering the community, saving daily jail housing and jail intake and release costs. Second, studies have shown that even violent defendants placed on electronic monitoring (EM) can be potentially supervised with minimal risk to the community, one study (Padgett, Bales & Blomberg 2006) showing EM costing the State of Florida only 1/4 what it costs to hold defendants in jail. Third, the separation of low risk and medium risk defendants from work, family, and the communities they depend on practically sets defendants up for failure to stay out of trouble if they are found not guilty of the crime they are going on trial for. By placing defendants in appropriate pretrial release supervision conditions we can reduce the costs of crime associated with criminal recidivism. Re-entry studies such as those by the Urban Institute and the National Institute of Justice that have motivated the Obama campaign to support re-entry programs as part of its civil rights all support this logic. Our founding fathers campaigned in the Declaration of Independence for a new nation on the basis of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and later created a constitution to guarantee those rights to all – especially those before the criminal justice system who have not yet been tried AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY GUILTY. This mindset makes the USA distinct from many other criminal law systems – we have no ex-post facto laws we insist on having serious crimes tried by both a judge and a jury of our peers. So, why do we not try to create a more effective balance between public safety and individual liberty than the reliance on the monetary bail system, which systematically discriminates against defendants based on income and class? The federal government ought to fund bloc grants thru the Bureau of Justice Assistance, USDOJ as a new section of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program specifically targeted to augmenting pretrial program staffing, services and research into innovation in pretrial services. In addition, the services of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) could be employed to sponsor academic ant think tank research into improving pretrial program services in the same manner that NIJ served as the guiding light to research behind the re-entry reforms of this decade. If these suggestions were followed through, all Americans would benefit from improvements to public safety and greater protection of the rights of the accused. We are not talking about large amounts of money needed to make a huge difference. In 2007, the entire JAG allocation for the USA was 305 million dollars. A pretrial allocation would be only a small component of the current funding. For the entire last decade, NIJ has only sponsored one pretrial specific research solicitation with a value of one million dollars this year, which may yet be canceled due to budget crises.

The convention was a disgrace

William — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:01:12 EST

Did you attend the Clark County convention today?

I was a precinct Captain here in 2342. My registration, along with hundreds, maybe thousands , of voters, to be a delegate for Barck had mysteriously "vanished". I met hundreds of people who all had had the same experience.

It sure feels like the leadership in this state , this county, are in the tank for Hillary. I'd like to know how many of the hundreds of districts that "didn't have an election" on caucus day were predominantly Obama precincts. Thousands of voted "vanished". Whole precincts votes "vanished".

Isn't this a neocon strategy?...to disenfranchise voters? How many people are going to return for the re-vote? How must this seem to new voters? What does this look like in terms of representing the Democratic party as a whole? How do votes "vanish"?

I'm disgusted. I'm just about finished with politics in this country. If this is the best we can do...we are doomed.

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:06:59 EST

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)
by Grassroots Mom
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.

I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.

Well let's talk experience

Yvette & Tanisha — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:54:21 EST

Experience is a good teacher or so I have heard...No really experience is a good teacher. I believe the American people have experienced enough of the ole boys in Washington to know that Barack has all the experience we need. He knows the law, he knows government, he's honest, and also not to mention very charming. Who better than him to ease current relations between USA & other Countries? Other Countries represent ethnic backgrounds, that sometimes white folks just can't relate to. If they see a minority President maybe they will understand that America is changing from old to new, and is more excepting of the world now more than ever. Hilary had to gain experience with Bill Clinton being the ultimate member or the Player's club, oops I mean Player Club President. Hell she had do what she had to do at the time. We need an Obama Future if we're ever to truly overcome. OBAMA FUTURE=LONGEVITY & PROSPERITY

What we hope for...what change Barack Obama brings to America

Patty in Colorado — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:42:45 EST

People ask what are Obama supporters hoping for? What kind of change do we want?

We are hoping for no more liars in the White House. We are hoping for criminals, such as Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush himself, to be held accountable for the things they've chosen to do outside of the law and in blatant violation of the Constitution.

We want Guantanamo Bay Detention Center to be closed down, the prisoners to be moved to decent facilities, and to get legal representation, be able to exercise the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be treated humanely.

We want Obama to appoint people who are qualified for government office.

We want a definite change in the way law-breaking is handled by government officials: evidence not destroyed, no more illegal wiretapping, invasions, wars, occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

We hope that Obama will end the war in Iraq, stop the killing over there, negotiate equitable oil contracts with Middle East and Venezuela, and restore the United States as a peaceful nation. We hope for the repeal of the Patriot Act, Military Tribunals Act, Defense of Marriage Act, and the Protect America Act, to name a few of the obliterations of our civil rights.

Obama will not be a "unitary executive", and this will be a huge change from Bush. We have hope that Obama won't expand the powers of the president beyond what is guaranteed by the Constitution.

We have much evidence that Barack Obama will live up to our hopes and change America in major, positive ways.

As a Political Science and Economics student at Metro State College of Denver, with my sights set on practicing Constitutional Law, this 56 year old white woman is more enthusiastic about Barack Obama than anything else I've experienced. Barack Obama is clearly the most amazing leader to come along in my lifetime.

Is anyone else truly scared of clinton?

!!*Brian D Alger II*!! — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:25:52 EST

I saw a movie called the Hillary movie. It is available for sale on www.dickmorris.com. There are also clips available online. Does anyone know anything about the crediability of this film? I personally am inclined to remember scandals from the age of 8 to 16 when school and television occupied my life. The movie has some really serious accusations. It plays on emotions some too. In the end, it seems like theres enough proof established in the movie.

I had a thought of displaying it at some upcoming Obama rallies I'd like to volunteer. However, I need think about crediability and ethicality. How does anyone else feel about this? Does anyone know about this film?

Thanks,

Brian

Yes, We Can.

Bringing freedom, liberty, understanding rights, constitution, laws, and wellbeing of the people

John McCain IS NOT eligible for president, right???

Moiko — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:23:45 EST

HERE ARE THE FACTS
Born: August 29, 1936 (Panama Canal Zone)
Lives in: Phoenix, AZ
Zodiac Sign: Virgo
Height: 5’ 7” (1.7 m)
Family: wife Cindy, 4 sons Douglas, Andrew, John IV, and James and 3 daughters Sidney, Meghan, and Bridget
Parents: Admiral John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from Indiana) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (from Oklahoma)
Religion: Episcopalian
Education:
Graduated: United States Naval Academy (1958)
National War College (1974)
Career: U.S. Representative from 1983 to 1987
U.S. Senator from 1987-present
Government Committees:
-Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
-Chair, Committee on Indian Affairs, 1995-1997, 2005-2007
Books:
-Faith of My Fathers (1999)
-Worth Fighting For (2002)
-Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember (2005)
-Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them (2007)

John McCain is a U.S. Senator from Arizona and a Republican candidate for president in 2008.

John Sidney McCain was born on August 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone. Born into a family with a distinguished reputation in the U.S. Navy, both his father and grandfather were admirals and his father rose to command all the U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, McCain spent his childhood and adolescent years moving between naval bases in America and abroad.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President -- The Constitution of the United States, Article II
Section 1

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic

zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does

not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d

316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S.

territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S.

citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S.

diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the

14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Facts: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience

Bwest — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:31:50 EST

Read the following information gathered from the Library of Congress on the Legislative experience Junior Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have on Barack Obama, but I beg to differ. Please Feel free to check these records for yourself at (www.thomas.loc.gov) and draw your own conclusion or you can read the blog. Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Junior Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term , which is 6 years and another year campaigning, has authored and passed 20 twenty pieces of legislation in her term of six years into law. These bills can be found on the website I have provided above, but just in case here it is again (www.thomas.loc.gov). Here is the following I can conclude from the website that Junior Senator Clinton has passed.

(1) Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. (2) Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. (3) Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. (4) Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. (5) Name courthouse after James L. Watson. (6) Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. (7) Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. (8) Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. (9) Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. (10) Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. (11) Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. (12) Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. (13) Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. (14) Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. (15) Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. (16) Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. (17) Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 (18) Assist landmine victims in other countries. (19) Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. (20) Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
She has a nice list, but note that these are The Fact's straight from the Senate Record; Therefore, it is not made up. Now, It is time to post Senator Obama's record from the Library of Congress.I have to mention that Senator Obama's list is too substantive, one is coherced to categorize. Since its alot, remember you can go to the website at(www.thomas.loc.gov) and check it out yourself, but I am just summarizing his first 8 months. During Senator Obama's first 8 eight months of elected service he sponsored over 820 bills.
He introduced 233 bills regarding healthcare reform, 125 bills on poverty and public assistance, 112 bills on crime fighting, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. In his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
(1)the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became LAW, (2)The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became LAW, (3)The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate, (4)The 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became LAW, (5)The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill that is in committee just to name a few. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. For Hillary supporters read the facts and not emotion. I tried to write this Blog without being bias as possible. So tell me what you think. GO Debate on your Terms, Go Barack the Vote! We are the new "Gen08ion"!!!!

Policy 08: Immigration

Roberto David de Steele y Vivas — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:14:20 EST

Enforce Labor Law

GLOBAL Standards

Border Patrol increase of 25,000

National Service for 2 years to earn citizenship

SC Lawyers for Obama

Alex Baker, SC Obama Staff — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:47:13 EST

This afternoon at the Matthew J. Perry Federal Courthouse in Columbia, several prominent lawyers declared their support for Barack Obama.

Richland County Democratic Party Chairman Steve Benjamin announced his support for Senator Obama and discussed how Barack is the embodiment of the servant lawyer, foregoing riches to serve his fellow man.

Barack Obama is a man of law whose leadership reflects the traditions of lawyers who have helped deliver justice to the disenfranchised and give a voice to those who have often been neglected by our society.

Representing the Young Lawyers for Barack Obama, Graham Newman discussed how Senator Obama is the embodiment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Dream".

Senator Obama is judged based on the content of his massage rather than the content of his skin.

Newman also emphasized the urgancy for young people to vote reminding those that are 17 are eligible to vote as long as their birthday's fall before the November 2008 election. The deadline to register in South Carolina is December 26. Click here to register.

City Councilwoman Tameika Issac Devine talked about the injustices that were exposed following the events in Jena, Louisiana. She explained how as president, Barack Obama will take steps to insure that our justice system works for everyone no matter where you live, where you come from, your race, age or socioeconomic background.

Finally, attorney Bill Nettles spoke out on Senator Obama's background as a professor of Constitutional Law in Chicago. He described Barack as the candidate with the strongest commitment to the rule of law; a candidate who is concerned with the abuses to the Constitution by the current administration and a president who will close Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and restore the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Be on the lookout for several exciting surrogates in South Carolina throughout the week. We'll keep you posted on where and when they'll be coming to your part of the state.

Socialize Healthcare?

Ben — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:25:10 EST

As we all know, healthcare in the country is in serious trouble. What no one seems to understand is exactly how we got here or how to fix it. Many people support the idea of socialized healthcare and although there are many different types of socialized healthcare most people seem to reference Canada and use them in some way as a model for our own situation...

Dean John Hutson Endorses Obama

Eddie Lee, Obama Staff — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:00:08 EDT

John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, announced his support for Barack Obama today. Hutson endorsed Obama as best candidate to move the country beyond our failed foreign policy and restore our moral leadership in the world, citing Obama’s unifying leadership, his early stand against the war in Iraq, and his belief in strong, personal diplomacy with friend and foe.

Now a resident of Bow, Hutson served as a judge advocate in the United States Navy from 1972-2000. He has served as President and Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center since 2000. Dean Hutson was a registered Republican until changing his party affiliation this month to vote for Obama in the primary.

Amending Obama's Plan for NOLA

murphy — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:51:55 EDT

Among the things that Barack talks about in his Plan to Rebuild the Gulf Coast is an ambitious approach to fighting crime.

It should surprise no one to discover that disreputable elements are creeping into the area, trying to take advantage of the disarray and confusion sown by the inadequate responses of the present administration.

However, in addition to the idea presented of "COPS for Katrina" we need to remember one of the biggest problems that came out of the break down of order in the area-- the collapse of the courts.

In order to have a functioning court system, however, you need more than cops and prosecutors, or even judges, you need competent and dedicated defense lawyers. This is more than a little difficult when you realize, at least in Louisiana, the law of the land literally is not the same as the law of most of the rest of the country.

Sad to say, Louisiana has long had a shortage of criminal defense lawyers able and willing to struggle against the problems which have long existed in the system there.

I am proposing a plan as aggressive as any other part of Barack's plan, to recruit and train attorneys to work in the criminal justice system in the Katrina-affected areas. There should be loan forgiveness and tax incentives for people who might be inclined to join the struggle, but might not otherwise be able to afford to live and work in NOLA and its environs.

I want to see somebody doing something about this. And if they already are, and I just haven't heard about it, clue me in because nobody in the rest of the country seems to know about it. I will donate, as will others I know, to help promote the restoration of public defender services to those residents of the area how find themselves in legal difficulty.

Learning How To Make Democracy Work - Your rights

CCQ — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:35:01 EDT

Repost from ACLU.org with a slight addition.

Calling Your Elected Officials

In addition to writing your elected representatives, you can also call them and let them know where you stand on the issues. Although it is unlikely that you will get to talk to the Member of Congress directly, you will be able to communicate your displeasure (or pleasure) with their policy on a given issue. The Member's staff will take note of your concern and often convey it in some form to the Member. If the Member of Congress finds that his position is unpopular and untenable, your call may contribute to a chance in policy.You can call your Members of Congress through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Sample Conversation:

Staffer: Congressman Anyguy's office, how may I help you?

Caller: Hi, my name is Jane Randomwoman from the representative's district. My mother actually helped get Anyguy his votes at the Golden Acres Retirement Home during his first election, and I've been a long time volunteer on his campaigns.

Please note: the staffer will often ask you for your address so that they can confirm that you are truly a constituent.

Staffer: Thanks for your support. How can I help you today?

Caller: Please tell the Congressman to oppose the flag desecration amendment. Trust me, despite what people on Capitol Hill might be saying, everybody here in Shady Dales is less than enthused with messing with the First Amendment.

Staffer: I'll definitely pass on the message.Caller: Please also let the Congressman know that the local VWF hall told me yesterday that they didn't go to war just for a piece of cloth, they fought for the ideals for which the flag flies. They see this for what it is - an election year stunt. I know the Congressman is better than that.

Staffer: Thanks for your concern and your call Ms. Randomwoman. I'll go mention this to my supervisor.

If you feel strongly, you can also set up a meeting with the elected official or their staff.

-------------------

What does this have to do with Senator Obama?

Well...the same principle applies if you call your representative and say...Hi...my name is ______ and I am one of your constituents. I'm calling you today to say the people of (insert town name here) feel that Senator Barack Obama is the type of candidate that our state needs in the white house.

It may seem like a somewhat strange idea, but if all our representatives start getting calls asking what they are doing about helping Senator Obama secure the nomination, they will perhaps begin to realize that the people who voted them into office might just vote them out again if they don't endorse his candidacy.

One Movement,

CCQ

Seekers Seeking Actual Change - Obama 08

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SeekersSeekingActualChange-Obama08

More info on community building efforts and musical political activism can be found at http://www.myspace.com/ccq

Parent Separation Organization (discriminating laws hert our children)

Travis — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:52:05 EDT

Community Blogs Welcome, Travis.
Manage | Logout | Search Blogs Post from Travis Cline's Blog: Parent Separation OrganizationBy Travis - Aug 1st, 2007 at 8:10 pm EDT Also listed in: 5 groups Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content Your Rating:
(What is this?)
Dear Mr. Obama
     Fathers are discriminated immediately and in court systems. This is a ongoing community problem that needs to be changed. I have come up with a proposal for a new system of Family Law that has less to do with court and more to do with parent rights. Parents and children are mentally abused by the family law system we have today.
     This new system is what I call Parent Separation Organization: When parents separate it is justice to say that it is a Mental Status. So I propose that when Parents separate that the child stay at the home that he/she is accustomed to. This will ensure that the child is in a place in which he/she knows and will allow the Parent's to know where the child is. Giving one parent immediate rights sometimes can lead to the child being dragged into situations of movement after movement and into unfamiliar and strange places.  The parent rejected rights or in the movement process set a date of council at the Parent Separation Organizaiton for Parents that need help. This can be billed to the Parents. Being a parent shall not be against the law and no law that determines the fate or future of you or your child shall say mother or father, instead Parent. Joint custody is known well in the United States and shall be the right of the child and parent.
      If one parent can prove the other parent of neglect or abuse then criminal charges be filed Neglecting a child shall be against the law and will not be tolerated. For unfit behavior, classes at the Parent Separation Organization shall be permitted, this will insure safety and the well being of the child.
      Birth Certificates are legal documents of proof of the child and shall state the rights of the parents and child enlisted on thereof. This will give Parents Acknowledgment of contract and responsibility. Each Parent shall receive a copy and the original for the child. If you need DNA testing for proof of being the biological parent or suspect invalid document it shall be billed to the parent of need.
        It shall be top priority to give the child the right to have parents. Children shall have the right to a justified parent role model that shall allow them to extend to their full personality regardless of martial status. Children shall be raised by their Parents on an equal status unless the child is the age of eight and has couscous decision and shall be allowed liberty of choice of single or joint parenting.
        Child support shall result in the case that one parent refuses his/her obligation or rights to the child and/or is not partnership of joint custody.
        I urge the parents and government officials to think of the child instead of monopolizing family law and give dignity in to our children in the rights they deserve. By allowing this proposal you will allow children to have a happy and justified future. Understand the stability of bringing mental health into family law. It will allow Law Enforcement to make justified decisions. This will help our community, Promoting Mental Health will help parents and children be more level headed and less likely to commit crimes. Thank you for your time and helping parents in their time of need. I also have a petition I am trying to get signed if you could help me tell parents that we can have rights.
     I went and picked up my sons medical records today and he lost 10% of his body weight in the first month that he left my custody. A discriminating law such as Title Ten Section Six of the Oklahoma State Law allowed my child to be starved. Doctor reports "baby extremely fussy, severe outbreak of excema noted on face arms and lower legs, outbreak on thights, but not real bad. Baby seems very hungry, crying in between bites, only quietened when given a bite, This crying for bites was for whole visit of approximately 40 min. Mom very quiet, only offering info when asked detailed questions.' http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/parent-separation-organization-a-new-system-of-family-law
Travis Cline

Mediators for Obama | Alabama Mediation Links

Regina from Redmond, WA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:55:07 EDT

I wasn't going to get involved in politics again. Honestly!

But, I got an email about the dinner with Obama thing, and decided that having dinner with Obama would be a great thing...if only the cameras were turned off.

The questions asked were great, the environment conducive to a nice meal...but like most people, I don't wear white shirts to dinner for a very good reason!! And, I know that real conversations don't happen when one person is at the center of the entire conversation.

So, what is this blog about? It's a diatribe in favor of peace-making as a political position.

Not mushy, kissy-hugy peace-making, but in your face, "we have the technology and aren't afraid to use it" peace-making.

It's a call to the People and, especially, to the People of Color to start taking peace seriously.

Losing a son or daughter in war is a color-blind issue, --with peace, they come home.

Neighborhood and workplace violence, domestic violence, crime...these are usually symptoms of a"failure to communicate." Mediation services give people the freedom and the privacy to get real and work together to find a solution that works for all concerned.

Lack of adequate care by doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers and other professionals can be dealt with through the processes already developed by professional peacemakers,--give it a chance.

One area which is near and dear to my heart is special education,--did you know that parents can ask for facilitation of the discussion between themselves and school administrators? You don't have to beat youer head against the wall,--ask for someone to help you! If you need a resource as a parent in your state, check the links I give for your state, --or leave a comment and I'll try to help you find one!

Another two areas I'm working on are veteran mediation and restorative justice, which works with folks entangled in the criminal justice system. As a kid, I remember well the issues around vietnam vets and I think we can do something about that. Further, prisoners who get out of prison need help re-adjusting to the world outside. Their familoies are also victims and need help too. Restorative justice is a mediated process to ease that transition.

Angry people are people in conflict,--by engaging in directed dialogue, we can uncover what's really going on and help people find ways out of the conflict thicket. Mediation sessions need not result in "kumbayah moments" to achieve their purpose,--let's learn to use these processes on a national level by supporting them on a grassroots level.

I know it easier to stir up mud and fight and poke holes in the positions of other candidates...but that doesn't interest me at all. What interests me is actually helping people. So, in addition to talking about the issues, I'm going to provide links to non-profit dispute resolution resources, one state at a time.

It's easy to talk about litigation reform, when "litigation" is not what needs the reform. Lawyers thrive in an atmosphere where consensus takes a back seat to common sense. I know: I'm a lawyer, too.

It's so easy to talk in terms of troop surges and weapons systems, when a few months of facilitated conversations (short of Camp David, which all the hoopla that presents) have not yet been tried.

But, that's not what this blog is about. This blog is about helping the Obama campaign delve into issues of peace-making, so that people experience real improvements in their lives.

So, let's get on with it. Alabama! You're up!

Alabama

Alabama Center For Dispute Resolution
IDEA (Special ED) Mediation Resources (see link on this page)
Better Business Bureau : Alabama

Of course, I suppose I should introduce myself. Here's my information (it WILL change as soon as I get around to updating it!).

A call for legal help...

WNYmathGuy — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:04:44 EDT

Hello all,

Mike Rupp here, I'm a Western New York volunteer. We are having trouble finding good legal advice as to what we need to do to comply with campaign finance law. We want to do a bunch of normal things in our area for the campaign, but we fear doing it wrong in a way that will cause legal trouble in the future.

We almost, but didn't, print our own literature for the "Walk for Change." We thought that it would be construed as a unregistered contribution if we bought paper to print things on.

We would do all the foot work if we just knew what it was to do. Do we set up a political action committee while waiting for support from Barack? If so, how do we find out how to set one up? etc., etc.

If you cannot help us directly, would you at least please tell us a reliable contact in our part of the state that we can get guidance from.

Ethics Reform

Matt S. — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:08:13 EDT

In case you missed it, which would not be hard since the media doesn't seem to be covering it yet, Senator Barack Obama gave a major speech advocating ethical reform at the highest levels of government. This speech set a high mark that other candidates will find it difficult to match even if they attempt to follow suit.

Interesting reading

Human for rights — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:57:32 EDT

Convention on the Non-Applicability
of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity,
G.A. res. 2391 (XXIII), annex, 23 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 18) at 40, U.N.
Doc. A/7218 (1968), entered into force Nov. 11, 1970

Which values do you vote?

Emiliano — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:25:25 EDT

Which values do you vote?

Emiliano De Laurentiis

(From a speech given in April 2007 at the Voices of the Mountains Toastmasters Club in Williamstown, MA)

When I first came to America I remember flying over and around the Statue of Liberty and it brought tears to my eyes. Like so many other immigrants, my view of America was from a distance. It was this grand sweep of a country that represented truth and justice. A country that stood for opportunity. Where everything was possible!

Thirty years later I still believe in that America. And I believe that all the world believes in that ideal that once solely represented this United States of America. But it is also a fragile entity that is held together by the rule of law - the highest one being the constitution. And yet, we have seen, that even that is very fragile.

So, I am asking you today, as we approach another election. What values will you be voting for, because, no matter which policies the candidates espouse, I think that it boils down to a question of value.

Ten Ideas for Education Reform

Beth — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:09:04 EDT

These are the ten main ideas I would like to throw in the debate for education reform.

1- Financing education equitably

This means not financing education with real estate taxes but with increased sales tax on non-basic and luxury goods and services.

2- Opening schools for early childhood education (2 to 5 years old)

Early childhood education allows the children to develop skills early. If this is too expensive to do on a large scale, this should be started at least to benefit the most at risk children in poor neighborhoods.

3- Adopting national standards for public schools

This would allow meaningful comparisons between states and help Universities select the students fairly.

4- Creating a national exam at the end of high school

Testing does not permit to distinguish exceptional students. SAT’s are just drills and students can prepare like robots to reach high scores. An exam with meaningful essays and problem solving would better evaluate the students.

5- Testing to diagnose and act locally, not testing to judge, compare unfairly and punish

Schools should rely on tools to evaluate learning and help teachers improve students’ achievement. Accountability is important but the instruments need to be fair.

6- At the Federal level, spend less on war, more on education

Democracy in other countries should not be forced upon people. Self-liberation and respect of each country’s sovereignty must prevail. United States should be fixing their own problems inside the country before giving lessons to others. Stopping wars would free money for education, when education reform is much needed.

7- Define what competencies are required to be a “highly qualified teacher”

NCLB proclaims teachers have to be highly qualified without listing the precise

skills needed to be a highly qualified teacher.

8- Create university programs aligned on these teacher’s competencies

Once the skills have been defined, University should align their programs to help students become highly qualified teachers.

9- Define success differently and adapt the curricula accordingly

It is important to redefine success. Many students think that show business, business, medicine, and law are the only valued avenues to be considered successful. Graduating as a qualified teacher, nurse, electrician, plumber or auto-mechanic should be valued as much as the other "prestigious" jobs. "Blue collar" should be taken out of the dictionary and all jobs should be advertised as useful to society

10- Improve, develop and advertise vocational schools

The number of vocational schools should be increased to provide quality education to students who are not interested in graduate studies but want to become qualified and respected professionals.

WHO IS SANDY KRESS?

Beth — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:18:33 EDT

Sandy Kress's practice area is: Public Law and Policy (Translation=Lobbying)

Mr. Kress served as senior advisor to President Bush on Education with respect to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. He previously served as president of the board of trustees of the Dallas Public Schools.

It is a well-known fact that a Law degree qualifies you as a specialist in education!

Reporter Scott Parks on the Dallas Morning News drew attention to former White House senior education advisor who turn from public servant to corporate lobbyist. He is helping his employers (Akin Gump, Strauss Hauer and Feld, LLP) and clients benefiting from federal funds. Scott Parks reports that the flow of money goes to several large corporations and their lobbyists, particularly to the corporations specializing in standardized testing and supplemental education services. The re-authorization of NCLB will help them expand their profits...

According to dailykos.com, (story 2007, March 19, 123527/305), when Kress was serving as president of the Dallas school board, “fellow board members were calling then newspaper to denounce him as a racist and a bully. The fortunes of the reform movement and of Kress have risen together. He is one of the principal designers of No Child Left Behind, and has used his knowledge and connections to earn millions as a high-powered lobbyist for test publishers.”

Freelance reporter Emily Pyle researched Mr. Kress’s role in education, and she says: “If it seems peculiar that a system so good for business and so hard on public schools should also be packaged as the best answer for “disadvantaged” students, that’s the genius of Mr. Kress. Since returning to the high-profile lobbying firm, Kress has been teaching businesses to turn a profit helping schools meet the mandates of NCLB. In the process, he’s made about $4 million in lobbying contracts, in large part from companies that profit from provisions of the law.”

Emily Pyle also researched Kress’s relationship with Bush and the Dallas business community. Kress presented accountability to the school board in 1990 and the next year, he was elected to the school board. Black school board members saw accountability as an attempt to suppress extra money allotted to neglected black schools.

"As a paid consultant for the Governor’s Business Council, Kress traveled across the state pushing Bush’s education agenda," Pyle writes. "He also served as a board member of the Texas Business and Education Coalition, and a lobbyist for TBEC’s lobbying arm, Texans for Education. By 1998, Kress was working for Akin Gump. Through the firm, Kress held lobbying contracts for McGraw-Hill, the textbook publishing company that had long-standing personal ties to the Bush family. Kress was one of the architects of the Governor’s Reading Initiative, which eventually landed McGraw-Hill the lion’s share of the Texas textbook market."

And when Bush was elected, he took Kress with him. Kress re-designed Lyndon Johnson’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Business Roundtable’s image, naming the new law No Child Left Behind. "The General Accounting Office predicts states will spend between $1.9 and $5.3 billion a year meeting the testing requirement of the law. But that’s only a fraction of the law’s costs; other provisions are even more expensive—and, to the suddenly burgeoning education industry, even more lucrative," Pyle writes.

To the private education-industry sector, Kress’s NCLB is unspeakably gorgeous, as Pyle explains: "No Child Left Behind requires states to produce ‘interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports... that allow parents, teachers, and principals to understand and address the specific academic needs of students.’ Since few pretend that a standardized test given once a year can do anything so sophisticated, schools are finding they need separate ‘formative testing programs’ to meet the requirement. The formative testing model, according to the test publisher NCS Pearson, is to ‘teach, assess report, diagnose, and prescribe.’ Pearson, with other publishers, offers a full range of products for every step of the process."

But testing and assessment isn’t the only new revenue stream created by Kress’s NCLB. "Supplemental education services" represent a second stream, as Pyle notes: "Schools with high numbers of low-scoring students have three years to raise their scores before penalties kick in, and those are also expensive. The so-called ‘choice’ provision, with its passing resemblance to vouchers, has attracted media attention, but has proved unpopular so far. Only about 1 percent of eligible students made the transfer last year, according to data kept by the U.S. Department of Education. Instead, parents are taking advantage of another provision that requires low-performing schools to provide free after-school tutoring services, using a state-approved, ‘research-based’ tutoring program."

And "professional development" provides yet a third revenue stream: "The law also demands a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of the 2006 school year. Though the definition of ‘highly qualified’ is vague, with states setting their own standards of quality, the requirement has opened up a new market in materials geared toward teachers. Most major publishers now offer professional development products and services, some of which provide general training in pedagogy, but many of which merely train teachers to use another of the publisher’s classroom products."

Then, Pyle puts two and two together, and she finds Kress – architect of Bush’s No Child Left Behind and designer of multiple revenue streams benefiting the biggest of business – holding the four with both hands. Pyle did her homework and filled in the gaps in Kress’s excellent adventure since NCLB was enacted.

What is the main perverse effect of No Child Left Behind?

Dailykos.com adds that a mounting body of evidence suggests the "Texas miracle" Sandy Kress used to sell accountability to the country is a sham. Critics point to Texas’ rising dropout rates and flagging scores on college entrance exams as signs that test-prep-centered teaching is taking its toll on kids—especially those who are black, Latino, or poor. Almost two out of five Texas high school students never earn a high school diploma, according to a report released this year by the Intercultural Development Research Association, which has tracked Texas dropout rates since 1986.

Dr. Albert Cortez, director of IDRA’s Institute of Policy and Leadership, explain that the tests, far from being a solution, have become part of the problem. Narrowed curriculum daunts some students into dropping out. Students who don’t think they’ll pass the high school test—a requirement for graduation—may stop going to school. Other researchers, including Dr. Angela Valenzuela of the University of Texas and Rice education professor Linda McNeil, say administrators under pressure to raise test scores may push potentially low-scoring students to drop out before the exam.

The main perverse effect of accountability then becomes obvious and the NCLB law is a "success": the children left behind are no longer left behind, because... they are bored and they leave!

How Pelosi Sold You Out - The People Are On Their Own

David Kenyon — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:16:47 EST

There has never been a more corrupt presidency than that of George II. It would be nearly comical if it were not so deadly serious. 44,000 Iraqis are dead and hundreds are dying every day. Over 3,000 American soldiers are dead and more are dying each week. Someone gets the bright idea to send 16 billion dollars to Iraq in cash on pallettes and no one can now say where it went. The Mafia could have done a better job running this operation. The 2006 interim elections send a message. What are the two biggest issues on the minds of voters recorded at the exit polls? Corruption and the war. The Democrats take over, no matter that they were full partners in starting the war in the first place. Do they undertake to clean out the heaps of graft and corruption that have choked every organ of government? Can they even do it without committing political suicide? They most certainly cannot. They most certainly will not. In a brief news flash, it was announced by Nancy Pelosi that the Democrats taking over the House of Representatives will not seek prosecution or impeachment of politicians whose malfeasance is so extreme that it makes Richard Nixon look like a jay-walker by comparison. Our nation goes through months of impeachment hearings because President Clinton cheated on his wife and yet the American people are robbed of billions of dollars while its president gives billions more in no-bid contracts to his buddies all the while killing thousands to vidicate his father to history and this does not even warrant a look-see. Why? Because , like John McCain, Nancy Pelosi sold the people out in private deal with the Whitehouse. Democrats may barely control Congress, but they cannot impress the American people with their great ideas if they get vetoed. How do you get past a Republican veto? Isn't this the party that once spit in the face of the two-party system so rigorously that it cancelled democracy altogether by not even scheduling hearings and debates when they controlled the entire government? Why should they cower now? They may not be able to continue their raid on the U.S. Treasury, but they can stop any reform that could be put to a vote. The answer is simple. Bush-Cheney-Rove stay out of jail and in return certain key pieces of Democratically sponsored legislation make it past the president's desk that would have otherwise made it no futher than the waste basket. Pelosi looks like a power princess and the short memories of the American public forgive and forget the numerous acts of theft and murder that would have the average gang banger serving multiple life sentences. It is one thing to reach across the isle to get things done. It is quite another to become an accomplice after the fact. Maybe we are getting what we deserve. Politics has become just another trashy reality TV show. Or maybe, just maybe, we have the right to expect real leadership, real law enforcement and real justice. It may be too much to ask the average Joe to take on the aristocratic political cowboys that would herd us to slaughter for their own gain. But is it too much to ask the town folk to elect a new sheriff who is not on the take? We have had enough of politicians telling us what we want to hear and then doing the unspeakable after they have swindled us out our vote. It is time to clean house in both parties. It is too bad that Barack Obama doesn't have a Republican twin. Taking back the Democratic Party and demanding that is serve ordinary people with honest interests, however, would be a nice start.