Mood:
specialTopic: Funny Stuff
From The Lizard Queen...
From Mollywog...
Great work ladies! 
Friday, July 1, 2005
Hilarious Cartoon Double Shot
Mood: special
Topic: Funny Stuff
From The Lizard Queen...
Mood:
specialTopic: Funny Stuff
From The Lizard Queen...
Democrats' own mood poll scares them
Mood:
cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Democrats' own mood poll scares them
A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."
Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The poll was conducted June 20-26 and queried 1,078 likely voters. The margin of error was pegged at 3 points.
Washington Times ~ United Press International ** Democrats' own mood poll scares them
Mood:
cheekyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Democrats' own mood poll scares them
A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."
Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The poll was conducted June 20-26 and queried 1,078 likely voters. The margin of error was pegged at 3 points.
Washington Times ~ United Press International ** Democrats' own mood poll scares them
Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement Friday
Mood:
party time!
Topic: News
LOL, soooo - it's moderate O'CONNER taking her leave from the Supreme Court, instead of conservative Rehnquist... the libtard's worst nightmare just came true! So at the very outset of this battle, I'd like to speak in words i know the left will understand... BRING IT ON, LIB LOSERS!!!
O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
WASHINGTON - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly.
"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Little more than an hour later, Bush praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." He said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."
O'Connor's decision _ so closely held that a son did not know in advance _ marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.
O'Connor's decision capped a pioneer's career. President Reagan broke nearly 200 years of tradition when he tapped her _ a top-ranked graduate of Stanford law school _ for the high court.
Over time, she evolved into a moderate conservative, but more importantly, a majority maker.
She voted with a 5-4 majority, for example, on the case that effectively awarded the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush. She was on the winning side again when the court upheld the right of women to have an abortion if their health were in danger.
She expressed her views pungently at times. Last week, in a dissent in a 5-4 ruling that let local governments take personal property to build malls and other businesses, she wrote that the majority had unwisely handed more power to the powerful.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing ... any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Bush pledged to send a nomination to the Senate in time for a vote by the time the court begins its new term in October, but aides said it would not be before he returns from a scheduled trip to Europe on July 8. He said he and his administration would consult with lawmakers, and said "the nation deserves a dignified" confirmation debate.
Officials said the president did not know until around 9 a.m. Friday that O'Connor was stepping down, although his top lawyer, Harriet Miers, was alerted on Thursday to expect news of some sort from the court.
O'Connor's retirement leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only woman among eight remaining justices. One official said Bush's "short list" had included only men, and suggested a quick move to expand the roster of contenders.
O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay. She had breast cancer in 1988. Her resignation takes effect when a successor is confirmed.
Already, battle lines were forming in anticipation of a summer confirmation struggle in the Senate _ judicial philosophy, not gender, the key factor among outside groups as well as lawmakers.
"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.
"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.
Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion _ an issue that divides the court as it does the country.
She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion and also from others who argue the right is a given.
O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.
Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right. Commentators called O'Connor the nation's most powerful woman, but O'Connor poo-poohed the thought.
"I don't think it's accurate," she said in an Associated Press interview.
The enormity of the reaction to O'Connor's appointment had surprised her. She received more than 60,000 letters in her first year, more than any one member in the court's history.
"I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country," she once said. "It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It's important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves."
At times, the constant publicity was almost unbearable. "I had never expected or aspired to be a Supreme Court justice. My first year on the court made me long at times for obscurity," she once said.
On the court, O'Connor generally favored states in disputes with the federal government and for enhanced police powers challenged as violative of asserted individual rights.
In 1985, she wrote for the court as it ruled that the confession of a criminal suspect first warned about his rights may be used as trial evidence even if police violated a suspect's rights in obtaining an earlier confession.
O'Connor wrote the 1989 decision that struck down as an unconstitutional form of affirmative action a minority set-aside program for construction projects in Richmond, Va.
In 1991, she led the court as it ruled in its first-ever decision on rape-shield laws that states may under some circumstances bar evidence that a defendant and his alleged victim previously had consensual sex.
O'Connor once described herself and her eight fellow justices as nine fire fighters.
"When (someone) lights a fire, we invariably are asked to attend to the blaze. We may arrive at the scene a few years later," she said.
O'Connor was 51 when she joined the court to replace the retired Potter Stewart. A virtual unknown on the national scene until her appointment, she had served as an Arizona state judge, and before that as a member of her state's Legislature.
A fourth-generation Arizonan, she had grown up on a sprawling family ranch.
The woman who climbed higher in the legal profession than had any other member of her sex did not begin her career auspiciously. As a top-ranked graduate of Stanford's prestigious law school, class of 1952, O'Connor discovered that most large law firms did not hire women.
One offered her a job as a secretary. Perhaps it was that early experience that shaped O'Connor's professional tenacity. She once recalled a comment by an Arizona colleague: "With Sandra O'Connor, there ain't no Miller time."
"I think that's true," confessed the justice whose work week most often extended beyond 60 hours.
But she played tennis and golf well, danced expertly with her husband, and made frequent appearances on the Washington party circuit.
O'Connor was embarrassed in 1989 after conservative Republicans in Arizona used a letter she had sent to support their claim that the United States is a "Christian nation."
O'Connor said she regretted the letter's use in a political debate. "It was not my intention to express a personal view on the subject of the inquiry," she said.
Washington Post ~ Associated Press - Gina Holland ** O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
My Way News ~ Associated Press - Gina Holland ** O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
Mood:
party time!Topic: News
LOL, soooo - it's moderate O'CONNER taking her leave from the Supreme Court, instead of conservative Rehnquist... the libtard's worst nightmare just came true! So at the very outset of this battle, I'd like to speak in words i know the left will understand... BRING IT ON, LIB LOSERS!!!
O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
WASHINGTON - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly.
"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Little more than an hour later, Bush praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." He said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."
O'Connor's decision _ so closely held that a son did not know in advance _ marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.
O'Connor's decision capped a pioneer's career. President Reagan broke nearly 200 years of tradition when he tapped her _ a top-ranked graduate of Stanford law school _ for the high court.
Over time, she evolved into a moderate conservative, but more importantly, a majority maker.
She voted with a 5-4 majority, for example, on the case that effectively awarded the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush. She was on the winning side again when the court upheld the right of women to have an abortion if their health were in danger.
She expressed her views pungently at times. Last week, in a dissent in a 5-4 ruling that let local governments take personal property to build malls and other businesses, she wrote that the majority had unwisely handed more power to the powerful.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing ... any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Bush pledged to send a nomination to the Senate in time for a vote by the time the court begins its new term in October, but aides said it would not be before he returns from a scheduled trip to Europe on July 8. He said he and his administration would consult with lawmakers, and said "the nation deserves a dignified" confirmation debate.
Officials said the president did not know until around 9 a.m. Friday that O'Connor was stepping down, although his top lawyer, Harriet Miers, was alerted on Thursday to expect news of some sort from the court.
O'Connor's retirement leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only woman among eight remaining justices. One official said Bush's "short list" had included only men, and suggested a quick move to expand the roster of contenders.
O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay. She had breast cancer in 1988. Her resignation takes effect when a successor is confirmed.
Already, battle lines were forming in anticipation of a summer confirmation struggle in the Senate _ judicial philosophy, not gender, the key factor among outside groups as well as lawmakers.
"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.
"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.
Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion _ an issue that divides the court as it does the country.
She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion and also from others who argue the right is a given.
O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.
Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right. Commentators called O'Connor the nation's most powerful woman, but O'Connor poo-poohed the thought.
"I don't think it's accurate," she said in an Associated Press interview.
The enormity of the reaction to O'Connor's appointment had surprised her. She received more than 60,000 letters in her first year, more than any one member in the court's history.
"I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country," she once said. "It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It's important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves."
At times, the constant publicity was almost unbearable. "I had never expected or aspired to be a Supreme Court justice. My first year on the court made me long at times for obscurity," she once said.
On the court, O'Connor generally favored states in disputes with the federal government and for enhanced police powers challenged as violative of asserted individual rights.
In 1985, she wrote for the court as it ruled that the confession of a criminal suspect first warned about his rights may be used as trial evidence even if police violated a suspect's rights in obtaining an earlier confession.
O'Connor wrote the 1989 decision that struck down as an unconstitutional form of affirmative action a minority set-aside program for construction projects in Richmond, Va.
In 1991, she led the court as it ruled in its first-ever decision on rape-shield laws that states may under some circumstances bar evidence that a defendant and his alleged victim previously had consensual sex.
O'Connor once described herself and her eight fellow justices as nine fire fighters.
"When (someone) lights a fire, we invariably are asked to attend to the blaze. We may arrive at the scene a few years later," she said.
O'Connor was 51 when she joined the court to replace the retired Potter Stewart. A virtual unknown on the national scene until her appointment, she had served as an Arizona state judge, and before that as a member of her state's Legislature.
A fourth-generation Arizonan, she had grown up on a sprawling family ranch.
The woman who climbed higher in the legal profession than had any other member of her sex did not begin her career auspiciously. As a top-ranked graduate of Stanford's prestigious law school, class of 1952, O'Connor discovered that most large law firms did not hire women.
One offered her a job as a secretary. Perhaps it was that early experience that shaped O'Connor's professional tenacity. She once recalled a comment by an Arizona colleague: "With Sandra O'Connor, there ain't no Miller time."
"I think that's true," confessed the justice whose work week most often extended beyond 60 hours.
But she played tennis and golf well, danced expertly with her husband, and made frequent appearances on the Washington party circuit.
O'Connor was embarrassed in 1989 after conservative Republicans in Arizona used a letter she had sent to support their claim that the United States is a "Christian nation."
O'Connor said she regretted the letter's use in a political debate. "It was not my intention to express a personal view on the subject of the inquiry," she said.
Washington Post ~ Associated Press - Gina Holland ** O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
My Way News ~ Associated Press - Gina Holland ** O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
Mood:
d'oh
Now Playing: Let's Get it On...At School
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
Sexual harassment complaint from science experiment will continue
CLAREMONT - An investigation by Claremont schools into allegations of sexual harassment by a student found a teacher acted inappropriately in how he conducted a biology lab.
Freshman Gabriela Jimenez said she was distressed by teacher Robert Hoyle's March 31 class exercise on sexually transmitted diseases.
"It made me uncomfortable; I didn't want to do it," Gabriela said.
With the song "Let's Get It On" setting the mood, she said students were instructed to approach six classmates about exchanging water from their test tubes by asking, "Would you like to have sex with me?"
Parent Elizabeth Jimenez retained a lawyer with the Pacific Justice Institute and filed a formal sexual harassment claim for creating "an intimidating, hostile and offensive educational environment."
Devon Freitas, assistant superintendent of Claremont schools, did not return telephone calls, but in a written response to the institute's lawyer, Freitas acknowledged "decisions made by the teacher in the presentation of the lab ... were inappropriate, especially for the maturity level of most ninth-graders."
According to Freitas' response, other teachers at Claremont High taught the same lesson, and a memo was sent to all science teachers regarding Education Code protocol for lessons containing sexual references.
Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the Pacific Justice Institute, said they do not consider the matter resolved.
"We're in the process of filing a formal complaint," Snider said.
Hoyle's lab assignment, titled "Pathogens and Infection: Invisible Carriers of Disease," describes an exercise not uncommon in biology coursework.
In order to simulate the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, students were instructed to exchange "body fluids" with one another to see how rapidly a virus can spread.
Each student received a test tube, filled with water, to mix with six "partners" in the class. A tube was contaminated with a chemical, and after the students had poured, dripped or mixed with several others, the class examined how many ended up infected.
Jimenez, who said her daughter refused to participate, objected more to the method of the exercise than the message.
"There was lewd music," she said. "The problem is (my daughter) was uncomfortable, upset and embarrassed. Kids are saying things like "Hey, you want to suck my tube? You want to have foreplay?'"
She said less-popular students lacking partners to complete the assignment "were told to "experiment' and to 'have sex' with somebody of the same gender."
Jimenez said she was skeptical but became concerned after her two other daughters, one of whom took the class with another instructor, said they had the same test-tube sex experience.
Hoyle did not return calls seeking comment.
Jimenez said the district should have sent a notice to parents informing them of the content of the exercise so parents could opt to exclude their children.
Freitas said the district follows state law regarding parental notification, which requires parents to be notified about "instruction in comprehensive sexual education and HIV/AIDS prevention education."
CA - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ~ Kenneth Todd Ruiz ** Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
This sounds to me like a teacher without any perspective, a malady common in Claremont, trying to "reach" the kids.
I mean, come on, what do kids want these days? They want open, frank discussions of sex with no limits on what they can say or do. This guy was jsut giving it to them. Isn't high school about giving the kids what they want? Afterall, we're there for the kids, and if giving the kids everything they want isn't what's best for them, I don't know what is.
Dang, thinking like a liberal makes my head hurt.
We also learned how to give massages in my American Lit class. Can you fathom sending your daughter to a class where a bunch of drooling bags of testosterone will be encouraged to grope and knead her and to do the same to said hormone bags? Well, such was and apparently is life at good ole CHS.
Homeschooling anyone?
Mood:
d'ohNow Playing: Let's Get it On...At School
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
Sexual harassment complaint from science experiment will continue
CLAREMONT - An investigation by Claremont schools into allegations of sexual harassment by a student found a teacher acted inappropriately in how he conducted a biology lab.
Freshman Gabriela Jimenez said she was distressed by teacher Robert Hoyle's March 31 class exercise on sexually transmitted diseases.
"It made me uncomfortable; I didn't want to do it," Gabriela said.
With the song "Let's Get It On" setting the mood, she said students were instructed to approach six classmates about exchanging water from their test tubes by asking, "Would you like to have sex with me?"
Parent Elizabeth Jimenez retained a lawyer with the Pacific Justice Institute and filed a formal sexual harassment claim for creating "an intimidating, hostile and offensive educational environment."
Devon Freitas, assistant superintendent of Claremont schools, did not return telephone calls, but in a written response to the institute's lawyer, Freitas acknowledged "decisions made by the teacher in the presentation of the lab ... were inappropriate, especially for the maturity level of most ninth-graders."
According to Freitas' response, other teachers at Claremont High taught the same lesson, and a memo was sent to all science teachers regarding Education Code protocol for lessons containing sexual references.
Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the Pacific Justice Institute, said they do not consider the matter resolved.
"We're in the process of filing a formal complaint," Snider said.
Hoyle's lab assignment, titled "Pathogens and Infection: Invisible Carriers of Disease," describes an exercise not uncommon in biology coursework.
In order to simulate the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, students were instructed to exchange "body fluids" with one another to see how rapidly a virus can spread.
Each student received a test tube, filled with water, to mix with six "partners" in the class. A tube was contaminated with a chemical, and after the students had poured, dripped or mixed with several others, the class examined how many ended up infected.
Jimenez, who said her daughter refused to participate, objected more to the method of the exercise than the message.
"There was lewd music," she said. "The problem is (my daughter) was uncomfortable, upset and embarrassed. Kids are saying things like "Hey, you want to suck my tube? You want to have foreplay?'"
She said less-popular students lacking partners to complete the assignment "were told to "experiment' and to 'have sex' with somebody of the same gender."
Jimenez said she was skeptical but became concerned after her two other daughters, one of whom took the class with another instructor, said they had the same test-tube sex experience.
Hoyle did not return calls seeking comment.
Jimenez said the district should have sent a notice to parents informing them of the content of the exercise so parents could opt to exclude their children.
Freitas said the district follows state law regarding parental notification, which requires parents to be notified about "instruction in comprehensive sexual education and HIV/AIDS prevention education."
CA - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ~ Kenneth Todd Ruiz ** Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
This sounds to me like a teacher without any perspective, a malady common in Claremont, trying to "reach" the kids.
I mean, come on, what do kids want these days? They want open, frank discussions of sex with no limits on what they can say or do. This guy was jsut giving it to them. Isn't high school about giving the kids what they want? Afterall, we're there for the kids, and if giving the kids everything they want isn't what's best for them, I don't know what is.
Dang, thinking like a liberal makes my head hurt.
We also learned how to give massages in my American Lit class. Can you fathom sending your daughter to a class where a bunch of drooling bags of testosterone will be encouraged to grope and knead her and to do the same to said hormone bags? Well, such was and apparently is life at good ole CHS.
Homeschooling anyone?
Posted by uhyw
at 10:42 AM EDT
Dems guilty of vote fraud
Mood: d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, leaves the courthouse Wednesday, after he and four other defendants in the vote fraud trail were convicted in East St. Louis. >>>>>
Defendants guilty of vote fraud
UPDATE:
All five defendants in the vote fraud trial in East St. Louis were convicted by a jury today after five and a half hours of deliberations.
The defendants showed little response when the verdicts were displayed on an overhead projector in federal court. Defendant Sheila Thomas dabbed her eyes, but the other four stared straight ahead.
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker had been accused of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election.
Also convicted were Democratic precinct committee members Thomas, 31, and Jesse Lewis, 56, and City Hall worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of regulatory affairs, along with Thomas, Lewis and Johnson also were convicted of one count apiece of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote -- or offering to do so. Powell was never charged with that count.
Jurors set aside defense claims that the government's case was flimsy because of unreliable witnesses whose testimony often contradicted each other and, at times, was recanted.
"I respect the jury, but I am disappointed," Ellis' attorney, John O'Gara, said after the verdicts.
O'Gara said the defense attorneys would consider asking for a new trial.
"I would say jurors looked at these tapes and listened to them, and I'm guessing they are using the interpretations these very faulty witnesses gave them to reach their conclusion," O'Gara added. "I would not have trusted the government's presentation."
Ron Tenpas, the U.S. attorney for southern Illinois, applauded the jury's conclusion that "we put together a well-founded case."
"We're not in the business of having ourselves validated," Tenpas said. "We think what the verdict represents is that -- in the judgment of 12 impartial citizens -- when all the evidence is put together we made a strong case."
A date for sentencing was not immediately set.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ~ Michael Shaw ** Defendants guilty of vote fraud
Mood:
d'ohTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, leaves the courthouse Wednesday, after he and four other defendants in the vote fraud trail were convicted in East St. Louis. >>>>>
Defendants guilty of vote fraud
UPDATE:
All five defendants in the vote fraud trial in East St. Louis were convicted by a jury today after five and a half hours of deliberations.
The defendants showed little response when the verdicts were displayed on an overhead projector in federal court. Defendant Sheila Thomas dabbed her eyes, but the other four stared straight ahead.
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker had been accused of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election.
Also convicted were Democratic precinct committee members Thomas, 31, and Jesse Lewis, 56, and City Hall worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of regulatory affairs, along with Thomas, Lewis and Johnson also were convicted of one count apiece of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote -- or offering to do so. Powell was never charged with that count.
Jurors set aside defense claims that the government's case was flimsy because of unreliable witnesses whose testimony often contradicted each other and, at times, was recanted.
"I respect the jury, but I am disappointed," Ellis' attorney, John O'Gara, said after the verdicts.
O'Gara said the defense attorneys would consider asking for a new trial.
"I would say jurors looked at these tapes and listened to them, and I'm guessing they are using the interpretations these very faulty witnesses gave them to reach their conclusion," O'Gara added. "I would not have trusted the government's presentation."
Ron Tenpas, the U.S. attorney for southern Illinois, applauded the jury's conclusion that "we put together a well-founded case."
"We're not in the business of having ourselves validated," Tenpas said. "We think what the verdict represents is that -- in the judgment of 12 impartial citizens -- when all the evidence is put together we made a strong case."
A date for sentencing was not immediately set.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ~ Michael Shaw ** Defendants guilty of vote fraud
Posted by uhyw
at 10:32 AM EDT
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Canada Becomes 3rd Nation to OK Gay Unions
Mood:
silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Canadian lawmakers OK same-sex marriage nationwide TORONTO - Canada's House of Commons passed landmark legislation Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, granting same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional unions between a man and a woman. The bill passed as expected, despite opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government was also expected to easily pass the Senate and become federal law by the end of July. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two nations that allow gay marriage nationwide. Some of Martin's Liberal lawmakers voted against the bill and a Cabinet minister resigned Tuesday over the legislation. But enough allies rallied to support the bill that has been debated for months, voting 158 to 133 to approve it. Martin praised Tuesday's vote as a necessary step for human rights. "We are a nation of minorities," Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights."
CBC News ~ Canada ** Same-sex legislation passed
Mood:
sillyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Canadian lawmakers OK same-sex marriage nationwide TORONTO - Canada's House of Commons passed landmark legislation Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, granting same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional unions between a man and a woman. The bill passed as expected, despite opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government was also expected to easily pass the Senate and become federal law by the end of July. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two nations that allow gay marriage nationwide. Some of Martin's Liberal lawmakers voted against the bill and a Cabinet minister resigned Tuesday over the legislation. But enough allies rallied to support the bill that has been debated for months, voting 158 to 133 to approve it. Martin praised Tuesday's vote as a necessary step for human rights. "We are a nation of minorities," Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights."
There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics. Before the measure passed, gay marriage was legal in seven provinces.
Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which has led the debate in favor of the law, was triumphant after the vote: "The genius of Canada, almost unparalleled in the world, is built on shared identity, out of respect for each other." Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage. Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled by law to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so. The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation, saying that it would harm children in particular. Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, called the vote an "onerous breach of trust and the deconstruction of so much that is dear to our hearts." Flanked by clergymen, McVety vowed his group would work to vote out lawmakers who supported the legislation in the next general elections. "This is the beginning of the formal fight against the redefinition of marriage," McVety said. "We will, in the next election, be able to correct this incredible democratic deficit before us today." The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex legislation would not violate the constitution. According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions. Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., said same-sex American couples applaud Canadians. "We know that it has been somewhat contentious in Canada, but at the same time the Canadians have largely approached this issue in a rational and democratic way and are providing a very positive model for the rest of the world," Sklar said. Though hundreds of foreigners have come to Canada to seek civil ceremonies since gay marriages were first allowed in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, not all countries or states recognize the unions. While a slew of Israeli men were married in Toronto City Hall earlier this year, for example, the Israeli Interior Ministry does not recognize those unions. In the United States, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage and most states refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates from gay and lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed. USA Today ~ Associated Press ** Canadian lawmakers OK same-sex marriage nationwide Related story...CBC News ~ Canada ** Same-sex legislation passed
Posted by uhyw
at 1:19 AM EDT
Lib Loser Anti-war Teen 'Anarchists' Accused Of Setting Fire To American Flags
Mood:
chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Fla. Teens Charged After Allegedly Burning American Flags
SARASOTA, Fla. - Two Sarasota teens accused of burning six American flags have been charged with arson and manufacturing a firebomb.
Scott A. Baber and Brian A. Richard III, both 18, told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and disagree with the war in Iraq and other U.S. government policies.
They set fire to six flags Sunday and tried to firebomb a car, the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office said.
Richard remained in jail Tuesday on $402,120 bail. Baber was released Monday on $101,120 bail.
The pair were charged with arson, manufacture of a fire bomb and criminal mischief.
Baber and Richard burned about five flags at homes in the Bent Tree subdivision, where they live with Baber's parents, then set fire to a flag at its clubhouse, said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato, a spokesman for the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office.
"Our deputies came up on them as they were returning to their car," he said.
The arrest of his son surprised Brian Richard II.
"His grandfather was a decorated military man. The whole thing really stunned me. I was really sad that they made that choice," the elder Richard said.
Residents of the golf course community were also upset.
"How stupid," Pat Davidson said, straightening the stones surrounding her blackened flagpole. "What kind of thrill would you get burning an American flag?"
WKMG - Central Florida TV 6 ~ Associated Press ** Fla. Teens Charged After Allegedly Burning American Flags
Mood:
chattyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Fla. Teens Charged After Allegedly Burning American Flags
SARASOTA, Fla. - Two Sarasota teens accused of burning six American flags have been charged with arson and manufacturing a firebomb.
Scott A. Baber and Brian A. Richard III, both 18, told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and disagree with the war in Iraq and other U.S. government policies.
They set fire to six flags Sunday and tried to firebomb a car, the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office said.
Richard remained in jail Tuesday on $402,120 bail. Baber was released Monday on $101,120 bail.
The pair were charged with arson, manufacture of a fire bomb and criminal mischief.
Baber and Richard burned about five flags at homes in the Bent Tree subdivision, where they live with Baber's parents, then set fire to a flag at its clubhouse, said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato, a spokesman for the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office.
"Our deputies came up on them as they were returning to their car," he said.
The arrest of his son surprised Brian Richard II.
"His grandfather was a decorated military man. The whole thing really stunned me. I was really sad that they made that choice," the elder Richard said.
Residents of the golf course community were also upset.
"How stupid," Pat Davidson said, straightening the stones surrounding her blackened flagpole. "What kind of thrill would you get burning an American flag?"
WKMG - Central Florida TV 6 ~ Associated Press ** Fla. Teens Charged After Allegedly Burning American Flags
Posted by uhyw
at 12:58 AM EDT
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
EMINENT DOMAINED: Application submitted to NH city council to condemn Justice Souter's house for hotel
Mood: cheeky
Topic: News
This is beautiful. Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media is throwing the Supreme Court's bullshit right back at David H. Souter, the head fucktard of the dumb-ass loss of property rights ruling. And gettin' to him right where he lives.
I hope Freestar Media pulls this off. It would be so righteous to see the top shithead libtard of the Supreme Court's decision to be one of his own first victims...
Below is our letter to begin the development process.
Mr. Chip Meany
Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554 Dear Mr. Meany, I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development. Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare. As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town. Thank you. Sincerely, Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC Freestar Media ~ Logan Darrow Clements ** Letter starting the project Press Release Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home. Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land. The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans. "This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development." Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others. Freestar Media ~ Logan Darrow Clements ** Press release explaining the project
Mood:
cheekyTopic: News
This is beautiful. Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media is throwing the Supreme Court's bullshit right back at David H. Souter, the head fucktard of the dumb-ass loss of property rights ruling. And gettin' to him right where he lives.
I hope Freestar Media pulls this off. It would be so righteous to see the top shithead libtard of the Supreme Court's decision to be one of his own first victims...
Below is our letter to begin the development process.
Mr. Chip MeanyCode Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554 Dear Mr. Meany, I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development. Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare. As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town. Thank you. Sincerely, Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC Freestar Media ~ Logan Darrow Clements ** Letter starting the project Press Release Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home. Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land. The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans. "This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development." Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others. Freestar Media ~ Logan Darrow Clements ** Press release explaining the project
Scientists 'raise the dead' in dog experiment
Mood:
surprised
Topic: Odd Stuff
Eerie ... boffins have brought dead dogs back to life, in the name of science.
Boffins create zombie dogs
Scientists have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans.
US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
Pittsburgh's Safar Center for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.
Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Center.
However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing them back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would be happy to keep people in this state for just a few hours,
But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.
During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.
Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.
Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies, giving them 100 percent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.
Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.
"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US battlefield doctor.
NEWS.com.au ~ Nick Buchan ** Boffins create zombie dogs
Mood:
surprisedTopic: Odd Stuff
Eerie ... boffins have brought dead dogs back to life, in the name of science.
Boffins create zombie dogs
Scientists have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans.
US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
Pittsburgh's Safar Center for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.
Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Center.
However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing them back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would be happy to keep people in this state for just a few hours,
But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.
During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.
Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.
Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies, giving them 100 percent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.
Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.
"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US battlefield doctor.
NEWS.com.au ~ Nick Buchan ** Boffins create zombie dogs
Posted by uhyw
at 5:04 PM EDT
Monday, June 27, 2005
Editor of NY TIMES says paper must look beyond its liberal base
Mood: cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
LMAO - I thought the NY Times were "balanced"... according to them ~ HA!! Keller Says 'N.Y. Times' Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base NEW YORK - In a lengthy memo published on the newspaper's Web site, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, announced several new policies in response to a recent report by the paper's Credibility Committee. Among them is a fresh attempt to diversify the Times' staff and viewpoints, and not in the usual racial or gender ways, but in political, religious and cultural areas as well. The aim, he wrote, is "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation." The point, Keller wrote, "is not that we should begin recruiting reporters and editors for their political outlook; it is part of our professional code that we keep our political views out of the paper. The point is that we want a range of experience. We have a recruiting committee that tracks promising outside candidates, and that committee has already begun to consider ways to enrich the variety of backgrounds of our reporters and editors. "First and foremost we hire the best reporters, editors, photographers and artists in the business. But we will make an extra effort to focus on diversity of religious upbringing and military experience, of region and class." Keller said there had already been successes, namely, the coverage of conservatives by David Kirkpatrick and Jason DeParle, and a number of recent Sunday magazine pieces. "I intend to keep pushing us in this direction," Keller declared. He also said that he endorsed the internal committee’s recommendation "that we cover religion more extensively.... This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in." Editor & Publisher ** Keller Says 'N.Y. Times' Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base
Mood:
cheekyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
LMAO - I thought the NY Times were "balanced"... according to them ~ HA!! Keller Says 'N.Y. Times' Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base NEW YORK - In a lengthy memo published on the newspaper's Web site, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, announced several new policies in response to a recent report by the paper's Credibility Committee. Among them is a fresh attempt to diversify the Times' staff and viewpoints, and not in the usual racial or gender ways, but in political, religious and cultural areas as well. The aim, he wrote, is "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation." The point, Keller wrote, "is not that we should begin recruiting reporters and editors for their political outlook; it is part of our professional code that we keep our political views out of the paper. The point is that we want a range of experience. We have a recruiting committee that tracks promising outside candidates, and that committee has already begun to consider ways to enrich the variety of backgrounds of our reporters and editors. "First and foremost we hire the best reporters, editors, photographers and artists in the business. But we will make an extra effort to focus on diversity of religious upbringing and military experience, of region and class." Keller said there had already been successes, namely, the coverage of conservatives by David Kirkpatrick and Jason DeParle, and a number of recent Sunday magazine pieces. "I intend to keep pushing us in this direction," Keller declared. He also said that he endorsed the internal committee’s recommendation "that we cover religion more extensively.... This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in." Editor & Publisher ** Keller Says 'N.Y. Times' Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base
Posted by uhyw
at 4:05 PM EDT