Dem Jim Moran Calls Cheney ''Ass Kisser''
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

In scathing interview, Democrat says Bush Social Security plan won't help; Dubs Cheney 'ass kisser'

In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) slammed President Bush and Congressional Republicans' attempts to take on Social Security, saying he believes Bush has surrounded himself with those who agree with him and has lost touch with America.

Touching on issues from Social Security to the president's energy plan, Congressman Moran asserted that Republicans had repeatedly put the interests of the wealthy before the poor.

"I think the Republicans basically resent the poor and they figure if we can get the poor investing in the stock market, maybe they’ll start thinking like Republicans," Moran said. "God help us."

The Virginian said he believes that the Republican base has used Bush to push Social Security reform, a project that he says is essentially one to axe Social Security.

"I think they realized that they’re never going to find anybody who is as willing to carry out the agenda of these Republican right wing nuts and reverse the course of American progress," he remarked. "This is their chance. This is their chance to cut taxes down to the bone. This is their chance to repeal Social Security and to bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid."

President Bush is holding an event to promote his plan in Moran's district Friday. The events—like most of those the president held during his presidential campaign—are prescreened to include supporters. Moran suggested that such events may have contributed to what he sees as a sense of "self-delusion" Bush has shown in promoting a plan that polls poorly with the American public.

"I don’t think he has much experience with regular people that haven’t been prescreened," he said.

"He doesn’t read any books, and he doesn’t talk with people that don’t already agree with him," he added. "He’s surrounded himself with ideological sycophants. And the biggest ass-kisser of all is Dick Cheney."

A transcript of the interview follows.

CONGRESSMAN JIM MORAN (D-VA)

Raw Story’s John Byrne: What did you think about the Social Security plan President Bush proposed last night?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA): I don’t think there’s much reason to get upset or excited about this plan. The problem with President Bush’s overall plan is that he still wants to create private accounts and in doing so takes about a trillion dollars out of the trust fund over the first ten years and five trillion over 20 years. I’m not sure how the indexing of benefits helps the situation – that may restore some of the cost; to some extent he’s trying to solve a problem he’s created.

Raw Story: What problem did he create?

Moran: He’s said the problem is solvency—you don’t create a plan that takes two trillion dollars out of the trust fund.

Raw Story: So you’re saying there isn’t a problem with Social Security.

Moran: In 1983 it was fixed, and the Congressional Budget Office says we’re good up until 2052…Social Security is the only solvent fund we have in the government today really, its got 1.7 trillion dollars of surplus today. We’re going to have a surplus of two to three hundred billion for every year until the next 30 years.

Raw Story: If Social Security is solvent, then what do you think President Bush is trying to accomplish?

Moran: He wants to dismantle a program that defines what the Democrats are proudest of. That’s what this is about. The Republicans—almost all of them—opposed Social Security when it was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt. Almost all of them opposed Medicaid. They voted against Medicare in 1965. So these are programs that provide a safety net for the poor and I think the Republicans basically resent the poor and they figure if we can get the poor investing in the stock market, maybe they’ll start thinking like Republicans. God help us.

Except for the religious fundamentalists, most of the hardcore Republicans have incomes over $90,000. I don’t think it’s the taxation system that bothers them, it’s the safety net. They believe in survival of the fullest. The people who are best off in this society are the ones who have been the beneficiaries of all of their policies. And now if they can get people to invest in—the more money you put into the stock market, the higher the average value, [the more] it accrues to the owners of our society. The people who have enough means to own stock, to own the means of production.

I think the Social Security thing is all about ideology. It’s certainly not about fiscal responsibility. If he wanted to get us excited about a crisis, he’d talk about healthcare, and how Medicare is actually going bankrupt, and how 45 million people don’t have health insurance.

Raw Story: President Bush is holding an event to promote his Social Security plan in Falls Church today, in your district.

Moran: He’s having one of these rallies. Everybody has been pre-selected. Only Republican cheerleaders.

Raw Story: There has been discussion of the fact that the crowds at Bush’s events are carefully screened. Do you think the media is able to give an accurate portrayal of whether citizens actually support his plan?

Moran: I think the media is intimidated, with the exception of Ed Schultz and Raw Story but most of the media is intimidated by the Bush Administration so they’re intimidated into reporting their disgust at how they manipulate the news. They got away with it the entire presidential campaign.

Raw Story: The campaign?

Moran: It may have led to this self-delusion that he thought by traveling around the country he could sell this idea. I don’t think he has much experience with regular people that haven’t been prescreened, but the majority of Americans I think by now have seen through this, and seen that this is not something that’s to their benefit. This is not anything that will improve Social Security let alone their own sense of personal security.

Raw Story: Do you really think the president is sheltered from those he’s pitching his plan to?

Moran: The only actual news that he reads is the sports section. All the national news, all the opinions that he gets have been filtered, and it goes to his daily briefing that has already been pre-screened to give him what he wants to read. He doesn’t read any books, and he doesn’t talk with people that don’t already agree with him. He’s surrounded himself with ideological sycophants. And the biggest ass-kisser of all is Dick Cheney.

Raw Story: Why do you think the president decided to take on Social Security?

Moran: Because the Republican base wanted to take this on. I think they realized that they’re never going to find anybody who is as willing to carry out the agenda of these Republican right wing nuts and reverse the course of American progress. This is their chance. This is their chance to cut taxes down to the bone. This is their chance to repeal Social Security and to bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid. And to create a situation where future generations are going to spend all their income paying interest on debt instead of putting it into education or transportation or healthcare.

Raw Story: How would you address Social Security?

Moran: I would propose lifting the cap, just like Medicare. You pay the same percentage whatever you earn. I would have done what President Clinton was proposing which was to set aside a portion of the surplus. He was going to set aside about 40 percent of the surplus and that would have made Social Security solvent ad infinitum. But there’s a lot of other ways we could have done it.

For example, just two weeks ago we passed the elimination of the inheritance tax. Had we taken the Democratic alternative, which was to exempt the first seven million dollars, 99 percent of American families would have never had to pay any estate tax, and it would have cost $72 billion in total. Instead, we spent another $220 billion just to eliminate taxes on the top three tenths of a percent. Two hundred and twenty billion dollars over ten years. The point is that if we had taken that money instead, if we had taken that $220 billion, it would have gone a long ways toward making it solvent. It’s a matter of priorities.

And this budget that we [just voted] on—taking 40 billion dollars out of programs for the poor, including $10 billion in Medicaid over five years, and we’re cutting more income taxes, dividends and capital gains taxes, three-quarters of which go to people who make over $200,000 a year. And yet in the same budget, we cut $70 billion in taxes, by further reducing the dividend and capital gains taxes, most of which of course are paid by the wealthiest. These guys just have no shame.

Raw Story: What did you think of the energy bill?

Moran: The energy bill was just a bunch of tax breaks for gas drillers. Some Republican staffers suggested it was the Tom DeLay MTBE tax exemption bill. It exempted MTBE producers from any liability for toxic pollution of aquifers. Not that that wasn’t bad enough—but then it gave them $2 billion in tax breaks, $2 billion in subsidies, because they’re big supporters of Mr. DeLay. I just don’t trust any of these people to do the right thing for people in need.

The Raw Story ~ John Byrne ** In scathing interview, Democrat says Bush Social Security plan won't help; Dubs Cheney 'ass kisser'

Democrats expected to back gay marriage
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Democrats expected to back gay marriage

Weigh endorsement in Mass. party platform

The Massachusetts Democratic Party is poised next week to add an endorsement of gay marriage to its platform, despite a nationwide backlash against same-sex marriage that led voters to approve bans in 11 states last fall.

Philip W. Johnston, the state Democratic Party chairman, said yesterday that the party's 3,000 delegates will consider the platform change May 14, three days before the first anniversary of legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. State Democratic parties in Iowa and Colorado added endorsements of same-sex marriage to their platforms last year.

"I don't anticipate any serious debate about it," Johnston said of the party vote that will take place at Paul E. Tsongas Arena in Lowell. "I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is."

If approved by the party delegates, the new addition to the Democratic Party's platform will read: "We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage, and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations, and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights."

The vote will, in effect, codify a resolution passed by the state party committee last year.

The national Democratic Party platform does not explicitly endorse same-sex marriage, but it supports ''full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation" and opposes efforts in Washington, D.C., to pass a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. The platform also supports the rights of states to determine their own marriage laws.

Among the likely Democratic gubernatorial candidates in 2006, Secretary of State William F. Galvin and former assistant US attorney general Deval Patrick both support the platform change. A spokesman for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly was noncommittal on the platform change when contacted yesterday, but he reiterated Reilly's support for the legality of same-sex marriage here.

The vote comes at a time when Democrats across the country are trying to reach out to social conservatives and focus on other issues.

"I'm as prochoice as you can get, and yet I think my party should be welcoming of prolife Democrats," said US Representative Michael E. Capuano, Democrat of Somerville, who backs same-sex marriage. "Same thing here. I understand where some good Democrats would agree with me on everything but this and I want them in the party."

Galvin said he has no problem with the new platform language, but added that he does not see a pressing need for the change.

"We really, as a party, have to move beyond this issue," Galvin said. "This is not what's holding our state back. It's job loss, loss of an economic plan. We've got to get the state moving again."

While platforms exert little influence on candidates' positions on issues, they tend to reflect the widespread sentiments of a party's core membership.

A Boston Globe poll in March found that 71 percent of Democrats surveyed statewide said they believed same-sex marriage should be allowed, and 24 percent did not. By comparison, 35 percent of Republicans supported same-sex marriage and 59 percent of Republicans opposed it. Independents supported same-sex marriage 53 percent to 35 percent, with 12 percent unsure. Overall, 56 percent of those surveyed backed same-sex marriage, while 37 percent did not and 7 percent weren't sure.

Those numbers stand in contrast to much of the rest of the nation, as indicated by the results of the November elections. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the number of states with such bans to 18. In addition, 24 states have enacted legislative statutes defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

After last year's presidential contest, some strategists said same-sex marriage in Massachusetts hurt Senator John F. Kerry's campaign by encouraging social conservatives to go to the polls and vote for President Bush.

Massachusetts remains the only state that has legalized gay marriage. Connecticut and Vermont have enacted civil unions for gay couples.

Martina Jackson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party's platform committee, said she held 25 hearings across Massachusetts in advance of next week's convention, and no one testified against the party's proposal to endorse same-sex marriage.

"Everybody who spoke spoke for it," Jackson said of the activists, city and ward committee members, and labor union officials who attended the hearings, held all over the state. "We weren't sure what we were going to hear. There wasn't one place where we heard a negative, but lots of insistence that we do include it."

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party is not unanimous on the subject. The leading voice against same-sex marriage in the Legislature during last year's constitutional convention was Representative Philip Travis, Democrat of Rehoboth. And it was Senate President Robert E. Travaglini a fellow Democrat, who coauthored a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but permit civil unions. The Legislature narrowly approved the measure, but must do so again in the current legislative session before it could appear on the ballot in November 2006. The measure passed 105 to 92, four votes more than necessary to clear the 101-vote margin needed to advance the proposed amendment.

Although the Democratic Party is far from monolithic on the subject of same-sex marriage, the recent departure of the socially conservative House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who was replaced by socially liberal Salvatore F. DiMasi, means the pendulum in the State House has recently swung in favor of same-sex marriage. In addition, opponents of the proposed constitutional ban have picked up at least three votes since last year's dramatic constitutional convention, leaving the fate of the Travaglini measure in doubt.

Still, Capuano acknowledged that the platform, ultimately, plays but one part in defining the party and its membership. To underscore his point, Capuano said that he has never read the state Democratic Party platform.

John Marble, spokesman for the gay organization, National Stonewall Democrats, in Washington, D.C., said the platform change sends a crucial message to the rest of the nation.

"It's important because Massachusetts knows more than other states how marriage can benefit all families in a state, and after living with the reality of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, they are recognizing that it is not a threat," Marble said.

The off-year convention will include gubernatorial politicking: Johnston has given Reilly, Patrick, and Galvin five minutes each to tell delegates why they want to be the next governor of Massachusetts.

"Basically, I simply said to them, 'Stand up without demonstrations or placards and explain the rationale for your candidacy,' why they feel they would be able to lead the state over the next four years," Johnston said. "I think people are anxious to hear."

Also, delegates will hear from the national Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean, as well as Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who is running for reelection in 2006.

Boston Globe ~ Raphael Lewis ** Democrats expected to back gay marriage

CNN's Nancy Grace 'Played Fast and Loose' With Ethics; Federal appeals court raps former prosecutor
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

11th Circuit: Nancy Grace 'Played Fast and Loose' With Ethics

Federal appeals court raps former prosecutor

Nancy Grace, the host of a self-titled legal show on CNN Headline News, "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties as a Fulton County, Ga., prosecutor in 1990, a federal appeals panel has declared.

Monday's decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a triple murder conviction won by Grace, explaining that her actions didn't change the result of the trial. It is the third time appellate courts have admonished Grace for her conduct as a prosecutor in Georgia. Grace served as an assistant district attorney in Fulton from 1987 to 1996, leaving that year to join Court TV as a commentator.

The three-judge panel on Monday criticized Grace for not following her obligations to disclose to the defendant's lawyer information about other possible suspects. The 11th Circuit also agreed with a magistrate who found it hard to believe that Grace did not knowingly use a detective's false testimony that there were no other suspects.

"Despite the failure of the prosecutor to fulfill her responsibilities," wrote Judge William H. Pryor Jr., the Georgia courts were not unreasonable to have upheld the convictions of Herbert Connell Stephens.

A Fulton jury held Stephens responsible for the June 1990 murders of John Davis, Toria Pope and Tony Daniel at the Red Oaks housing project in Atlanta. Stephens was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences.

Grace on Tuesday denied hiding that other people might have been involved with the crime, noting one of her witnesses said so in open court.

"While some of the comments of the court are hurtful to me," she added, "I am thankful for the unanimous decision" keeping the verdict intact.

Stephens' lawyer, G. Terry Jackson of Savannah's Jackson & Schiavone, said he was disappointed with the ruling and would consider asking the full 11th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"It's very clear Mr. Stephens did not receive a fair trial," said Jackson.

Stephens' original trial lawyer, Fulton public defender Kenneth D. Kondritzer, called the court's description of Grace as playing "fast and loose" with ethical rules "an understatement."

Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor from New York University School of Law, wrote in an e-mail that Grace's actions regarding the detective were serious, "because submitting false sworn testimony to a court is probably the gravest violation of legal ethics."

DEFENSE KEPT IN THE DARK

The major issue before the courts reviewing the Stephens case was the existence of arrest warrants for two other people suspected of the murders. Stephens' lawyers have said that information could have steered the jury to acquit Stephens.

One witness identified John Wesley Ragin and Travis Williams as having been at the scene of the crimes along with Stephens and four conspirators. The four conspirators pleaded guilty the day Stephens went to trial and were sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Arrest warrants were issued for Ragin and Williams, but they never were indicted, according to the Georgia Supreme Court's 1994 review of the case, which upheld Stephens' convictions.

Although Kondritzer did not find out about the warrants until after the trial, "there is no proof that the State deliberately concealed the existence of those warrants," wrote Justice George H. Carley for the unanimous court.

Carley also dismissed claims that police testimony saying there were no suspects other than Stephens was false as a result of the arrest warrants. The justice noted that the evidence underlying the arrest warrants was admitted at trial. Stephens v. State, 264 Ga. 761 (1994).

Stephens' habeas corpus challenges to the verdict failed at a state court and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, with both citing statements from 10 witnesses who either saw Stephens shoot the victims or saw him at the scene.

The federal judges, however, showed they were troubled by Grace's actions. U.S. Magistrate E. Clayton Scofield III wrote in 2003 that the "overwhelming" evidence of Stephens' guilt made it unreasonable to think that false testimony indicating there were no other suspects would have made a difference.

Scofield added that he was not condoning Grace's actions, writing, "The prosecutor clearly played fast and loose with her disclosure obligations in this case." Stephens v. Hall, No. 1:99-CV-1317 (N.D.Ga. April 2, 2003).

Judge Charles A. Moye Jr. accepted Scofield's report, adding he "reluctantly finds that there was sufficient evidence" to support the state courts' conclusions. Stephens v. Hall, No. 1:99-CV-1317 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 11, 2003).

At the 11th Circuit, Pryor noted that the court was bound by rules requiring it to be "highly deferential" to state courts' rulings. He was joined by Judges Gerald B. Tjoflat and Joel F. Dubina.

Pryor pointed out that during testimony of the state habeas case, Grace denied that detectives provided her with the arrest warrants that were at the heart of Stephens' claims.

"Regardless," Pryor added, "it was Grace's duty to learn about the warrants and disclose them" to Stephens' lawyers. Pryor later said the court agreed with Scofield's belief that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties.

But the state courts were not unreasonable, Pryor concluded, to say that Grace's failures did not materially change the result of the trial. As a result, the panel rejected Stephens' arguments that Grace's actions constituted a violation of his due process rights. Stephens v. Hall, No. 03-15251 (11th Cir. May 2, 2005).

GRACE'S THIRD SCOLDING

This is the third time Grace's conduct as a prosecutor has been criticized by an appellate court.

In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court skewered Grace for her actions in prosecuting Weldon Wayne Carr for allegedly setting fire to his house and murdering his wife. Carr later was freed when Fulton prosecutors waited too long to bring him up for a retrial. While the court reversed Carr's 1994 conviction for other reasons, the justices said Grace withheld evidence entitled to the defense and made improper opening statements and closing arguments.

"We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable," wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997).

In 1994, the Georgia high court voted 6-1 to reverse a heroin trafficking conviction won by Grace because she "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by referring to drug-related murders and serial rape, which were not at issue. Bell v. State, 263 Ga. 776 (1994).

Two calls and an e-mail to CNN officials seeking comment were not returned.

Asked whether her run-ins with appellate judges discredit her as a legal commentator, Grace noted that she tried more than 100 jury trials and handled thousands of guilty pleas in more than 10 years as a prosecutor.

"It's a lifetime of work," she said, noting that she decided to become a lawyer after her fiance was murdered.

Echoing the tone she frequently takes on her TV show, which often focuses on crime victims, Grace asserted that Stephens was responsible for murdering three young people.

"Who knows what they could have become today?" she asked.

Law.com ~ Jonathan Ringel - Fulton County Daily Report ** 11th Circuit: Nancy Grace 'Played Fast and Loose' With Ethics

Hillary's fundraising sorry ass ethics ~ criminal
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Web Sites Target Hillary Clinton's Ambitions

NEW YORK — The Web is proving to be fertile ground for efforts to try to derail Sen. Hillary Clinton's future political ambitions.

A Web site that will feature documents alleging the New York senator knew about illegal activities surrounding certain campaign contributions was launched Tuesday night.

Clinton's camp claims the efforts are just a small example of how Republicans are going to use the former first lady as a whipping post in 2006 and possibly beyond.

"We know one thing for sure, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are going to be hitting us hard with false charges," Clinton wrote to potential donors, according to The Associated Press, calling herself "the Republicans' number one target in 2006."

The Web site launched Tuesday night, Hillcap.org, is a joint effort between former Clinton fund-raiser Peter Paul and the self-confessed conservative group U.S. Justice Foundation who are calling it the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project. The site is being created by the same technical producers behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Web campaign that helped defeat 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Meanwhile, longtime GOP operative Arthur Finkelstein on Tuesday launched a "Stop Her Now" effort, warning that Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are trying to "pull the wool over America's eyes once again."

Finkelstein, who said he hopes to raise $10 million from his effort in which he has partnered with New York Republican Party Chairman Stephen Minarik, has been a top adviser to New York Republican Gov. George Pataki and worked on the campaigns of other Republican lawmakers.

In April, Bill Clinton went after Finkelstein because of the anti-Hillary effort. The former president said there might be "some sort of self-loathing" in Finkelstein, a gay Republican who married his partner in Massachusetts.

Paul Not a Gadfly But a Felon

The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project features information provided by Paul, who is involved in a civil suit against the Clintons and is being represented by the U.S. Justice Foundation. Paul claims that his information clearly shows that Clinton knew of the actions taken by her finance director, David Rosen, when he failed to adhere to federal campaign regulations.

Rosen is facing a four-count indictment charging that he "knowingly and willfully caused to be made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements" to the Federal Election Commission regarding more than $1 million in campaign contributions in 2000. Each of the four felony counts carries a possible penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. His trial was supposed to begin Tuesday but apparently has been rescheduled to begin May 17.

Hillcap.org lays out Paul's case that he spent more than $1.2 million to host a Salute to President Clinton Hollywood gala that featured big names like Cher, Melissa Etheridge and Diana Ross. The event, held Aug. 12, 2000, raised $1 million in "hard money" contributions for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.

Hillcap.org claims that by "falsely reporting those costs as $401,419, the Clinton campaign avoided paying at least $800,000 in hard money" during the final weeks before the election. Paul told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that he held the event in exchange for Bill Clinton's support on a business venture. He also charged that Sen. Clinton knew about the reporting discrepancies.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Bryan Sierra, told The New York Times in February that Sen. Clinton was not a subject of the investigation that led to the indictment and no one else had been accused of any wrongdoing arising from the accusations against Rosen.

Paul, however, does have legal tangles of his own. In March, Paul, co-founder of Stan Lee Media Inc., pleaded guilty to securities fraud. The charges arose from Paul's leading role in a scheme to manipulate the price of Stan Lee Media common stock; prosecutors said the scheme resulted in approximately $25 million in losses. Paul was originally indicted in June 2001, but fled to Brazil, where he was arrested by Brazilian authorities in August 2001 and extradited to the United States in July 2003.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the Justice Department, Paul could face up to 10 years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $5 million and restitution to be determined by the court. This is Paul's second guilty plea. In 1979, he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and trying to defraud Fidel Castro's government out of millions of dollars. He served 30 months in prison, according to news reports.

"Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions, who is currently in federal custody," Clinton lawyer David Kendall said in a statement forwarded to FOXNews.com. "Most of his civil suit has already been dismissed and the remainder has no merit."

Paul was in custody on the stock manipulation charge when he filed the civil suit against the Clintons but is now out on bail. He said Kendall's comments should offend the court system, which has thus far agreed that his case against the Clintons is legitimate.

"My case has enough merit that for the first time in American history, a senator and a president should defend themselves in court for fraud and extortion," he told FOXNews.com.

"I didn't pay $2 million to get Hillary elected because I'm a gadfly or a lunatic in the right-wing conspiracy, so when they try to paint me with that brush, it's obviously an absurdity," he added.

Although he said he knows Clinton supporters and many in the media may try to portray him as just another Hillary basher with a political agenda, Paul argued that he is the only person who has valid information pointing to criminal wrongdoing by the senator.

"I have the goods, I have the checks, I have the photos, I have the videotapes — they don't lie," Paul said, adding the documents "speak for themselves" and he promised that future revelations would show "an intense disrespect and disregard Hillary has for the rule of law."

Sen. Clinton's campaign office did not return phone calls by press time.

Swift Vets Successes Learned

The Webmasters behind www.Hillcap.org are the same who effectively helped thrust the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into the national spotlight when Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, challenged President Bush for the White House in 2004.

Scott Swett and Robert Hahn launched Swiftvets.com at the behest of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group, which sought to expose what members said were lies and misconceptions told by Kerry regarding his status as a war hero in Vietnam.

Even though the Swift Vets originally thought they could just hold a press conference to get the media to come to them and get their story, they were mistaken. Wondering how come no one wrote about their early endeavors to expose what they considered to be a Kerry cover-up, the group then wrote a book and contracted Swett and Hahn to launch a Web site that featured men who served with Kerry and denounced his various claims about the U.S. military's behavior in Vietnam, among other things. Bolstered by their success, Swett and Hahn formally began New American Media Online Services, LLC, earlier this year.

"[We] managed to create sort of a perfect storm ... it ended up discrediting Kerry's claim to be a Vietnam War hero," Hahn told FOXNews.com on Tuesday. "If it's anything that works, people will copy it so ... a strategy is sort of forming around this idea: 'Well, how do you get the media to talk about something [the candidates] try to hide?'"

Hahn, Swett and the Swift Boat Vets learned that once one goes public with such a campaign, attacks will immediately be launched against the credibility of the featured information and those behind it.

"That's one of our goals — that no one can find an error of fact on that site and that everything on there is backed up by fact or court record," Hahn said of the Hillcap.org site.

Although Hillcap.org and Finkelstein's StopHerNow.com are just two sites committed to airing what some consider to be Clinton's dirty laundry, Paul, who is a registered independent, said he should not be lumped together with other such sites.

"It's very clear that I have an authentic and legitimate reason to want to share my personal experiences with Hillary as her biggest contributor — as the man most responsible for winning her Senate seat," Paul said. "I'm in a unique position to speak to the criminality and misconduct of the Clintons in accomplishing their political objectives."

Fox News ~ Liza Porteus ** Web Sites Target Hillary Clinton's Ambitions

Law will make it harder for dead people to vote Dem
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Democrats ask judge to overturn voter ID law

The Indiana and Marion County Democratic parties on Monday asked a federal judge to overturn a new state law that requires voters to show a photo ID.

The law requires residents to present a state or federal ID before they will be given a ballot. Those who do not have a driver's license and can't afford to pay for a state identification card can be issued a state ID for free.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, the Democrats claim the law will bar some citizens from being able to vote. Judge Sarah Evans Barker will hear the case.

"Voting should not be equated with driving a car," said Dan Parker, Indiana Democratic Party chairman. "Voting is a basic right, not a privilege."

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union also is suing to stop the voter ID law. Last week, the ICLU filed a lawsuit in Marion Superior Court that claims the law will drive the poor, elderly and others away from the polls.

Indy Star.com ** Law will make it harder for dead people to vote Dem

Liberals gather to plumb depths of Christian right ~ trying to evangelize believers with the gospel of secularism
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

NEW YORK -- The 58-year-old man stepped to the microphone and spoke like a zealous Christian anxious to learn about carrying the Gospel to nonbelievers.

"We're trying to understand these people. How do we reach out to them?" asked Wayne Reagan, 58, a retired Housing Authority official.

But Mr. Reagan was asking how to evangelize believers, specifically Christians, with the gospel of secularism.

Mr. Reagan, who is not religious, attended a conference Friday and Saturday at the City College of New York, called "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right." The event was sponsored by the New York Open Center, a holistic learning center, and by the People for the American Way Foundation.

Mr. Reagan's question was one example of how liberals are making unprecedented efforts to understand, and even imitate, Christian conservatives. Another conference attendee asked a speaker how to talk to her Christian conservative relatives.

Since the presidential election, Democrats have discussed how to reach the "values voters," who were one of President Bush's largest voting blocs.

Some have said more effort is needed to understand the Christian right. Others, such as the openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, say liberals "have to take back [the] Scriptures" and articulate their own spirituality.

The conference on the religious right was conceived six months ago by Open Center co-founder Ralph White, who heard a discussion of "dominionism" on a political talk show. He didn't know the meaning of the word, which refers to the belief -- based on Genesis 1:26 and other biblical texts -- that Christians should extend God's sovereignty over the political sphere.

Mr. White denied that the City College conference was "a liberal attempt to do anything," instead calling it "a generic attempt ... to educate people about something that is distant and unknown to many of us."

Some at the conference expressed hostility toward Christian conservatives. One attendee said during a question-and-answer period that she thought the Christian conservative movement is the embodiment of the Antichrist. Joan Bokaer, founder of TheocracyWatch, said conservative politicians have manipulated Christians to vote for them since the mid-1960s.

But some speakers addressed complex theological issues.

Chip Berlet talked about eschatology -- theological interpretation of the "end times" -- and the significant impact those views have on political involvement.

There was much talk about how the Christian right has built a political machine by keeping its religious beliefs under the radar and using "stealth" tactics, as Republican strategist and former Christian Coalition Director Ralph Reed once urged.

Jeffrey Sharlett, who runs a daily report on religion in the press called the Revealer, said liberals should be in, but not of, the Christian conservative movement.

"Instead of railing against the Christian right," he said, liberals should be "going out and talking to them and writing stories about your experience with them."

Washington Times ~ Jon Ward ** Liberals gather to plumb depths of Christian right

Court to consider ban on recruiters at college campuses
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

WASHINGTON - In the 1950s and '60s, the free speech clashes between universities and the government often involved communism and Vietnam. Now it's gay rights.

This fight is between 31 law schools and the Pentagon.

The schools want to bar military recruiters to protest the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay people from serving in the armed forces. The Pentagon says the schools must forfeit federal funding if they keep the recruiters out.

The Supreme Court said Monday it would settle the dispute in its next session, beginning in October.

Universities were hotbeds of dissent during the Vietnam War, and many protests were aimed at the military presence on campuses in the form of ROTC programs for officers.

In the current battle, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer representing the law schools suing the Pentagon, contends the government may not force schools to condone its policy by insisting on full access for military recruiters.

"If, as the Supreme Court has held, bigots have a First Amendment right to exclude gays, then certainly universities have a First Amendment right to exclude bigots," he said.

The Bush administration and its backers contend schools are free to protest the Pentagon's policy as they wish, so long as they give the military equal access to campuses. Moreover, schools could opt to forgo their federal funding, they said.

"The military services depend significantly on campus access to recruit the lawyers they need to carry out their missions," Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote in filings with the court.

At issue is a 1994 federal law requiring universities that receive federal funds to give the military the same access as other recruiters. At some schools, the funding can be hundreds of millions of dollars.

The law, known as the Solomon Amendment, has been particularly controversial for law schools that have nondiscrimination policies barring any recruiter - government or private - from campus if the organization represented unfairly bases hiring on race, gender or sexual orientation.

A panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November blocked the government from enforcing the law pending a full trial, ruling 2-1 that it was "reasonably likely" that the law violated free speech rights.

In its decision, the 3rd Circuit cited a 2000 Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that let the Boy Scouts exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a right to exclude gays based on a First Amendment right of expression, so too may law schools bar groups they consider discriminatory, the court said.

In February, the House passed a nonbinding resolution on a 327-84 vote that expressed support for the law, which also denies defense-related funding to universities that don't provide ROTC programs.

Recruiters for that program are separate from those the Pentagon sends to attract lawyers.

When the Solomon Amendment was passed in 1994, many law schools gave military recruiters limited access. Harvard allowed the military on campus but declined to volunteer its career placement staff to arrange interviews. The University of Southern California, meanwhile, allowed recruiters to interview but didn't invite them to school-sponsored job fairs off campus.

But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon began strictly enforcing the measure. In the summer of 2003, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to require equal access.

Billings Gazette ~ Associated Press ** Court to consider ban on recruiters at college campuses

New Social Security proposal exposes left-wing hypocrisy
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

At his press conference last Thursday, President Bush added a new “progressive indexing” proposal to his Social Security reform plan that not only largely resolves the program’s imminent insolvency without raising payroll taxes, but also exposes an almost unconscionable hypocrisy in the Democrats’ position on this issue.

At odds for months in this debate has been how future payments to recipients are calculated. Currently, increases are tied to annual wage gains of the workforce. However, it has been argued that if they were indexed to the growth of inflation, or “prices” -- which have typically been much lower than changes in wages -- insolvency would be largely averted.

Unfortunately as this debate has ensued, the Democrats have depicted such a change as being a cut to the benefits of future retirees. As a result, this one issue has become its own “third-rail” as the left has been successful in casting it as thoroughly verboten.

Enter President Bush last Thursday, who in a stroke of sheer genius proposed preserving this form of wage-indexing for only the poorest of Americans, while allowing for a less generous calculation for the more financially successful members of the population.

The brilliance of this strategy is multifold. First, by retaining the more favorable wage-indexing for the poorest 30% of Americans, Mr. Bush has masterfully appealed to the heart of the Democratic Party. In the most recent election, this was by far the largest voting bloc for Senator Kerry who won this demographic by a margin of 63% to Mr. Bush’s 36%.

Consequently, the most left-leaning segment of future retirees should -- assuming the press accurately depicts this proposal -- be less opposed to Social Security reform, for it no longer has any conceivable negative impact on them.

However, potentially more important, this plan would significantly reduce the value of Social Security to the 70% of Americans who are going to see their guaranteed benefits reduced, and would likely make them more interested in the creation of private accounts to make up this shortfall.

Obviously, this is what has Democrats shaking in their boots concerning this new proposal, with prominent left-wing figures making statements so absurd that anyone within earshot must look as aghast as the Aflac duck after Yogi Berra says, “And they give you cash…which is just as good as money!”

Why? Because the Democrats in their desire to preserve the status quo have now been forced to defend the financial rights of the wealthiest Americans as being equally important as those of the poor.

Let’s understand that full price-indexing -- the least generous of the future benefit calculations -- will only apply to citizens making in excess of $113,000 per year. This represents the top seven percent of wage earners.

Therefore, to counter this new proposal, the Democrats have to portray the preservation of wage-indexed Social Security benefits for the wealthiest Americans -- people they regularly depict as being rich enough to absorb a greater tax burden than they currently are -- as being just as important as maintaining such benefits for the poor.

In effect, it’s okay to take money out of this group’s pockets in the form of taxes so that the poor can pay less, but it would somehow be inappropriate to reduce their Social Security benefits so that the poor can continue to receive what has been promised to them.

(Re-enter confused looking Aflac duck!)

What makes this even more ludicrous is that this upper echelon of wage earners has the greatest access to other retirement vehicles such as IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, SEPs, Keoghs, etc. As a result, this is the group that can most afford future benefit cuts, and to suggest otherwise thoroughly undermines the Democratic Party’s long-standing position that the rich have the financial wherewithal to shoulder the highest tax burden in our land.

Which leaves the Democratic Party with only one tenable position to solve the looming Social Security insolvency problem -- raise payroll taxes. Period. They can’t support anything else, for every other option reduces the socialist element of the program.

Whether it’s changing indexing, or raising the age at which one can begin receiving distributions, future benefits are cut forcing retirement planners to utilize other investment options that inherently reduce their reliance on this government program. And, obviously, so would the implementation of private accounts.

As a result, the president with this move has backed the Democrats into an extremely uncomfortable corner that is going to be very difficult for them to navigate out of, for now 70% of the country is going to be given a very distinct choice as to which horse he/she wants to back in this race: Do you want to keep your current wage-indexed benefits and pay more in payroll taxes today and until you retire, or do you want to receive less in guaranteed distributions years from now, but not have your taxes increased immediately?

Which option will the majority of Americans support? Well, Walter Mondale found out twenty years ago that campaigning on a platform to raise taxes is not typically a winning strategy.

American Thinker ~ Noel Sheppard ** New Social Security proposal exposes left-wing hypocrisy

Google Says Yes to Liberal Attack Ads, No to Conservative Ads
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Google Says No to Conservative Ads

RightMarch.com conducted an experiment with Google ads; they took one of the anti-Tom DeLay ads that Google runs when you search for "Tom DeLay," and simply replaced DeLay’s name with Nancy Pelosi’s name. Then Rightmarch.com paid Google to place their ad—and Google rejected it.

But the anti-DeLay advertisement they copied word-for-word is still running.

Could the bias possibly be any more blatant?

UPDATE

Please note: Rightmarch.com also placed a pro-DeLay ad which is running at Google. The ad Google rejected was a copy of this anti-Delay ad:

The Truth about Tom DeLay Learn about DeLay's many scandals and help us clean up the House! dccc.org

Rightmarch.com changed the text to:

The Truth about Nancy Pelosi Learn about Pelosi's many scandals and help us clean up the House!

And Google rejected the ad for the following reason:

Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization.

Little Green Footballs ~ Nekama ** Google Says No to Conservative Ads

Hillary Downplays Felon Vote Act
Mood:  smelly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is actively campaigning for new legislation that she calls the "Count Every Vote Act," promising that the bill "will restore the integrity of our system and strengthen our democracy."

But in an e-mail pitching the measure to supporters, Mrs. Clinton makes no mention of the bill's most controversial provision - eliminating voting restrictions on ex-cons.

"The Count Every Vote Act provides for common sense reforms that will make an immediate difference," the top Democrat promises.

"This bill ensures that every electronic voting machine provides a verified paper ballot for every vote cast; sets uniform standards for provisional ballots; and requires uniform access to voting machines so residents of minority communities will not have to wait hours to cast their ballots while other precincts in the same state are voting in minutes!"

Nowhere in Sen. Clinton's missive, however, does she describe the real impact of the "Count Every Vote Act" - a provision for "felons who have repaid their debt to society" to have their voting franchise restored.

A recent study by Jeff Manza and Marcus Britton of Northwestern University and Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota found that 30 percent of felons would vote if Hillary's law was passed. That's 1.4 million new voters.

With 85 percent of felon voters statistically likely to vote Democrat, that could add up to 1.2 million votes to presidential candidate Clinton's tally in 2008.

In a close race, that's more than enough to put her over the top.

"I know the Republican Congressional majority does not want to address this issue," Hillary complains in her e-mail, signaling she knows her bill has no chance of passing.

NewsMax.com ~ Carl Limbacher ** Hillary Downplays Felon Vote Act