« September 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30


Kick Assiest Blog
Saturday, September 24, 2005
New Opportunity For Air America - Bumvertising
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

New Opportunity For Air America - Bumvertising

Far be it from me not to want to assist Air America in their effort to pay the bills. When Air America found that taking money from underprivileged children and the elderly wasn't enough to cover Al Franken's salary and Randi Rhode's private jet expenses, they resorted to the tried and true Liberal method, begging.

$50 Get three I'm Building Air America Radio bumper stickers.

$100 Get three I'm Building Air America Radio bumper stickers, plus the stylish tote.

$250 Get three I'm Building Air America Radio bumper stickers, the stylish AAR tote plus personal thanks on AirAmericaRadio.com.

Although I am tempted to get the three "FREE" bumper stickers for a mere $50.00 I have another suggestion.

How about Bumvertising.

To rush-hour drivers, the beggars standing mute and motionless beside Seattle highway exit ramps may be a persistent nuisance or a sign of deep social ills. But to Ben Rogovy, they were an answer.

After scrambling to create an Internet development business and engineer his own Web site for poker fans, Rogovy had lots of ideas but little cash with which to advertise them. Then, while staring at a panhandler's cardboard sign, the light bulb clicked on.

"So much traffic goes by these sign holders, I thought, 'Wouldn't it be cool if they could advertise themselves and me at the same time?'" he said.

A 22-year-old economics major who tore through the University of Washington in three years, Rogovy packed his knapsack with cash, a few peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and three professionally printed posters advertising his venture, PokerFaceBook.com. Then he hit the streets.

This is just my little donation to the cause. If we all pitch in I'm sure we can get AAR through this rough spot.

Side Note: We had homeless under Reagan, Bush. Then under Clintax the homeless disappeared then they returned under Goeorge W. Bush. So when does anything change under the usual lying journalist scum?!

Latest Arbitron radio ratings for Dead Air America in NYC (a lousy 1.0)

Posted by uhyw at 4:20 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:35 AM EDT
Hamas To Convert Synagogue to Weapons Museum
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

These fuckers really need to go to Hell.

Hamas To Convert Synagogue to Weapons Museum

WASHINGTON - Emboldened by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and part of the West Bank, Hamas yesterday announced its plan to turn a synagogue in Netzarim into a museum that would display weapons employed by the terrorist group's members against Israeli civilians.

A statement issued yesterday by Hamas said, "Qassam rockets and other locally made arms will be exposed, since it is the legal weapon that evicted the occupation forces." The Middle East Media Research Institute yesterday reported that recent sermons delivered by Hamas leaders pledged to resist efforts from the Palestinian Authority to disarm the organization ahead of upcoming elections.

The standoff between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which has claimed credit for numerous suicide bombings in Israel, could scuttle parliamentary elections in January as Israel has insisted that no armed terror groups participate in the vote. If Hamas fends off demands that it relinquish its weapons it could set a dangerous precedent in the region as Lebanon moves closer to asserting its sovereignty - and includes Hezbollah in its ruling coalition.

So far, America and its allies have accepted that there is little Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas can do to tame Hamas. On Tuesday the Quartet, a diplomatic group comprising America, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations, released a statement that envisioned the disarming of Hamas in phases and not necessarily as a precondition for its participation in parliamentary elections on January 25.

"We also agreed that ultimately those who want to be part of the political process should not engage in armed group or militia activities," the joint statement said. "For there is a fundamental contradiction between such activities and the building of a democratic state."

The inclusion of the modifier, "ultimately," could pave the way for Hamas to run candidates and join the government even if it keeps its weapons. Israeli officials have been pressing America, Europe, and the United Nations to require the Palestinian Authority to disarm Hamas and the Palestinian Arab armed terrorist organizations.

Prime Minister Sharon in his meeting with President Bush and later to journalists said that Israel would not support any Palestinian elections that included participation from an armed Hamas that advocated a terrorist platform.

"We will never agree that this terrorist organization, this armed terrorist organization, will participate in the elections," he told reporters on September 18. "I don't see how they could have elections without our help."

Secretary of State Rice suggested in an interview published this week in Time magazine that the Palestinian Authority focus on disarming Fatah-based militias for now and suggested that Hamas be dealt with later.

"I understand that there are complications with Hamas and there are questions about how capable they would be of actually insisting on disarmament of Hamas," Ms. Rice said.

Mr. Bush has not specified whether Hamas must disarm. Speaking to the Jewish Republican Coalition yesterday, he said that the Palestinian Authority was unifying its security services.

"The policy of this government is to streamline the security forces so there's only one authority with security forces, and that's the authority that campaigned based upon a peace platform," Mr. Bush said. "The policy of this government is to help entrepreneurship flourish, to help small businesses start. The Arab world needs to help right now. They need to step in and help the peaceful democratic forces within the Palestinian - within Gaza, to thwart those whose stated objective is the destruction of Israel."

NY Sun ~ Eli Lake ** Hamas To Convert Synagogue to Weapons Museum

Posted by uhyw at 4:03 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:06 AM EDT
What Hillary Told Cindy
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Libtard bias included - from The Village Voice

Cindy Sheehan keeping a vigil in Senator Bill Frist's office with another activist. >>>>>

What Hillary Told Cindy

Sheehan and company get face time with senators Clinton, Reid, Lieberman. McCain's next.

Cindy Sheehan and the other members of the Bring Them Home Now tour hit the halls of Congress on Thursday, knocking on the doors of more than a dozen legislators to demand their position on the war—including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The activists were bringing Camp Casey, named for the 24-year-old son Sheehan lost in Iraq, to Capitol Hill. The first Camp Casey was set up this summer outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

On Thursday, Sheehan sat down with Clinton and Reid, two of the highest-profile Democrats, to pose the same question she has posed to President Bush: "What noble cause are our loved ones fighting and dying for?"

"I asked them, 'Are you going to be willing to lead us out of Iraq? Because if you do, the rest of the nation will follow you,'" Sheehan said.

Neither Clinton or Reid, who both voted for the war, were willing to reverse tracks and push for a U.S. withdrawal now. Nevertheless, Sheehan reported feeling "fabulous coming out of the meeting."

"I know their offices are going to be working with us; all we have to do is keep up the pressure on them," Sheehan said, adding, "Now it's up to the people of New York to put pressure on Clinton."

New Yorkers who oppose the war might not feel so encouraged, given the hawkish stance our junior senator has taken thus far.

Asked afterward about the meeting, Clinton noted that she had met earlier in the day with about 20 moms from American Gold Star Mothers, the pro-military group that President Bush has glommed onto in an effort to deflect the criticism by Sheehan and other military families. Bush has proclaimed this Sunday National Gold Star Mothers' Day to honor America's fallen heroes—just a day after Sheehan and other military families are to speak out at Saturday's anti-war demonstration.

Clinton noted that those moms have voiced "different positions" on the war from the one held by Sheehan's group, Gold Star Families for Peace.

"It's just a painful experience because of their loss," Clinton said of her meeting with Sheehan, who was accompanied by her sister Dede and by Lynn Bradach, whose 21-year-old son, Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall, was killed clearing a minefield outside Karbala two years ago.

But Clinton added: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain."

Asked when she thought those soldiers' mission might be complete, Clinton responded: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

"I've been very critical of the president's policies and also supportive of the Iraqis who are trying to move forward and form a new government," Clinton told the Voice.

"I think it is a much more complicated situation," she continued. "I don't think it's the right time to withdraw, but we also have to stand up and send a message that we're not going to be there indefinitely. We need to tell the Sunnis that they have to do their job and that we won't be there forever. Because if you don't, then what incentive is there for them to ever participate in the political process?"

Clinton cited two key upcoming moments: October 15, when the Iraqis are slated to vote on their new constitution, and December 15, when Iraqis are expected to elect a new government.

Responding to a question of whether Sheehan and the anti-war crowd are premature in demanding an immediate withdrawal of troops now, the presidential hopeful was nothing if not diplomatic.

"No, I think they're playing a very important role," Clinton said. "This is a democracy, thank God, and people should be speaking out. It helps keep the debate flowing and creates the conditions for better decision-making, which makes for better policies, so it's very important.

"Nobody has a greater right to make that criticism," Clinton said of Sheehan and the other military families who feel betrayed by the war. "But I happen to think that fighting for freedom is a noble cause. There are lots of things wrong with how Bush did it. I believe we should have gone through with the inspection process and acted through the UN. But I believe that standing up against someone as dangerous as Saddam was a good goal."

Clinton was noncommittal when asked whether she still supports sending more troops to Iraq. "We'll see," she said, then disappeared into the Russell Senate office building.

At least Clinton was willing to hear Sheehan and the other military family members' plea. Republican representative Bill Thomas of Bakersfield, California, wouldn't let them in the door, while Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's staff told the group they would have to fill out a written form if they wanted a meeting. When told they had already called and e-mailed several times, Frist's chief of staff relented and spent about 15 minutes with the group, which included Iraq war veterans and members of Military Families Speak Out.

"She didn't take any notes, but hopefully the emotions we evoked in that meeting will say more than any notes would," said Al Zappala of Philadelphia, whose son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was killed in Baghdad last year.

Sheehan and the other members of the Bring Them Home Now tour say they won't give up until they get every member of Congress to take a stance on U.S. withdrawal.

They’ve launched a new campaign, Meet With the Mothers, to mobilize other military family members to go to every member of Congress and ask them what noble cause their loved ones are fighting and dying for. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has agreed to meet with Sheehan on Tuesday, after refusing earlier requests.

"If the politicians don't answer, there will be constituent Camp Caseys on their doorstep, just like in Crawford," vows Jonathan Read, the former chair of Park Plaza Hotels and Resorts, who helped launch the campaign after camping out in Crawford with Sheehan for three weeks.

Earlier in the day, Sheehan and several other military moms held a press conference to announce a $1 million campaign of TV commercials and print ads.

The hard-hitting TV ad was funded by donations to Gold Star Families for Peace. It features four women challenging the president for taking the country to war, including Melanie House, a former supporter of invading Iraq, whose husband, Petty Offficer John House, was killed when his helicopter was shot down earlier this year.

"How many more soldiers have to die for your mistake? My husband never got to hold his baby. What will I tell our son his father died for?" House asks in the commercial, which is set to run nationally on the Fox News Network and on CNN in Washington, D.C., over the next 12 days. The print ads were paid for by Win Without War. They feature the banner headlines, "They lied. They died," and juxtapose the faces of Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice with a full-page list in tiny fine print of the more than 1,900 American soldiers killed in Iraq. The ads are running in 14 papers, including USA Today. A two-page spread appeared in Thursday's Washington Post.

Buttonholing Joe Lieberman

On Thursday, the anti-war activists with Bring Them Home Now also succeeded in ambushing Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, who was downstairs in the Senate office building for a photo shoot.

"This is my nephew, and we really need to know from you what he died for," announced Beatriz Saldivar of Fort Worth, Texas, holding up an enlarged picture of Dennis Torres, who was killed in February when his unarmored Humvee was blown up outside of Baghdad. In her other hand, she held a photo of his pregnant fianc?e weeping over the coffin.

"My heart goes out to you and everyone who's lost somebody in the war," said the former presidential hopeful, doing his best to smile kindly.

Noting that he had traveled to Iraq three times, Lieberman said: "I have supported this war and I still do. I'm not a big fan of Bush's foreign policy and believe we could have done much more to win the support of other countries before we went in. But I do think the world is safer without Saddam Hussein."

Lieberman pointed out that in 1988, he and Senator John McCain called for the overthrow of Saddam after Iraqi troops massacred more than 100,000 Kurds and attacked Iran with chemical weapons,

"But the evidence? The whole reason we went over there?" demanded Hart Viges, a 29-year old Army specialist who filed for conscientious objector status after serving a year in Iraq. "We never found any weapons of mass destruction. The whole reason we went was a lie."

Lieberman said he thought the idea that Saddam possessed WMD's had been "overplayed" by the Bush administration and wasn't the only reason for invading in any case. Sounding very much like Bush, who defended the war again Thursday, Lieberman said: "If it doesn't end well, that country will go into a civil war and the whole Middle East will be destabilized. And the terrorists who are there now … they'll claim it as a big victory and then they'll go on to the next country."

"But you know they're only there because we're there," Viges pressed, speaking of the foreign insurgents who have flocked to Iraq since the U.S. invaded.

"I believe these people have given their lives in a cause that will make your lives and your children's lives safer," Lieberman insisted.

Saldivar wasn't having it. "My nephew will never see his daughter, who was born just 72 hours ago."

Noting that the next time Lieberman travels to Iraq, his Humvee will likely be fully armored, she demanded: "What makes your life—or Donald Rumsfeld's life—more valuable?"

To which the senator could only respond: "I'm glad you're doing it, and I respectfully disagree."

The Village Voice ~ Sarah Ferguson ** What Hillary Told Cindy

Posted by uhyw at 3:38 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 24, 2005 3:50 AM EDT
'Able Danger' Will Get Second Hearing
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Co-chairmen Thomas Kean, left, and Lee Hamilton discuss the Sept. 11 commission's report. >>>>>

'Able Danger' Will Get Second Hearing

WASHINGTON - The Defense Department on Friday reversed its earlier decision to bar key witnesses from testifying about just how much information the U.S. government had on the Sept. 11 hijackers before they led the attacks that killed 3,000 people.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has therefore scheduled a second hearing for next week on the formerly secret Pentagon intelligence unit called "Able Danger".

Former members of Able Danger say the group identified Sept. 11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, more than a year before the attacks. Although those Able Danger analysts say they told the Sept. 11 commission about their findings, former members of the panel have so far dismissed the claim.

The Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement Friday that the Pentagon now will allow five witnesses to testify. Among those are Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott and defense contractor John Smith.

Shaffer said in written testimony last week that the Pentagon blocked him from offering information on Able Danger and its identification of Atta — the lead hijacker.

9/11 Commission members Bob Kerrey, right, and James Thompson, left, attend a public hearing.

Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had suggested that the Pentagon's refusal to allow the testimony "may be an obstruction" to the committee's work. Specter is the judiciary committee chairman.

The second hearing will focus on what happened with pre-attack charts and information allegedly destroyed at the behest of military leaders.

The committee held its first hearing Wednesday, after which senators still had questions.

"I think the Department of Defense owes the American people an explanation about what went on here," Specter said. "The American people are entitled to some answers."

Shaffer's attorney, Mark Zaid, also said that the Pentagon prevented testimony from a defense contractor that he also represents.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department had a representative at the hearing and that it had provided sufficient information to committee members.

"I think there are aspects of this as a classified program that we have expressed some concerns with respect to the appropriateness of some things in an open hearing," Whitman told reporters after the first hearing on Wednesday. "We are working very closely to provide all the information that [committee members] need to assess Able Danger."

Zaid fielded questions from committee members on behalf of Shaffer and contractor Smith. He testified that Able Danger, using data mining techniques, identified four of the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

Zaid said Shaffer would have testified about charts his team created dealing with Al Qaeda and a grainy photo on file of Atta.

"Shaffer remembers it specifically because of the evil death look in Mohamad Atta's eyes," Zaid said.

Pentagon officials had acknowledged earlier this month that they had found three people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Specter asked the official representing the Department of Defense at the hearing, William Dugan, the acting assistant to the secretary for intelligence oversight, if the department had any information about an Al Qaeda cell and Atta.

"I don't know," Dugan replied.

Specter asked Dugan to "find out the answers to those questions" relating to what the department knew about the workings of Able Danger.

Able Danger personnel have said they tried to give the FBI information three times, but Defense Department attorneys refused, citing legal concerns about investigations run by the military on U.S. soil, Zaid said.

Former Army Major Eric Klein Smith also testified that he was instructed to destroy data and documents related to Able Danger in May and June of 2000, in accordance with Army regulations that limited the collection and holding of information of U.S. persons.

Klein Smith said the order to destroy data was not hostile or aggressive, it was a matter of policy. Asked if this information could have prevented Sept. 11, the major said he could not speculate, but believed it would have been significant and useful.

Klein Smith said that he did not remember seeing a picture of Atta, but said he believed "implicitly" claims by Shaffer and Phillpott that they had seen Atta's picture.

Zaid told committee members that some of the secret unit's records were also destroyed in March 2001 and spring 2004.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., was the first lawmaker to come forward with claims that the Sept. 11 commission that investigated pre-attack intelligence failed to accept offers from Able Danger staff about the data it had before the attacks.

Weldon said their refusal to hear from Able Danger's members makes the government record of intelligence incomplete.

Fox News - Catherine Herridge and Trish Turner ~ Associated Press ** 'Able Danger' Will Get Second Hearing

Posted by uhyw at 1:55 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 24, 2005 3:53 AM EDT
Afghanistan Election Not to Be Ignored... 6.5 million voted, 53% of the electorate
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

An Election Not to Be Ignored
Continuing progress in Afghanistan.

*
Democracy took another important step forward earlier this week, though you might not have heard about it through the hurricane coverage and the Supreme Court hearings. Afghanistan held its first legitimate parliamentary election since 1969. About six and a half million people, 53 percent of the electorate, turned out to vote for candidates for the 249-seat Wolesi Jirga (People's Council, the lower house of the national assembly, the equivalent of our House of Representatives) and for 34 provincial councils. The election came off with comparatively little violence — 19 attacks leaving nine dead, including the first French soldier to die in the country.

Given the size of the country and the low-tech voting system, the results will not be known for several weeks. It is difficult to make predictions because political parties were banned and all 5,800 candidates ran as individuals. There were some reports of irregularities, but a six-member European Union observer team said that the election was free, fair, and transparent. The best news was the women’s vote: 44 percent of registered voters were women, and turnout was high even in former centers of Taliban influence such as Khandahar. 582 female candidates competed for the 68 Wolesi Jirga seats that have been reserved for women.

Naturally, the hard-core oppositionists opposed the election. The Taliban, who vowed not to mount attacks on election day in order to spare innocent lives, nevertheless said the election was not lawful, and any laws passed by the assembly would be illegitimate. They threatened all the elected representatives with violence, and said even losing candidates "would not be safe from [their] bullets." Al Qaeda's number two man Ayman al Zawahiri released a tape calling the election a "fraud," and making similar threats.

However, not all the radicals agreed. This election was noteworthy for the participation of many former Taliban, under the conditions of a general amnesty President Hamid Karzai announced last spring, part of a general national reconciliation program. The amnesty extended even to Mullah Omar, who as one might expect rejected it. Since then Karzai has denied he even made the offer, and the United States still has a $10 million bounty on Omar's head.

The purpose of the amnesty was to bring more Pushtuns — the traditional Taliban base — into the political process, and to divide the opposition. The plan has been effective, but it has also demonstrated that one must develop a tolerance for ambiguity in democratic politics in the developing world. Some people running for office were until recently prime candidates for a vacation at Gitmo. Take for example, Abdul Salam, a.k.a. Commander Rocketi, so named for his skill with the RPG-7 rocket launcher. He used to command Taliban forces in Jalalabad, was in custody for eight months, and now says he wants to bring unity and peace to his country.

More troubling is the candidacy of Maulavi Qalamudin, former head of the Taliban's religious police. Qalamudin's ministry enforced the lifestyle strictures of the Taliban utopia, and he oversaw the systematic application of intimidation, torture, stonings, and other atrocities against Afghans who did not show sufficient ardor in pursuit of the regime's religious ideals. President Karzai released Qalamudin from prison in 2004, and the former Taliban minister is now a strong presidential supporter. He has even reconciled himself to the presence of Coalition forces in the county, saying that they are the only means of staving off civil war.

The Taliban still in the field are not sanguine about their former comrades "selling out" to the regime, which is of course the point of the program. The diehards will never reconcile with the system, they will fight it to the end. But if you ban everyone from the former regime from participating in the political process, those who might make peace are forced into the ranks of the irreconcilables. We have seen similar reconciliation processes in post-Junta Argentina, and post-Apartheid South Africa, where retribution was discarded in favor of compromise and stability. We saw it at home as well — many U.S. politicians from the south in the late 19th century had borne arms against the federal government in their youth.

Perhaps there are limits when dealing with people like Qalamudin, who still points with pride to some of the actions he took as the Taliban's chief inquisitioner. However, allowing him to run was a choice made by the legitimately constituted authority in the country, and something we will have to live with. I hope few voters in Longar Province wanted a return to Qalamudin's "tough love" approach and he will remain a private citizen. I think the Afghan people have outgrown the stage where they want to get stoned.

National Review Online ~ James S. Robbins ** An Election Not to Be Ignored

Posted by uhyw at 1:27 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:59 AM EDT
Jimmy Carter: Gore beat Bush in 2000
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Right peanut-brain ... and you beat Reagan in a landslide.

This is the same libtard that rubber-stamped Chavez's election down south.

It's official, dementia has set in.

Jimmy Carter: Gore beat Bush in 2000

Says 'no doubt' Al won, 'country failed abysmally' in election process

Five years after the controversial 2000 presidential election, ex-President Jimmy Carter now says he's certain Al Gore defeated George W. Bush.

"Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process," Carter told a panel Monday at American University in Washington, D.C. "There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president."

Those in attendance broke out in applause for that statement.

"[Gore] received the most votes nationwide, and in my opinion, he also received the most votes in Florida," Carter continued. "And the decision was made as you know by a 5-4 vote on a highly partisan basis by the U.S. Supreme Court, so I would say in 2000, there was a failure."

The year 2000 saw the closest presidential election in American history, as Bush won the electoral vote 271-266, despite losing the popular vote to Gore by a half-million votes.

Carter's analysis went on to include last year's matchup between Bush and Democrat Sen. John Kerry, as the election came down to a battle over the electoral votes in Ohio.

"The year 2004 is hard to grade," said Carter. "I don't have any detailed information about what actually went on in Ohio. If Ohio had gone one way or the other, it would have changed the outcome of the election. And the only thing that I know about Ohio, was that there's general consensus that the secretary of state of Ohio, who is responsible for the administration of the election, was highly partisan in his public approach and perhaps even in his private adminstration. But I don't know about that."

Carter's remarks are sparking discussion on messageboards across the Internet, with comments including:

♠ "Well duh! I'm just glad someone finally said it out loud, and that it was someone prominent (former president, Nobel Peace Prize winner). ... I wonder if this will make it to mainstream media?"

♠ "Carter for president. Just what America needs right now to restore some semblance of dignity to the presidency. I believe if he ran he would actually win. There is a tremendous undercurrent of sentiment for change in America and the populace will speak loud and clearly in '08 if given a choice such as Carter."

♠ "At last, proof that Jimmeh Cahtuh is a delusional fool and need not be taken seriously ever again."

♠ "All 67 Florida counties recounted – the law under Florida's Constitution – just not multiple times so Democrat election workers and their army of lawyers and press accomplices could not eat enough chads, create enough votes, spin enough lies, call the election early enough in the Panhandle, rally enough protestors behind Jesse Jackson, disenfranchise enough absentee military ballots to steal the election. Florida voters were so 'outraged' by Election 2000, they elected Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and sent Bob Butterworth, Al Gore's Florida 2000 campaign manager packing, in 2002."

♠ "I am a liberal. That said, Gore lost! He got his a-- kicked. How do I know? Because Bush is the one sitting in the White House. ... [Gore] may have won the count, but when it came to the real fight, he turned around, bent over, and said, 'Give it to me.' Such is the way of the modern Democrat. ... [Ted Kennedy] and [Bill] Clinton were the last real Democrats. And, yes, Clinton was a real Democrat. Not a crazy, hippie-type, but a real working man's man. And he loved a good [expletive] from a stupid young intern. Those were the days."

An audio excerpt of Jimmy Carter's remarks is available here.

A full transcript of Jimmy Carter's remarks is available here.


World Net Daily ~ Joe Kovacs ** Jimmy Carter: Gore beat Bush in 2000

Posted by uhyw at 1:02 AM EDT
Friday, September 23, 2005
TV Weatherman quits to pursue hurricane 'conspiracy theory'
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Scott Stevens, former meteorologist at News Channel 6, gets blown around by the weather one stormy afternoon. >>>>>

Forecaster leaves job to pursue weather theories

POCATELLO - To the rest of the country, Scott Stevens is the Idaho weatherman who blames the Japanese Mafia for Hurricane Katrina. To folks in Pocatello, he's the face of the weather at KPVI News Channel 6.

The Pocatello native made his final Channel 6 forecast Thursday night, leaving a job he's held for nine years in order to pursue his weather theories on a full-time basis.

"I'm going to miss that broadcast, but I'm not going to miss not getting home until 11 p.m.," Stevens said. "I just don't have the hours of the day to take care of my research and getting those (broadcasts) out and devoting the necessary research to the station."

It was Stevens' decision to leave the TV station, said KPVI general manager Bill Fouch.

"When Scott signed his current contract, he told Brenda and me at the time that it would be his last contract," Fouch said Thursday. "We knew, but the timetable moved up because of all the attention (he's been getting.)"

Since Katrina, Stevens has been in newspapers across the country where he was quoted in an Associated Press story as saying the Yakuza Mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. He was a guest on Coast to Coast, a late night radio show that conducts call-in discussions on everything from bizarre weather patterns to alien abductions. On Wednesday, Stevens was interviewed by Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly.

Stevens said he received 30 requests to do radio interviews on Thursday alone.

Fouch said Stevens wanted to leave as quickly as possible because his "plate is full," and he needs to take advantage of the opportunities that exist now.

Stevens said he's received offers that he's not at liberty to discuss.

Stevens, 39, who was born in Twin Falls, plans to remain in Pocatello, where his family remains. He said his family wishes him the best in his future endeavors.

It costs him hundreds of dollars each month to run his Web site, weatherwars.info, but he said that's a price he's willing to pay.

"There's a chess game going on in the sky," Stevens said. "It affects each and every one of us. It is the one common thread that binds us all together."

Although the theories espoused by Stevens - scalar weapons, global dimming - are definitely on the scientific fringe today, there are thousands of Web sites that mention such phenomena.

"The Soviets boasted of their geoengineering capabilities; these impressive accomplishments must be taken at face value simply because we are observing weather events that simply have never occurred before, never!" Stevens wrote on his Web site. "The evidence of these weapons at work found within the clouds overhead is simply unmistakable. These patterns and odd geometric shapes seen in our skies, each and every day, are clear and present evidence that our weather has been stolen from us, only to be used by those whose designs for humanity are rarely in alignment with that of the common man."

However, Stevens never discussed his weather theories on the air during his time at Channel 6 - an agreement he had with the station management. What the meteorologist chose to do in his off time was his business, said his manager of eight years.

Fouch said he would miss Stevens, whom he described as energetic, easy-going and enthusiastic about the weather, but he is supportive of his decision to pursue his passion.

"His theories are his theories," Fouch said. "But, if you think about it - of all the TV weather people, he continues to be the most accurate. It isn't his theories getting involved with his professional job."

For Stevens, however, the recent attention to his theories has been somewhat of a distraction from work.

"When there has been so much attention, it gets in the way of them doing their jobs and me doing my job," Stevens said.

Find out more:

To learn more about Stevens and his thoughts on manipulated weather, check out his Web site at Weather Wars.info, or read the story that Journal City Editor Greg McReynolds wrote about Stevens in March.

Pocatello Idaho State Journal ~ Jana Peterson and John O'Connell ** Forecaster leaves job to pursue weather theories

Posted by uhyw at 8:59 PM EDT
Hillary Clinton announces she'll vote 'NO' on Roberts
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Hillary Clintax bitched that Roberts wasn't "forth-right" in the hearings.

This, from the same libtard that employed variations of the phrase "Sorry, I don't recall that" about 130 times when before the Federal Grand Jury during the Whitewater Investigation.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.

It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.


Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

Drudge Report Exclusive ** Hillary Clinton announces she'll vote 'NO' on Roberts

Posted by uhyw at 8:24 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:40 PM EDT
Half of Katrina Refugees Have Records
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Half Katrina Refugees Have Records

MIDDLETOWN, R.I. — After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, federal officials flew Brian Murph and more than 100 other victims to Rhode Island. They were greeted by the governor and cheered by residents.

Then the handcuffs were placed on Murph.

State police did criminal background checks on every refugee and found that more than half had a criminal arrest records — a third for felonies. Murph was the only one with an outstanding arrest warrant, for larceny and other crimes.

Around the nation, state and local authorities are checking refugees' pasts as they are welcomed into homes, schools, houses of worship and housing projects. In some states, half the refugees have rap sheets.

"It's a balancing act," said Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. "We don't want to treat them like criminals after they have been traumatized, but we want to make sure they are in no danger nor the families they are housed with."

Civil libertarians call the checks thinly veiled race and class discrimination against people who have suffered already. The checks are made on those evacuated or forced to seek help from charities or others — in other words, people who are often black and poor.

"I think it's happening partly because who these people are and where they came from," said Steve Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU. "The mere fact that people have past criminal records in and of itself doesn't say anything about harm to the community."

Some state and local governments screened just those refugees evacuated by the federal government. Others screened anyone placed in private homes — and screened the hosts as well.

In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief.

While most had been law-abiding for years or had committed minor offenses, the group included those convicted of rape or aggravated assault. Two had warrants, but were not held because the states weren't interested in extraditing them.

"This was all done for everyone's protection," Stewart said. "If you're going to be sheltering people, it would be prudent for people taking them in to know what criminal pasts they might have."

The state police in West Virginia said roughly half of the nearly 350 Katrina victims evacuated by the government to that state had criminal records, and 22 percent have a history of committing a violent crime.

In Massachusetts, where about 200 evacuees were flown to a military base on Cape Cod, criminal background checks turned up six sex offenders and one man wanted for rape in Louisiana. Two of the sex offenders have since left the state, said Katie Ford, a spokeswoman for the state public safety office. The rape suspect was being held on $250,000 bail.

In Tennessee, police checked every federal evacuee flown to Knoxville and found outstanding warrants for two people in Louisiana — but Louisiana did not want to extradite them.

In Texas, with more than 300,000 refugees, local officials have run 20,000 criminal background checks on evacuees, as well as the relief workers helping them and people who have opened up their homes.

Most of the checks have found little for police to be concerned about. Philadelphia police found no criminals as of the middle of last week, even though the local ACLU branch objected to the checks themselves.

Several states with thousands of refugees aren't checking criminal backgrounds at all. Missouri has no formal effort to check its 6,000 refugees. Neither has California, which reported about 3,800 refugees earlier this month, or Maryland, Minnesota and Michigan, which together took in several thousand evacuees.

In Middletown, a community just north of Newport, several evacuees shrugged at the prospect of background checks and said they understood the state's desire to learn more about them.

"I would like to know if there's any skeletons in the closet with my neighbors or the community," said one refugee, 38-year-old Carmen Williams.

Fox News.com ~ Associated Press ** Half Katrina Refugees Have Records

Posted by uhyw at 8:12 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:36 PM EDT
Feds probe magazine circulations; TIME INC. hit with subpoena
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

If Time Magazine were fair and balanced >>>>>

Time Inc. subpoenaed on circulation practices

NEW YORK - The U.S. Attorney's Office in New York asked for information from Time Inc. on so-called sponsored sales programs, such as courtesy copies of magazines given to doctors' offices or promotional copies for other uses, a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

A spokeswoman for Time Inc., which publishes 155 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated and People, said the company was subpoenaed for information on its circulation practices but could not specify the scope or the direction of the federal prosecutor's investigation.

She added that Time Inc., a unit of Time Warner Inc., was cooperating fully with federal prosecutors.

It was not immediately clear whether Time Inc. was a witness or target of the investigation or whether other publishers had received subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn was not immediately available for comment.

The source said that sponsored sales programs account for about 5 percent of Time Inc.'s rate base, or circulation guaranteed to advertisers. The source also noted that some of the company's magazines have no sponsored sales programs at all.

Under circulation rules, sponsored sales programs must be specified as such within its stated rate base.

Several publishers were found to have overstated their circulation figures. These include Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News, Hollinger International Inc.'s Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune Co.'s Newsday from Long Island.

Yahoo News ~ Reuters ** Time Inc. subpoenaed on circulation practices

Posted by uhyw at 8:00 PM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older