Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
"Error my ass" is right--they did it with Hastert too!
One key point really caught my attention in Keith Olbermann's timeline tonight. There are now reports that Republican members of Congress knew about Foley 11 years ago. That would put this in 1995. Now what other "sex scandal" has happened in Washington since then? Oh yeah - Monica Lewinsky. So the Lewinsky incident was so severe to merit a multi-million dollar investigation and the attention of both halls of Congress, yet a Republican congressman having possible illicit contact with pages under the age of 18 doesn't get any attention by the GOP? There you have it - the perfect definition of hypocrisy.
Compliments of: Crooks and Liars.com
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Christmas List
When I was home Olivia and I drew names for 2006. This will give us plenty of time to think of the perfect gift for our name. Here is the list:
Corky buys for Jana
Don ---Nick
Jan-------Susie
Jim J-----Jan
Cheryl----John
Janelle----Abby
Ali J-------Doug
Nick-------Bruce
Nancy-----Lenice
Jim P------Jenny
Susan-----Corky
Al J--------Jim J
Abby-----Don
Jeff--------Kelly
Jana-----Jim P
Doug-----Janelle
Kelly------Cheryl
John------Alison
Jay------Al J
Olivia----Nancy
Sara-----Olivia
Lenice----Jeff
Jenny-----Jay
Bruce-----Sara
Happy shopping love Jana and Olivia
Faux News
See anything wrong with this graphic? The O'Reilly Factor ran it in not one, but two segments and posted it three times. I can understand if FOX and The Factor made an error the first time, but to post it repeatedly should be a firing offense, The most watched show on FOX News has now labeled the former Republican Congressman Mark Foley, who is in the middle of a sexual predator scandal that has Hastert's career on the ropes —a Democrat. Was it an error or done by choice? I report–you decide.
By: John Amato
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
A Case for Impeachment
Elizabeth Holtzman
09.26.2006
This is my first blog on the Huffington Post and there is so much to talk about it's hard to know where to begin.
I want to start with a point I made in my new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, about why the framers of the Constitution created the impeachment power. They were afraid that.... despite the system of checks and balances, a president could subvert the constitution and threaten our democracy.
In other words, the framers anticipated George W. Bush. They knew that sooner or later someone like him--someone who tramples on the rule of law--would appear on the scene. The framers told us what to do about such a president: Impeach him.
But neither the mainstream media nor most of the Democrats in Congress want to breathe the word "impeachment," even though there are substantial grounds. Still, the power is in the hands of the American people to change control of Congress, which has failed to hold President Bush accountable, and force the new one to act. That is what we must, and can, do this November.
Two recent events provide more support for impeachment. First is the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, which shows that the Iraq war has created more terrorism than there was before the war.
Iraq was not related to the terrorism of 9/11. President Bush personally knew this. Nonetheless, he repeatedly suggested that Saddam and 9/11 were connected and most Americans believed that. It was one of the deliberate falsehoods used by President Bush and his team to drive us into the Iraq war--and it is ground for impeachment.
Now, our intelligence agencies agree that instead of ending terrorism, the Iraq war has inflamed it. This confirms that Bush's justification for the war was flat-out wrong.
Parenthetically, the situation in Afghanistan--where Osama bin Laden actually operated--seems to be deteriorating drastically, a direct consequence of the President's diversion of troops and resources to invade Iraq. President Bush might become the first American president to lose two wars at once.
In addition, yesterday, several high level generals excoriated Secretary Rumsfeld for failing to provide our troops with proper equipment and for invading Iraq without a plan for the occupation. While they are correct, these failings are not Rumsfeld's alone. President Bush is ultimately responsible. As my book details, Bush, the "decider," should have insisted on a serious and thorough plan for the occupation. He didn't. He should also have ensured proper equipment for our troops. He didn't. The consequences for our troops, for Americans, and for Iraqis have been disastrous. Particularly because there was no urgency to the invasion, which had been in planning for more than a year, these failures violate Bush's constitutional duty to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed.
Every day brings a new justification for impeachment.
09.26.2006
This is my first blog on the Huffington Post and there is so much to talk about it's hard to know where to begin.
I want to start with a point I made in my new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, about why the framers of the Constitution created the impeachment power. They were afraid that.... despite the system of checks and balances, a president could subvert the constitution and threaten our democracy.
In other words, the framers anticipated George W. Bush. They knew that sooner or later someone like him--someone who tramples on the rule of law--would appear on the scene. The framers told us what to do about such a president: Impeach him.
But neither the mainstream media nor most of the Democrats in Congress want to breathe the word "impeachment," even though there are substantial grounds. Still, the power is in the hands of the American people to change control of Congress, which has failed to hold President Bush accountable, and force the new one to act. That is what we must, and can, do this November.
Two recent events provide more support for impeachment. First is the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, which shows that the Iraq war has created more terrorism than there was before the war.
Iraq was not related to the terrorism of 9/11. President Bush personally knew this. Nonetheless, he repeatedly suggested that Saddam and 9/11 were connected and most Americans believed that. It was one of the deliberate falsehoods used by President Bush and his team to drive us into the Iraq war--and it is ground for impeachment.
Now, our intelligence agencies agree that instead of ending terrorism, the Iraq war has inflamed it. This confirms that Bush's justification for the war was flat-out wrong.
Parenthetically, the situation in Afghanistan--where Osama bin Laden actually operated--seems to be deteriorating drastically, a direct consequence of the President's diversion of troops and resources to invade Iraq. President Bush might become the first American president to lose two wars at once.
In addition, yesterday, several high level generals excoriated Secretary Rumsfeld for failing to provide our troops with proper equipment and for invading Iraq without a plan for the occupation. While they are correct, these failings are not Rumsfeld's alone. President Bush is ultimately responsible. As my book details, Bush, the "decider," should have insisted on a serious and thorough plan for the occupation. He didn't. He should also have ensured proper equipment for our troops. He didn't. The consequences for our troops, for Americans, and for Iraqis have been disastrous. Particularly because there was no urgency to the invasion, which had been in planning for more than a year, these failures violate Bush's constitutional duty to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed.
Every day brings a new justification for impeachment.
'Box Man' to pay $600 for freedom
The box stops here
S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review
By Bob Stiles
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 29, 2006
A man showed up Thursday for his preliminary hearing in Greensburg wearing a crisp dress shirt and a snappy tie -- just like his attorney wanted -- and a box on his head.
Yes, that's right: a blue-and-white cardboard carton that covered his head and.... had two eyeholes cut in it so he could see.
The antic -- call it the "box defense" -- drew quite a few second, third and fourth glances in the waiting area outside District Judge James Albert's office. Box Man had a 10:45 a.m. appointment there and a possible unveiling -- or is that "unboxing?"
"It's a first for me," Albert said, explaining that he's seen some odd things in his 16 years on the bench, but never a box-wearing defendant.
A number of Westmoreland County courthouse workers made their way to the lower levels of the building, where Albert's office is located, to get a glimpse of the unknown defendant.
"What?" one exclaimed.
"Did you see that?" said another bemused worker.
"There's a guy with a box on his head," said a third, pointing.
Others joked about whether the man would have "box head," instead of "hat head," when he took off the cardboard chapeau.
Defendants and others in the waiting room were no less curious.
Michelle Lewis, of Homer City, sat beside Box Man for much of the morning.
"It's different," she conceded.
Keith Juart, of Greensburg, did a double-take when he first saw Box Man.
"I thought he was just kidding around," Juart said. "But he kept it on. I didn't know what was going on.
"I said 'witness protection' to my sister-in-law, and my brother said, 'SpongeBob SquarePants.'"
Michael Rosenbauer, of Greensburg, assumed the man either committed a horrendous crime -- besides wearing a partly white box after Labor Day -- or planned to squeal on others.
"I thought he was either a rat or he did something bad," Rosenbauer said.
"I thought it was humorous, yeah," he said. "But all he's doing is standing out more. If he was trying not to be known, he shouldn't have the box. He should be standing in the corner somewhere."
The box also drew long looks from several police officers as they waited for their cases to be called.
Southwest Greensburg Lt. Chris Kent, Box Man's arresting officer, found some humor in it all.
"Do you and your Happy Meal want to come back here?" Kent quipped to Box Man's attorney about going to a room to discuss the case.
"In 15 years, I have not had a man in a box," Kent later conceded.
On another level, he wasn't amused.
"I just found it to be very ... ridiculous," Kent said, pausing to find the right word.
Box Man's attorney, Jeff Leonard, said he decided that wearing the box would be in his client's best interest. It literally was part of his defense, the attorney explained.
"I'm trying to think outside of the box, so to speak," the lawyer said.
Leonard explained that there was an issue about whether a witness would be able to identify his client in connection with a July theft of reel wire. The witness might see a photo lineup before his client went into the courtroom for a hearing, Leonard said, and he didn't want the witness to see Box Man's face before that.
"This was kind of a simple way to force the commonwealth to meet its burden without the defendant having to reveal his identity," Leonard said.
Box Man's case apparently did reach a conclusion. And he left the courthouse, with no comment coming from the box.
The agreement calls for Box Man, Justin Michael Kalich, 26, of Box 365, New Stanton RD1, to pay for the wire, valued at less than $600, in exchange for having theft and other charges dropped, Leonard and Kent said later.
Kalich didn't have a previous criminal record, Kent explained.
"If he had a criminal record ... then there would have been a more serious outcome," he said.
Box Man then possibly would have been in a box -- the jail kind.
Bob Stiles can be reached at bstiles@tribweb.com or (724) 836-6622.
S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review
By Bob Stiles
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 29, 2006
A man showed up Thursday for his preliminary hearing in Greensburg wearing a crisp dress shirt and a snappy tie -- just like his attorney wanted -- and a box on his head.
Yes, that's right: a blue-and-white cardboard carton that covered his head and.... had two eyeholes cut in it so he could see.
The antic -- call it the "box defense" -- drew quite a few second, third and fourth glances in the waiting area outside District Judge James Albert's office. Box Man had a 10:45 a.m. appointment there and a possible unveiling -- or is that "unboxing?"
"It's a first for me," Albert said, explaining that he's seen some odd things in his 16 years on the bench, but never a box-wearing defendant.
A number of Westmoreland County courthouse workers made their way to the lower levels of the building, where Albert's office is located, to get a glimpse of the unknown defendant.
"What?" one exclaimed.
"Did you see that?" said another bemused worker.
"There's a guy with a box on his head," said a third, pointing.
Others joked about whether the man would have "box head," instead of "hat head," when he took off the cardboard chapeau.
Defendants and others in the waiting room were no less curious.
Michelle Lewis, of Homer City, sat beside Box Man for much of the morning.
"It's different," she conceded.
Keith Juart, of Greensburg, did a double-take when he first saw Box Man.
"I thought he was just kidding around," Juart said. "But he kept it on. I didn't know what was going on.
"I said 'witness protection' to my sister-in-law, and my brother said, 'SpongeBob SquarePants.'"
Michael Rosenbauer, of Greensburg, assumed the man either committed a horrendous crime -- besides wearing a partly white box after Labor Day -- or planned to squeal on others.
"I thought he was either a rat or he did something bad," Rosenbauer said.
"I thought it was humorous, yeah," he said. "But all he's doing is standing out more. If he was trying not to be known, he shouldn't have the box. He should be standing in the corner somewhere."
The box also drew long looks from several police officers as they waited for their cases to be called.
Southwest Greensburg Lt. Chris Kent, Box Man's arresting officer, found some humor in it all.
"Do you and your Happy Meal want to come back here?" Kent quipped to Box Man's attorney about going to a room to discuss the case.
"In 15 years, I have not had a man in a box," Kent later conceded.
On another level, he wasn't amused.
"I just found it to be very ... ridiculous," Kent said, pausing to find the right word.
Box Man's attorney, Jeff Leonard, said he decided that wearing the box would be in his client's best interest. It literally was part of his defense, the attorney explained.
"I'm trying to think outside of the box, so to speak," the lawyer said.
Leonard explained that there was an issue about whether a witness would be able to identify his client in connection with a July theft of reel wire. The witness might see a photo lineup before his client went into the courtroom for a hearing, Leonard said, and he didn't want the witness to see Box Man's face before that.
"This was kind of a simple way to force the commonwealth to meet its burden without the defendant having to reveal his identity," Leonard said.
Box Man's case apparently did reach a conclusion. And he left the courthouse, with no comment coming from the box.
The agreement calls for Box Man, Justin Michael Kalich, 26, of Box 365, New Stanton RD1, to pay for the wire, valued at less than $600, in exchange for having theft and other charges dropped, Leonard and Kent said later.
Kalich didn't have a previous criminal record, Kent explained.
"If he had a criminal record ... then there would have been a more serious outcome," he said.
Box Man then possibly would have been in a box -- the jail kind.
Bob Stiles can be reached at bstiles@tribweb.com or (724) 836-6622.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Woman's 7.5 metre fingernails
A US woman who has been growing her fingernails since 1979 has made the Guiness Book of Records.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Immigrants--now and then
Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register: Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry..
Maybe we should turn to our history books and.... point out to people like Mr.Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out.
My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it mean t to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
Signed: Rosemary
Submitted by: Don Jorde
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry..
Maybe we should turn to our history books and.... point out to people like Mr.Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out.
My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it mean t to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
Signed: Rosemary
Submitted by: Don Jorde
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)