Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Abu Beacon]

GET THE PARTISAN POLITICS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!

Get all the incompetents OUT!

Which starts with the REPUBLICAN PARTY!

GET THEIR DIRTY HANDS OFF OUR GOVERNMENT!

OR accept the alternative, that OUR REPUBLIC is nothing more than a great, big joke!

And OUR democracy is as well!

The following post was copied from a thread posted by Paulie.

It covers the situation so well I decided to just paste it on this thread.

It invoves calling your two senators and expressing your opinion concerning this latest sneaky move by the majority party to go completely against a Senate tradition of many years and could further entrench the Neo Cons in power even though it is against the best interest of America.

I am also going to post this on the thread " President Bush Vs. The Holy Bible. " because it is so important.

A.B.

Apr 1 2005, 12:01 PM Post #1


Advanced Member Paulie


Group: Moderator
Posts: 701
Joined: 6-November 04
Member No.: 806



The US Senate is contemplating changing the Senate rules to eliminate the right to FILIBUSTER judicial nominees. That means only a simple vote of 51 would force a vote on a nominee and to approve the nominee. This means the President and the GOP can appoint, for a lifetime, any judicial nominee, no matter how radical and unqualified they may be. One pending nominee is William Haynes II; he is currently the Pentagon chief counsel and the architect of the administration's torture policy at Aubo Ghraib and Guantamamo Bay.

Four Republican Senators have already broken ranks and have come out against the rules change. That means that the fate of the "Right to filibuster" rests on 1 Republican vote.

This country needs your help. Write to your Republican Senator and tell them you do not think the way the Senate has been conducting business for the past 200 years should be changed and tell them why.

Many of you have written that we need to keep working, moving forward and fighting for our deals, values and vision of what America is, and can become. This is your chance to make a difference.

Write or call your Republican Senators. Thank You

[Livyjr]

And speaking of the weather, am I going to get washed away this weekend?

"East Coast on weekend flood watch - Areas from Alabama to Massachusetts to get drenched"

NBC News and news services

Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET April 1, 2005

The East Coast from Alabama to Massachusetts was told to be prepared for possible severe flooding through the weekend as storms make their way north from the south.

Thunderstorms packing winds of more than 60 mph were expected through much of the Gulf Coast and parts of the Southeast on Friday.

The most severe weather was expected in the Deep South states and the Florida Panhandle.

By Saturday, parts of New York, Massachusetts and western Pennsylvania could see two to five inches of rain.

On Thursday, heavy rain produced flash flooding or river flooding in Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas and Florida Panhandle.

Alabaster, Ala., reported nearly 3 inches of rain by midday.

Along the West Coast, a cold front Friday could bring up to 10 inches of snow in the Cascades and Olympic mountains in the Pacific Northwest.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

The old ways?

What old ways?

The "old ways" are the same "ways" that we still have today, BECAUSE NOTHING DOWN THERE IN WASHINGTON, D$C$ has changed ONE WHIT!

Nothing!

George W. Bush and the FABULOUS BUSH CO.'s, who can "spin" more lies per hour than the universe has atoms in it, are still in power, and there is now no disincentive for them to stop lying, SINCE the lies bought them another FOUR YEARS in power here in OUR America, and that is a fact!

And another "fact" is that Donald Rumsfeld is still in charge of the Defense Department, and the ANTINOMIAN PRIME, the Bush Co. himself, is still in charge of the CIA, through a political minion, of course, and so ......

WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE GUTLESS WONDERS DOWN THERE IN WASHINGTON, D$C$, TALKING ABOUT, this alleged "return to the old ways"?

The "OLD WAYS" is all we have had now since 2000, and why should we expect change now?

After all, the REPUBLICANS, who have brought us "THESE OLD WAYS", are now gearing up to grab yet more power, even absolute power, here in OUR America, SO WHY WOULD THEY DISMANTLE THEIR MACHINE NOW?

It makes no sense!

And who is going to make them do so?

The REPUBLICANS in Congress?

Yeah, right!

Give me a break, please!

I just read something about where George W. Bush got a new dog, and he is said to have named that dog "John McCain", because he can only get the dog to "roll over" some of the time, but he expects, with further training, that the dog, perhaps like its alleged "namesake", will soon "roll over" on command, and that about sums up the matter of "change" coming out of WASHINGTON, D$C$, for me!

Yeah, right! 

And speaking of the OLD WAYS, and the BASE, and the ANTINOMIAN PRIME, himself:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Schiavo case will shape political debate - Did GOP mobilize its conservative base or overreach?"

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank

Updated: 10:34 p.m. ET March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo is dead, but the passions stirred by the fight over her life will shape the political debate for a long time to come.

Republicans say the Schiavo case has mobilized their conservative base for the struggles over judicial nominations and a likely Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

In defeat, they hope to make Schiavo's death into a rallying point for a broader "culture of life" movement to secure judges and a justice who would restrict abortions.

Democrats, backed by public opinion polls, say the conservatives overreached and that the GOP now appears to be a captive of the religious right.

They say the Schiavo dispute, on top of struggles over stem cell research and gay rights, will cause a backlash by moderate Americans.

The diverging interpretations reflect larger electoral strategies by both parties.

Democrats, following a traditional approach, believe they can return to power by staking out ground as the party of the center.

Republicans, using a strategy employed successfully by President Bush in the 2004 elections, believe the key is not in appealing to the middle but in motivating its active conservative base.

The battle over Schiavo's symbolism has already begun.

Tony Perkins, president of the Christian policy group Family Research Council, issued a statement after Schiavo's death blaming the judiciary (even though it was mostly conservative judges who rejected the intervention by Bush and Congress.)

"This is a tragic and unfortunate event that should awaken Americans to the problems in our court system," he said.

"As many in the nation mourn the passing of Terri Schiavo, we should remember that her death is a symptom of a greater problem:

that the courts no longer respect human life."

‘Political crack-up’

By contrast, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in an article published around the time of Schiavo's death, said Republicans are undergoing a "political crackup" as damaging as the Massachusetts decision to condone same-sex marriage was for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

"The Bush administration doesn't have a faith-based initiative; it is a faith-based initiative," he wrote in Salon.

The most direct consequence of the Schiavo affair is likely to be a push for federal and state legislation; lawmakers in both parties have proposed laws that would make it more difficult to remove life support in cases where the patients' wishes are disputed.

The Senate health committee and House Government Reform Committee, among others, will examine parts of the issue.

But experts say changes are largely unnecessary.

In the three decades since the Karen Ann Quinlan case, there have been only a few big legal battles over the "right to die."

Alan Meisel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said only one case in several thousand winds up in litigation -- hardly a legal crisis.

"Schiavo is the exception that proves the rule: We haven't had a lot of agonizing cases," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer.

Beyond its direct impact, the Schiavo dispute is likely to color all sorts of policy debates, and, depending on how those turn out, could be part of the theme in next year's midterm elections.

Conservatives have begun to tie the case to their larger effort to win judges opposed to abortion.

"It is entirely possible that in her death Terri Schiavo will become a symbol for many people about a disturbing trend in American culture," said Gary Bauer, a prominent conservative activist.

Predicting a donnybrook over the eventual Supreme Court nominee, he said the Schiavo case "will make more acute the feeling at the grass roots that too many of the most important decisions are being made by unelected judges."

It is, of course, difficult to argue that the Schiavo case would have turned out differently if more of Bush's conservative judicial nominees had been confirmed.

Conservative judges were at least as likely as liberals to oppose federal intervention.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, rejected the Schiavo appeal, and William H. Pryor Jr., whom Bush has seated temporarily on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in hopes of winning his confirmation to that court, did not dissent publicly from the decision not to hear the case.

Key opinions relevant to the case were written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Founding Fathers' blueprint’

It was, in fact, an appellate judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush who wrote a ruling Wednesday criticizing the president and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

But conservatives say this will not prevent them from linking the Schiavo case to others.

"Although the form of this issue was assisted suicide, it has a lot more relevance for abortion," said Jeff Bell, a Republican operative.

"State-sanctioned private killing is what this is about." Bell said he was not concerned about public opinion, because "it's very clear the intensity is on the side of the people who thought this was an abomination."

Democrats, at first ambivalent on the issue and relatively quiet as the controversy played out, have been buoyed by polls such as one by CBS News last week finding that 82 percent opposed Bush and Congress involving themselves in the matter.

Three-quarters thought Congress got involved because of politics over principle, which could account for the 34 percent approval rating for Congress -- its lowest since 1997.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the dispute has put some of the party's more extreme characters, such as antiabortion activist Randall Terry, into prominent roles.

"The other side has overplayed its hand and taken a beating," said Democratic strategist Jim Jordan.

Some Republicans and conservatives have expressed worry that this may be true.

In an op-ed in the New York Times this week, former Republican senator John C. Danforth cited the Schiavo case as evidence that "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, usually supportive of Bush, called the federal intervention "a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers."

But Republicans and Democrats of all stripes are likely to return to party lines when the subject shifts to judicial nominations.

And that suggests the fight could be even nastier than the Schiavo affair.

[Livyjr]

This Book of Revelation contains an account of visions, in symbolic and allegorical language, borrowed in part from the Old Testament, ESPECIALLY Ezekiel, Zechariah, and the apocalyptic Book of Daniel!

WHETHER these visions were real experiences of the author, OR simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question, THE SOLUTION OF WHICH in no way adds to, or detracts from, the divine inspiration of the book!

Well, Mr. A.B.!

It seems that I can no longer post to your "Religion and Politics" thread on "George W. Bush v. Holy Bible"!

No idea why.

No messages, just a lock-out message from the management!

How about that?

[Livyjr]

In 1983, I found myself confronted, up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, with a "situation" involving the apparent giving and receiving of "consideration" by various public and private individuals that was going to have what I would call a "deleterious" affect on my own health and well-being as a human being down here on this earth of OURS, and so, I decided that I was not going to do what is "comfortable", or "socially acceptable", or even "smart", at least up here, which is really the equivalent, to me, at least, of going down into your own celler, as far into it as you can get, and hiding, and not saying one single word about "WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR IS DOING"!

To the contrary, I decided that I was going to stand fast, and challenge this "situation", come what may!

And "come what may" did in fact come ........

In a just-released March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, with grave consequences to the common citizen in the Northern District of New York who must have the certification of an expert witness in order to file certain Petitions for Redress of Grievance in the Courts of the State of New York, where negligence or malfeasance by the state or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, a recently-appointed Federal District Court Judge has refused to grant injunctive relief to the Plaintiff therein, a New York State licensed professional engineer and certified associate public health engineer, that would have given him protection of law in the State of New York while giving testimony in court ON BEHALF OF the citizens of the State of New York, against the State of New York, or one of its political subdivisions.

The issue before the Court in that matter, Case No. 1:03-CV-753, Matter of Plante, P.E. v. State of New York et al., requiring injunctive relief from the Federal District Court is a retaliatory practice in the Northern District of New York employed against an expert witness against the State of New York, BY THE STATE, where it simply removes the expert witness, as a witness against itself, by the expedient of having one of its doctors issue a signed declaration, SIGHT UNSEEN, that the witness in fact is an alleged dangerous mental patient who requires immediate incarceration in a secure mental health facility in the State of New York!

That order, known as a "9.45", then goes to the New York State Police, who capture the person, the intended victim, as it were, and take him to a designated secure mental health facility, for incarceration!

The "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN", it is called, and it is illegal, in that a doctor in the State of New York, BY FEDERAL and STATE LAW, both, cannot issue one of these orders IF he has never even seen the person, let alone examined him or her in person, as happened in this just-dismissed case involving this expert witness on behalf of the people of the State of New York, where the state's doctor issued a fraudulent "9.45" order for this expert witness, SIGHT UNSEEN, just days before this expert witness was going to file an affidavit on behalf of the citizens of Rensselaer County documenting continuing corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health having an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and well-being in the Town of Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York!

In this case at bar, which was dismissed Sua Sponte by Bush-appointee Hon. Gary L. Sharpe on March 31, 2005, an illegal "9.45" order was issued against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2001, to intimidate and deter the Plaintiff from giving further evidence of corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health in a court of law!

Before the Federal District Court in support of a Motion for Injunctive Relief against the State of New York, the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill in this matter was a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Patrick J. McGrath, wherein Justice McGrath, the chief criminal court judge in the County of Rensselaer, informed Federal Court Justice Sharpe that he, McGrath, had reviewed the evidence in the case as Rensselaer County's chief criminal court justice, and that he was concerned because that evidence supported a conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes, in addition to the civil charges contained in the Complaint in the matter.

Among the evidence which Judge McGrath relied upon in forming his conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes was a graphic video tape wherein one of the defendants can be seen physically assaulting and threatening the Plaintiff, and causing him bodily harm, to deter him from performing the duties of a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and a March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is at the very heart of this matter of OUR right to dissent, and to petition for redress of grievance, which apparently has just been stripped from us common citizens in the Northern District of New York by Bush-appointee Sharpe on March 31, 2005.

In that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded:

"According to [name deleted], the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to [name deleted], the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

It was that last statement by this F.B.I. Special Agent in March of 1989 that set in motion the very chain of causality which has brought us up to this present moment in time in the Northern District of New York, where this Sua Sponte Dismissal of this Federal Civil Rights lawsuit and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief by Federal District Court on March 31, 2005, now seriously jeopardizes the rights of all citizens in the Northern District of New York by removing from them the services of the licensed professional engineer whose expert witness testimony they would need to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the State of New York alleging a continuation of this same negligence by the State of New York and Rensselaer County Department of Health to this day.

In the State of New York, for a common citizen to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the state, where negligence by the state, or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, it is necessary to have expert witness testimony which supports the claim, otherwise the petition will be dismissed as frivolous, which can then result in sanctions being issued by the court.

By intimidating those few licensed engineers in the State of New York who are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in court against the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, through this illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", the State of New York has effectively muzzled each and every one of us common citizens here in the Northern District of New York, since without this expert witness testimony, we are simply OUT OF COURT, forever, with no way back in, and the government corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York that was outlined in that series of F.B.I Reports annexed to the now-dismissed Motion for Injunctive Relief can now flourish with impunity!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

[Livyjr]

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit:

"KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

For those who may be interested, I have started a new thread on this above subject over in the "JUDICIAL" section, where I intend to further dissect this case, in order to demonstrate more clearly its ramifications to some of us, anyway, who are concerned with what are known as "TORTS" committed against us by others, such as unscrupulous land developers, acting in concert with what is supposed to be OUR government, but in fact, as is clear, at least to those of us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE, from the evidence in this case, IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL, but instead is just a perversion of the word, which is what EMPIRE STATE politics are really all about - "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG", and consequences to the common man and woman BE DAMNED!

Which brings me directly to this next story, as follows:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"DeLay wants panel to review role of courts - Democrats criticize his attack on judges"

By Mike Allen

Updated: 2:23 p.m. ET April 2, 2005

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), under fire from Democrats for what they consider threatening remarks about federal judges, plans to ask the Judiciary Committee to undertake a broad review of the courts' handing of the Terri Schiavo case, his office said yesterday.

DeLay's office did not specify exactly what the majority leader wants the committee to do.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the areas of authority for federal courts, but it was unclear what could be done by the committee in response to the Schiavo case, in particular.

The majority leader said Thursday he wants to examine what he called the "failure" of state and federal courts to protect Schiavo, who died 13 days after the court-ordered withdrawal of her feeding tube.

Threat to judges?

DeLay issued a statement asserting that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

He later said in front of television cameras that he wants to "look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

Democrats continued to criticize DeLay yesterday, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) charging that the Republican might have broken a federal statute against threatening U.S. judges.

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress," Lautenberg wrote.

"Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

DeLay's comments reflected the frustration and anger that some conservatives say they felt when no judge or justice was willing to act in response to congressional legislation, which President Bush flew home from Texas to sign last week, calling on the federal courts to review the case, which has been handled by Florida courts.

'Questions need to be answered'

The Senate confirmed about 200 of Bush's judicial nominees during the past four years, and most of them were considered to be conservative.

Nonetheless, DeLay and many other conservatives say they feel betrayed by the courts in the Schiavo case.

DeLay told Fox News interviewer Brit Hume on Thursday that there are "a lot of questions that need to be answered."

"We need to look at this case," DeLay continued.

"We need to look at the failure of the judiciary in Florida."

"We need to look at the failure of the judiciary on the federal level."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Thursday that "at a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone."

Dan Allen, DeLay's communications director, said that DeLay was "once again expressing his disappointment in how the courts clearly ignored the intent of the legislation that was passed."

[Livyjr]

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"DeLay wants panel to review role of courts - Democrats criticize his attack on judges"

By Mike Allen

Updated: 2:23 p.m. ET April 2, 2005

Threat to judges?

DeLay issued a statement asserting that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

He later said in front of television cameras that he wants to "look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

Democrats continued to criticize DeLay yesterday, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) charging that the Republican might have broken a federal statute against threatening U.S. judges.

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress," Lautenberg wrote.

"Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

And just WHO is really "OUT-OF-CONTROL", here in OUR America, and exactly WHAT is a "conservative judge"?

For answers as to the first prong of that question, which then leads us over to the second prong, I went back into VOLUME I of Life in OUR America for this following article which concerns itself with the QUINTESSENTIALLY ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED REPUBLICAN, himself, none other than TOMMY DELAY, himself:

November 18, 2004

"House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief" By CARL HULSE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted.

The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote.

Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats.

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay.

"Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future."

"And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change.

But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader.

The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002.

Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip.

"They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said:

"With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies."

"It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside.

The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said.

"It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser.

Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan.

"Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said.

"I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation.

But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry.

"When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress.

Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005.

House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part.

In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

[Abu Beacon]

!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

For those who may be interested, I have started a new thread on this above subject over in the "JUDICIAL" section, where I intend to further dissect this case, in order to demonstrate more clearly its ramifications to some of us, anyway, who are concerned with what are known as "TORTS" committed against us by others, such as unscrupulous land developers, acting in concert with what is supposed to be OUR government, but in fact, as is clear, at least to those of us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE, from the evidence in this case, IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL, but instead is just a perversion of the word, which is what EMPIRE STATE politics are really all about - "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG", and consequences to the common man and woman BE DAMNED!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livyjr -----

I read the posting you made here and also on the new thread with great interest.

Also with a great deal of amazement.

Don't know why I should be amazed.

Money talks! How much did you pay ANYBODY?

Probably nothing.

So you were outgunned from the getgo.

I suppose if you had hired a high priced lawyer with the right connections, you might have had a fighting chance.

Politics in the U.S.A. has always had its share of dirt.

Unfortunately, the political climate now is such that it gets dirtier and uglier all the time.

I still think you should feel blessed because you are you, and you are not them.

A.B.

[Livyjr]

And just WHO is really "OUT-OF-CONTROL", here in OUR America, and exactly WHAT is a "conservative judge"?

For answers as to the first prong of that question, which then leads us over to the second prong, I went back into VOLUME I of Life in OUR America for this following article which concerns itself with the QUINTESSENTIALLY ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED REPUBLICAN, himself, none other than TOMMY DELAY, himself:

November 18, 2004

"House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief" By CARL HULSE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted.

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS?

Hhhhmmmm!

Mr. Bonilla, HIMSELF A REPUBLICAN, and an alleged "lawmaker", to boot, TELLS US, the American people, THAT WE NEED HIM to protect US, by the vehicle of "preventing", IN HIS WORDS, politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

SO?

How about that, everybody?

Any takers?

Do we really need the ethically-challenged REPUBLICANS to protect us from alleged "crackpot prosecutors", OR DO WE REALLY NEED SOMETHING ELSE, ENTIRELY, like a clean sweep of OUR government to rid it of those who deprive US of OUR liberty and justice, by depriving us of due process and equal protection of law in the name of the TRI-PARTITE "GOD" of the REPUBLICANS, that being "GEETUS, MOOLAH and MAMMON"?

And what is a "crackpot prosecutor", anyway?

And how is that "determination" made?

Or shouldn't we really care?

Questions, folks, always questions!

SHOULD WE CARE?

OR SHOULD WE JUST SUCK OUR THUMBS, AND CONTINUE TO HIDE IN THE DEEPEST RECESSES OF OUR BASEMENTS, with OUR heads in the sand down there, pretending that this is America, a REPUBLIC with liberty and justice FOR ALL, when it clearly is not that, at all?

Your choice, of course, as always!

THEREFORE ....

Make it wisely, unless, of course, it is already too late, and then ....

Well, who knows?

[Livyjr]

I still think you should feel blessed because you are you, and you are not them.

A.B.

Mr. A.B. thank you, first of all, for your interest in what goes on here in OUR America, independent of myself, who oftentimes is just a "weak reed" but for people like you, who are older than myself, and while perhaps now cynical, have not given up hope for tomarrow, here in OUR America.

I feel blessed that I have life, Mr. A.B., and that is that!

THEN ...

It is up to me what I do with that "life", and as for myself, that choice was made when I took an oath back in 1967 to "protect and defend" the United States Constitution from ALL of its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Does that "oath" mean something, or is it just a bunch of crap, like it is to the "politicians" here in OUR America?

Up to me, right, Mr. A.B., 24/7?

And clearly the greatest enemies that OUR Constitution will ever have are those right here in OUR America, rather than some witless shaggy over in some jungle or desert in some place ten or twenty or thirty thousand miles from here, as George W. Bush and his sycophantic, boot-licking crowd would have us believe, while they are opening up OUR teasury to what I think is the biggest looting of all time by HIS people, FOR THEIR BENEFIT, at OUR expense.

The "WALK UP CALVARY HILL" is how I call this "dissenting citizen" role that I have taken on, and so ......

I guess it's up to me to see if MY BELIEFS about TRUTH, and JUSTICE and LIBERTY are really worth the hardships of defending them, against what is purported to be OUR government, but instead, appears to be nothing more than a huge malignancy that is festering and eating out the HEART AND SOUL of OUR America!

[Livyjr]

For those who may be interested, I have started a new thread on this above subject over in the "JUDICIAL" section, where I intend to further dissect this case, in order to demonstrate more clearly its ramifications to some of us, anyway, who are concerned with what are known as "TORTS" committed against us by others, such as unscrupulous land developers, acting in concert with what is supposed to be OUR government, but in fact, as is clear, at least to those of us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE, from the evidence in this case, IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL, but instead is just a perversion of the word, which is what EMPIRE STATE politics are really all about:

"GO ALONG TO GET ALONG", and consequences to the common man and woman BE DAMNED!

Livyjr -----

I read the posting you made here and also on the new thread with great interest.

Also with a great deal of amazement.

Don't know why I should be amazed.

Money talks!

How much did you pay ANYBODY?

Probably nothing.

So you were outgunned from the getgo.

A.B.

Well, Mr. A.B., as always, you see into the "heart of the matter" here, and in a few words, you have set down the "essence" for all of us to see, and then consider, if we are so inclined.

How much did I pay anyone?

Exactly nothing, to be truthful, which is what this is really all about!

And yes, I was outgunned, right from the moment before I even started, BUT ....

Oh, well!

So were the Spartans!

A rhetorical question, of course, that arises here, is SHOULD I HAVE HAD TO PAY SOMEONE, ANYONE for my own justice, here, like the judge, for example?

Or a "COURTHOUSE FIXER", maybe?

Or Eliot Spitzer?

"PAYING OFF", Mr. A.B., is a lot like "running"!

Once you start, how on earth do you ever stop again?

Better not to start, then, perhaps, and take those "lumps"?

Another question for OUR times, here in OUR America!

SO!

Stay tuned for further developments, as they happen!

LIVE!

LATE-BREAKING!

Life, in OUR America!

[jeffmoskin]

It is up to me what I do with that "life", and as for myself, that choice was made when I took an oath back in 1967 to "protect and defend" the United States Constitution from ALL of its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And clearly the greatest enemies that OUR Constitution will ever have are those right here in OUR America, rather than some witless shaggy over in some jungle or desert in some place ten or twenty or thirty thousand miles from here, as George W. Bush and his sycophantic, boot-licking crowd would have us believe, while they are opening up OUR teasury to what I think is the biggest looting of all time by HIS people, FOR THEIR BENEFIT, at OUR expense.

Well, Livyjr, you have hit that nail square on the head. We need to get you on Faux News as a replacement for those gasbags.

A rhetorical question, of course, that arises here, is SHOULD I HAVE HAD TO PAY SOMEONE, ANYONE for my own justice, here, like the judge, for example?

Or a "COURTHOUSE FIXER", maybe?

Or Eliot Spitzer?

"PAYING OFF", Mr. A.B., is a lot like "running"!

Once you start, how on earth do you ever stop again?

Better not to start, then, perhaps, and take those "lumps"?

Another question for OUR times, here in OUR America!

I feel your pain, as somebody once said. I am involved right now with the US government trying to steal my property in direct violation of the Constitution, a document that is more and more frequently being overlooked by the Bush Junta.

I talked to an attorney, the COURTHOUSE FIXER of whom you speak. He said he could "make a deal" which I presume means they only steal MOST of my property but not ALL of it. Of course, after deducting legal fees, I might as well kiss it goodbye.

Like you, I don't roll over that easily. But quite frankly, I have put a lot of time and effort into what could very likely return me absolutely zip.

It's tough living here in Bushworld.

But it beats living in the colony formerly known as Iraq.

[Livyjr]

But it beats living in the colony formerly known as Iraq.

I guess that really depends upon where you're sitting, doing your looking from!

[Livyjr]

Well, Livyjr, you have hit that nail square on the head.

We need to get you on  Faux News as a replacement for those gasbags.

And IF I was to ever get ON FAUX NEWS, then I would have to become NOT ONLY a GASBAG, but someone who would "TUNE" the news with "SPLICE JOBS" and such like, as well, and as I recall, my mother had no kids that I knew who are or ever were "gaited" that way!

Maybe that's why God had Al Gore invent the internet, so that the non-Gasbags among us would have some other place to hang out than over there at FAUX NEWS!

After all, it's really just "so fake" over there, and who wants that, when the real world beckons, and is just so accessible?

[Livyjr]

I feel your pain, as somebody once said.

And here, jeffmoskin, I have to say that if it were just my own personal matter that was involved here, I would not bother to waste "community time" by bringing it in here, to discuss!

One of the things IN HERE that is so difficult to assess, of course, since each of us is but a pinprick on a great big globe, OUT THERE, and so has but very limited experience of what the world is really doing at any given minute, IS what PUBLIC SENTIMENT on any given issue really is, IN AREAS OTHER THAN where we ourselves live and reside, and here, I will direct myself to CITIZENSHIP, or what I think it is, anyway, AND HERE IS WHERE A KEY ISSUE OPENS UP, that must be considered by each of us as we communicate IN HERE across state boundaries, OUT THERE, and that is the concept of local rule prevails!

OR SHOULD IT?

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE with me, and those with whom I am similarly situated here in New York State, which would be all residents of Rensselaer County, at least, if not all residents of the State of New York, where it is the Attorney General of the State of New York itself who is advocating and defending the use of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" witness elimination scheme as a political tool of "control" in the State of New York, DESPITE the fact that it violates both State and Federal law, as was noted by Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice McGrath in the papers that were before the Bush CONSERVATIVE in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York!

I was BORN in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, and so, I am subject to the laws of the State of New York, and I am entitled to ALL of the protections of the Constitution of the State of New York, REGARDLESS OF WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH and TOMMY DELAY MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, and I cannot be deprived OF ANY of those protections of law, without DUE PROCESS, and yet I was, with the KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT of the New York State Attorney General!

To "DETER" me from having my Constitutional rights in the State of New York upheld, I was physically assaulted and bodily harmed by a thug, a goon, acting with intent to do me bodily harm, and to further intimidate me from being a witness in Rensselaer County, ON VIDEOTAPE!

On videotape, the goon can clearly be heard to say that he was "protected" in Rensselaer County, and that he could assault me any time that he wanted with impunity!

Subsequently, a New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation Investigator saw that videotape, and based upon that videotape, determined that the goon should be arrested!

That never happened, however, and the statements of the New York State Police Investigator were subsequently suppressed by the Office of the New York State Attorney General to hinder prosecution of the thug, and successfully so, to my detriment, AS WELL AS the cause of law and order here in the State of New York, which I am aligned with, AS A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, pursuant o the provisions of the New York State Constitution!

Judge McGrath, WHO IS THE LOCAL Criminal Court Judge with authority in the matter under the New York State Constitution, questioned and challenged that conduct of the Office of the New York State Attorney General as itself being illegal, and the Bush CONSERVATIVE said, "SO WHAT?"

SAY WHAT?

EXCUSE ME!

"SO WHAT?"

In the context of the whole matter, and who is actually whom in Rensselaer County with respect to making determinations on matters of law and order in the County, PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, it looks an awful lot to me, as a lifelong resident, that this Bush CONSERVATIVE just told MY local judge to go "**** himself", or "SOD OFF" as the British Royals like to say, and that has me more than a little curious, and concerned here, FOR WHERE DOES a Federal Judge get any authority at all to come down within a state in this union of OURS, ANY STATE, to okay conduct by the State Attorney General that not only strips the state resident of his protections of law in the State of New York, PURSUANT to the New York State Constitution, WITHOUT A SHRED of DUE PROCESS afforded, but borders on the criminal itself, according to the Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice!

This is much more than just a little incredible here, jeffmoskin, it is a grotesque burlesque, to boot, and more beyond that!

In fact, it is a joke!

A great big joke, and that is what I am supposed to accept as LAW in the State of New York, where I reside, and where I am entitled to the fullest protection of the New York State Constitution while I am a State resident?

No, sorry, I can't, and I won't!

Eliot Spitzer and the State of New York are not "immune" from the operation of law in the State of New York, despite what a Federal Court Judge may have to say about it, and that is really what the issue is with me, jeffmoskin:

STATE'S RIGHTS v. REPUBLICAN-IMPOSED TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, plain and simple!

LIBERTY IS NOT DIVISIBLE!

Not ever!

Pass it along!

[Livyjr]

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE with me, and those with whom I am similarly situated here in New York State, which would be all residents of Rensselaer County, at least, if not all residents of the State of New York, where it is the Attorney General of the State of New York itself who is advocating and defending the use of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" witness elimination scheme as a political tool of "control" in the State of New York, DESPITE the fact that it violates both State and Federal law, as was noted by Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice McGrath in the papers that were before the Bush CONSERVATIVE in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York!

I was BORN in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, and so, I am subject to the laws of the State of New York, and I am entitled to ALL of the protections of the Constitution of the State of New York, REGARDLESS OF WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH  and TOMMY DELAY MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, and I cannot be deprived OF ANY of those protections of law, without DUE PROCESS, and yet I was, with the KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT of the New York State Attorney General!

To "DETER" me from having my Constitutional rights in the State of New York upheld, I was physically assaulted and bodily harmed by a thug, a goon, acting with intent to do me bodily harm, and to further intimidate me from being a witness in Rensselaer County, ON VIDEOTAPE!

On videotape, the goon can clearly be heard to say that he was "protected" in Rensselaer County, and that he could assault me any time that he wanted with impunity!

Subsequently, a New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation Investigator saw that videotape, and based upon that videotape, determined that the goon should be arrested!

That never happened, however, and the statements of the New York State Police Investigator were subsequently suppressed by the Office of the New York State Attorney General to hinder prosecution of the thug, and successfully so, to my detriment, AS WELL AS the cause of law and order here in the State of New York, which I am aligned with, AS A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Constitution!

Judge McGrath, WHO IS THE LOCAL Criminal Court Judge with authority in the matter under the New York State Constitution, questioned and challenged that conduct of the Office of the New York State Attorney General as itself being illegal, and the Bush CONSERVATIVE said, "SO WHAT?"

SAY WHAT?

EXCUSE ME!

"SO WHAT?"

And what exactly IS the issue with Eliot Spitzer here?

Well, to answer that, let's first review this following article from Bloomberg News which concerns itself with Mr. Spitzer's "MONEY RAISING" efforts for his personal political purposes, while he is at the same time supposed to be the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of the State of New York:

Friday, December 12, 2003:

"Fund-raiser nets Spitzer $2 million - luncheon for likely gubernatorial candidate attracts hedge fund managers, lawyers"

by Matthew Cox, Bloomberg News:

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Spitzer, the leader of investigations into Wall Street conflicts of interest and mutual fund trading, has said he is interested in running for governor in 2006.

Though he hasn't officially declared his candidacy, Thursday's fund-raiser was Spitzer's biggest ever.

His investigations of "certain aspects of the securities market doesn't mean there can't be or shouldn't be contributions from anybody within that sector, any more than it would mean because we bring consumer-type cases, no consumer manufacturer could contribute," Spitzer told reporters.

He said his campaign committee has "a very careful vetting process" to avoid accepting gifts from donors under scrutiny by his office.

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

The luncheon at the Sheraton New York Hotel drew hedge fund manager Daniel Nir of Gracie Capital LP, who with his wife, Jill Braufman, donated $50,000 in June; Cablevision President James Dolan; Miramax Film Corp. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, and Melvyn Weiss, one of several lawyer donors who has sued securities firms for investors based on Spitzer's investigations.

"There are a lot of hedge funds that have not been trading the way the naughty ones have," said Roy Smith, a professor of finance at New York University.

"THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MR. SPITZER INVESTIGATE ALL THEIR COMPETITION that's been too aggressive."

Spitzer's investigative work "gives investors a sense that someone's keeping an eye on what's in their best interest," said donor George Fox, founder of Titan Advisors, a hedge fund consultant.

Cynthia Darrison, managing director of the Spitzer campaign committee, said that the event attended by nearly 700 people generated more than $2 million.

"This is meant as a preemptive strike" with 35 months to go until the election, said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

"He's saying 'I can raise huge amounts of money.'"

end quotes

Yes, he certainly can.

But by "selling" what?

Or "who", perhaps?

[Livyjr]

And what exactly IS the issue with Eliot Spitzer here?

Well, to answer that, let's first review this following article from Bloomberg News which concerns itself with Mr. Spitzer's "MONEY RAISING" efforts for his personal political purposes, while he is at the same time supposed to be the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of the State of New York:

Friday, December 12, 2003:

"Fund-raiser nets Spitzer $2 million - luncheon for likely gubernatorial candidate attracts hedge fund managers, lawyers"

by Matthew Cox, Bloomberg News:

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

SO!

Okay!

Let's see here!

On Friday, December 12, 2003, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Right!

Check!

AND ...

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

Okay!

Right!

Check again!

I think I got all of that!

BUT ......

Didn't the F.B.I. say in March of 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to FACILITATE the REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

And then, on 8-22-01, didn't Eliot Spitzer sanction the unlawful "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" of the very witness who had gathered the evidence that the F.B.I then relied upon to form its own conclusion in March of 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to FACILITATE the REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

And then Eliot Spitzer allegedly took money, FROM THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

SO?

What did they buy, for their money?

Any quesses?

And who in Hell is checking up on Eliot Spitzer, anyway, beyond Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Pat McGrath, whose opinion really seems to count for exactly nothing at all the the WHITE NIGHT of BROADWAY, the inestimable Mr. Eliot Spitzer, himself?

Oh, that's right!

In all the excitement, why, I just plain forgot!

Eliot is!

[Abu Beacon]

It's tough living here in Bushworld.

But it beats living in the colony formerly known as Iraq.

Iraq.

Fast becoming our 51st state.

Bush may be fooling a whole bunch of Americans about Iraq, but the Middle East people are on to him.

Read on.

The American occupation used its power over the Iraqis to force voter turnout. Dahr Jamal reports Iraqi complaints that officials threatened to cut their monthly food ration if they did not vote. The extortion of Iraqi support for an American-initiated process undermines Bush'sclaim that the elections are for Iraqis benefit only.

Bush does not care that it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions for an occupying power to tamper with a conquered nation's government. He has instigated coups, under the cover of elections, that have empowered partners who will accept Israeli settlement of the West Bank and American bases in Iraq.

Mahmoud Abbas political biography suggests that he will endorse Sharon's plans to annex Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Abbas is an architect of the Oslo Accords that enabled Israel to build many of the settlements that have strangled Palestinian towns. The Bush administration is counting on him to disarm the Palestinian resistance and accept Israeli

Previous American-supported coups in the Middle East--Iran (1953) and Israel's Lebanon invasion (1982)--ended in disaster for the US and its clients. Manipulating the strings of a new set of puppets with a ballot will endear the Arab peoples neither to the US nor the new governments.- Published 31/3/2005 © bitterlemons-international.org

Caise D. Hassan is a Muslim American human rights activist of Palestinian descent. He is currently working on a book on the 1987 intifada.

A.B.

[Livyjr]

And leaving Eliot Spitzer and corruption in the State of New York, for a moment, let's update on the Bush Co.'s and Social Security:

"GOP's blitz loses punch - Democrats rally against Social Security plan, as public doubts Bush effort"

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, New York Times
First published: Sunday, April 3, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Midway through their 60-day coast-to-coast blitz to promote fundamental revisions in Social Security, President Bush and others in his administration have been unable to pry loose any Democratic senators from the solid wall of opposition.

As a consequence, Republican lawmakers are beginning to doubt whether the President can succeed in establishing individual investment accounts under Social Security.

After appearing with the President on Wednesday at a Social Security rally in Iowa, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Republican of that state and chairman of the Finance Committee, said, "There is not the significant momentum it takes to get a bill through the Senate."

In a separate interview, Grassley, who supports individual accounts and whose position makes him the most important senator on the issue, said that he planned to put Social Security legislation before his committee in July but added, "The President may not succeed in as clear-cut a manner as I might have hoped."

Some Republicans who met with constituents on Social Security during the two-week congressional recess, which ends Monday, reported that the President and his allies had managed to convince many people that the solvency of Social Security was in jeopardy and that the program needed to be overhauled.

But many Republicans said their constituents were wary about individual accounts as the best solution.

"Having just held 15 town meetings in my state," said Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, whose district includes Cedar Rapids, where the President spoke, "I think it is clear that the solvency concern is taking root."

"It is also clear that support of personal accounts has maybe slightly increased, but opposition has hardened substantially."

Leach, who flew back to Washington with Bush on Air Force One and who said he was "open to the possibility of personal accounts," questioned whether the President could overcome the united front presented by the Democrats.

GRASSLEY Democrats, Leach said, look at this as their chance to take control of Congress.

Whatever the reason, people who have worked on Capitol Hill for generations said they could not remember a time when Democrats in the Senate were so unified.

Except for Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who says he has not made up his mind, every Democratic senator is committed to opposing diverting Social Security taxes into individual accounts.

"We have continued to stay together," said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, "because the President's plan is so flawed."

Under Senate rules, no legislation can be brought to a vote without approval of 60 senators.

There are 55 Republicans in the Senate.

So even if all of them backed Bush's plan, he would still need five more votes.

In the House, where passage of legislation requires only a simple majority, Republican leaders could probably win passage of a Social Security bill by invoking party discipline.

But these leaders say they want the Senate to vote first on the issue to avoid a difficult and unnecessary vote in the House if Senate approval is not possible.

In an interview published this week in the National Journal, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that even if Social Security legislation could pass through the Senate and House this year, there might not be time to negotiate a final bill until next year.

Administration officials say they are undaunted and still expect to win the fight.

"We're at the halfway mark of our 60-day tour and well beyond our events goal already," Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Friday.

"The national dialogue that the President called for in the State of the Union is well under way, and Social Security has been elevated to the top of the national political debate."

"We're making real progress."

On March 2, Snow began a campaign he called 60 Stops in 60 Days to promote Bush's Social Security goals.

Since then, the Treasury Department said, administration officials have participated in 108 events in 32 states, including more than 40 town meetings with senators and representatives.

Bush had 12 Social Security rallies in March, Vice President Dick Cheney four and Snow 10.

The Republican National Committee calculated that Republican House members held more than 500 town meetings over the recess.

The two sides stepped up their television advertising over the congressional recess.

Supporters of the President ran advertisements comparing the Social Security system to the Titanic and others showing a ticking stopwatch counting down the time until Social Security goes broke.

But there is a split among Republicans.

The Club for Growth, which raised more than $20 million last year to support Republican candidates, is running a commercial criticizing Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., because he has proposed legislation for individual accounts under Social Security that would include a tax increase.

AARP has ads on cable channels and in more than 200 markets comparing the administration's Social Security restructuring to the flattening of a house because the kitchen sink is clogged.

[Livyjr]

Iraq.

Fast becoming our 51st state.

Bush may be fooling a whole bunch of Americans about Iraq, but the Middle East people are on to him.

Read on.

The American occupation used its power over the Iraqis to force voter turnout.

Dahr Jamal reports Iraqi complaints that officials threatened to cut their monthly food ration if they did not vote.

The extortion of Iraqi support for an American-initiated process undermines Bush's claim that the elections are for Iraqis benefit only.

Previous American-supported coups in the Middle East--Iran (1953) and Israel's Lebanon invasion (1982)--ended in disaster for the US and its clients.

Manipulating the strings of a new set of puppets with a ballot will endear the Arab peoples neither to the US nor the new governments.

A.B.

Lao Tze viewed the clash of ideologies as a fact of social evolution, but he observed, also, that some ideologies make inroads into the minds of people, while others cause disastrous counter-reactions!

He realized that resistance to ideas can be overcome - but only when indirect methods are employed will there be a lasting effect.

He called this "capturing without strategies."

That is why his strategist would rather "retreat a foot" than "advance an inch"!

CONVERSELY, when an aggression is used to impose an ideology on others, the reaction is also a direct one:

Strategy is met with strategy; weapon is matched against weapon; tensions escalate and escalate again!

Lao Tze dreaded this familiar pattern, and lamented:

"UNDERESTIMATING resistance will destroy my treasures!"

He was referring to his Three Treasures: compassion, moderation, and the courage not to be first in the world!

How can escalation be neutralized?

Lao Tze believed that the side that is so socially evolved that it would experience grief over the situation would be the side whose ideology would ultimately triumph!

- Commentaries on Tao Te Ching of Lao Tze, by R. L. Wing