As I continue to study OUR history as a nation, which overwhelms me yet, especially the earliest days, I learn more and more about what is known of the founders themselves, through their own writings, about their own thoughts at that time, concerning independence, or reconciliation with England, and recently, I came across a paragraph that Thomas Jefferson wanted in the body of the Declaration of Independence that basically excoriated the English people themselves for being responsible for the government that was inflicting tyranny and depotism, and repression on OUR America, AS, the English people were the ones responsible for the corruption in the English Parliament that translated to tyranny and despotism, and repression in America.

I too, Mr. A.B. thought that Nixxon represented a real water shed in American presidential politics, but thinking like Jefferson at the time of the writing of the American Declaration of Independence, I have to wonder how such a decline in ethics could be possible in OUR America without the knowledge and consent of the American people, themselves!

And Nixxon was a lawyer, was he not?

There is where ethics have really taken a nosedive here in OUR America, with all of these lawyers that we now have permeating OUR governments from the level of the local dog catcher, right on up and through the school boards, and right on into the White House itself.

And just this morning, I heard an old-time Judge from up here in my area being interviewed on the radio about this thing in OUR America with BUSH CONSERVATIVE JUDGES, and this Judge made the comment that lawyers are having other lawyers appointed to all of these various judgeships across this nation of ours, to do what the lawyers want, and not what is good for us as a people, and as a nation!

Interesting!

Refreshing!

And right on point, to boot.

And for you readers of this thread who may not be familiar with Mr. A.B.'s other thread, here is that Bob Herbert article for your convenience:

April 18, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST

"A Radical in the White House" By BOB HERBERT

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga.

He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president.

His hold on the nation was such that most Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R.

His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out."

That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster.

We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944.

He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States.

It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now.

Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation."

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living."

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad."

"The right of every family to a decent home."

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health."

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment."

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old.

She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."

Roosevelt's vision gave conservatives in both parties apoplexy in 1944 and it would still drive them crazy today.

But the truth is that during the 1950's and 60's the nation made substantial progress toward his wonderfully admirable goals, before the momentum of liberal politics slowed with the war in Vietnam and the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon.

It wouldn't be long before Ronald Reagan was, as the historian Robert Dallek put it, attacking Medicare as "the advance wave of socialism" and Dick Cheney, from a seat in Congress, was giving the thumbs down to Head Start.

Mr. Cheney says he has since seen the light on Head Start.

But his real idea of a head start is to throw government money at people who already have more cash than they know what to do with.

He's one of the leaders of the G.O.P. gang (the members should all wear masks) that has executed a wholesale transfer of wealth via tax cuts from working people to the very rich.

Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need.

And he famously warned against giving in to fear.

The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.

"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas.

And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

> Frist Holding Simulcast Event at KY Church, People of Good Faith Needed to Protest
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
Email this topic Print this topic
no retreat, no surrender
post Apr 15 2005, 01:09 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2,927
Joined: 4-November 04
From: Kentucky
Member No.: 5



Senator Frist is trying to use Religion to divide us. Please get the word out at your churches, synagogues & mosques. We need to have people of good will from all Religious persuasions to stop this distortion. For those of us like me who are not religious we too have to be involved. This issue is crucial to maintaining an independent judiciary.

In the article below it says that this event will be held at a Kentucky Church. I researched and found out that it will happen at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, KY (where I live). We will be organizing in Louisville to show them that we are not rolling over on this. Please organize protests in your own cities. Send letters to the editor at the time of this event so that all those that see this simulcast in their churches or on their local news will know that the community is NOT with these fanatics.

April 15, 2005
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/politics...artner=homepage


QUOTE
FRC Action Simulcast To Target Filibusters

Join FRC Action on Sunday, April 24, as we host a nationwide, live simulcast to engage values voters in the all-important issue of reining in our out-of-control courts.

This exciting event will be held at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky. and will be broadcast in churches throughout the nation. Speakers include Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Al Mohler, and Chuck Colson.
Read Tony Perkins' message here.

Register using the links below, and find out how you can participate in this historic event!

For more details check out our thread in online cafe

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...&st=0&p=258219&



--------------------
This message is being brought to you by: A Liberal, NASCAR loving, Gay Rights and Affirmative Action supporting, Pro-Choice American that is going to be on the front lines helping our Party take back the South without losing the North!
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Morambar in TX
post Apr 16 2005, 08:56 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 8-November 04
Member No.: 2,527

Sounds like a great idea; do you think a week is enough time for our various state leaders to put together a nationwide protest? I would be shocked and amazed if Hyde Park Baptist here in Austin isn't in on it, and they're already really popular for their attempt to force people out of their homes so they can build themselves a parking garage (whose home would Jesus demolish?)

Isn't it sad that I had to wait this long, and it was John McCain, a REPUBLICAN, who made the same observation I've made all along.


--------------------
Love can't be coerced.
NO PEACE WITH THE SHADOW! "The Wheel of Time" Robert Jordan
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Morambar in TX
post Apr 16 2005, 09:14 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 8-November 04
Member No.: 2,527



After thought: Frist is of course expecting a very friendly audience. This may not be possible with a mega-church, but imagine if we got there early (there and around the country) and filled the place. How would THAT play on nationwide TV? Normally I would be VERY averse to the political takeover of a church, but it appears too late to prevent that. If it's going to BE political, the pews should be filled by proportional representation. Maybe they'll just tell us we're not welcome in the house of God; that'll be entertaining too.

This post has been edited by Morambar in TX: Apr 16 2005, 09:14 AM


--------------------
Love can't be coerced.
NO PEACE WITH THE SHADOW! "The Wheel of Time" Robert Jordan

"Ask and ye shall receive." Note that there is a topic on online cafe for those who wish to address it exclusively (as well as several in Religion In Politics and the KY sub-forum of Southern States; frankly, I'm concerned that we may be diluting our efforts.) OK, I'm off to move statuary, then I have an LTE to write so they'll have time to get it in by Sunday (the Austin Chronicle will print tomorrow, and that's where it would really do the most good here.)

Bump!

Looks like the mods have been doing Spring Cleaning.

Thanks, Morambar, for bringing this matter over to here!

And for all of you out there who do stop by here on your daily way through life, here in OUR America, and the world as well, I would ask you all to take a moment to "study" through what Morambar has posted here.

Never in my recollections of OUR nation's history has OUR REPUBLIC and OUR DEMOCRACY been so ENDANGERED as it is right now, by this CONSERVATIVE crowd, including "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY Delay, and this Frist, who wants CARTE BLANCHE for the CONSERVATIVES to be able to do whatever they wish, whenever, with us having no RECOURSE at all to stop them, BY THE EXPEDIENCY of having BUSH JUDGES seal off the FEDERAL COURTS TO US, so that we cannot get these matters before a JURY of OUR Peers!

Of course, if JUSTICE means nothing to you, then Morambar's post will be a waste of your time, BUT ....

If you are that person, then you likely aren't in here in this FORUM, or thread, in the first place, and so .....

Please take a moment and read this important post, as April 24 IS this weekend, and so, time is getting short to make your voices heard.

And thank you for caring about what is in reality YOUR NATION!

I wonder how many people in America right now could name either a Federal Court Judge or a State Court Judge in their state?

Or even know they exist, let alone where that may be?

Judge's have a literal power of life and death over us in so many different ways, and most of us do not even know who these judges are, or how they ever got to be one!

To me, the JUDICIARY is the most important BRANCH of government, here in OUR America, far more so than either the executive or the legislative, because it is ONLY the judiciary that can really protect OUR Constitutional rights against usurpations by the executive or the legislative branchs.

For that to be so, the JUDICIARY MUST BE INDEPENDENT, and they are not!

More and more, they are mere appendages hanging off the gross underbelly of the political parties, like so many fobs on a watchchain, to do the party's bidding!

And we, the citizens of this nation, we are the ones that let it happen!

Through OUR ignorance that it is even happening, while our lives go on, on a day to day basis!

Then, one day, our rights are curtailed, and then, they are gone!

Just like that!

SO!

Anyone just stopping by, please give Morambar's post above a read, and if in any way you can join that "effort", it would be a good thing for DEMOCRACY in OUR America!

And this disabled veteran says, thank you for that!

And here's one of those "things" that just happened to "flash" through my "sights" when I first turned on the computer this afternoon, and it's title intrigued me, and so, I have capured it for here, for whatever in the end it may be worth:

Business - AP

"NYSE to Merge With Archipelago Holdings"

15 minutes ago

By MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - The 213-year-old New York Stock Exchange vaulted into the top ranks of electronic stock trading Wednesday, announcing a merger with all-electronic rival Archipelago Holdings Inc. in a stunning move that will also transform the NYSE into a for-profit, publicly traded enterprise.

The deal answers one of the pressing needs facing the NYSE, which has battled increasing competition from faster all-electronic exchanges like the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as Archipelago.

The NYSE conducts its transactions through a specialist auction system, in which trades are made through people on its selling floor.

The NYSE's 1,366 seat holders, its current owners, will receive $400 million in cash and 70 percent of the shares in the new company, while Archipelago's shareholders will retain 30 percent of the shares, NYSE Chief Executive John Thain said at a news conference.

"This is an essential step to maintaining our global competitiveness and leadership," Thain said.

Using the NYSE's latest seat sale — $1.62 million — as a guide, the NYSE is roughly valued at $2.2 billion.

Archipelago is valued at $844 million using Friday's closing stock price.

The new entity, a holding company to be called NYSE Group Inc., will spin off the NYSE's regulatory arm — recently invigorated after coming under intense criticism for failing to stem a floor-trading scandal — into a not-for-profit oversight entity.

That part of the deal answers the demands of some NYSE members who have been agitating for the exchange to turn for-profit in order to better compete as a business.

"I think the regulatory structure we're proposing will be a model for other self-regulating agencies," Thain said.

ArcaEx Chairman and CEO Jerry Putnam said the merger would create new opportunities for NYSE Group to expand its trading into other areas, including options and other equity derivatives.

The exchange will not trade Nasdaq-listed stocks on the floor of the NYSE, but will continue to trade them through ArcaEx's electronic market.

The NYSE also will continue its plan to create a hybrid market, combining its floor trading with an enhanced electronic system under development.

The merger also improves the NYSE's ability to compete following the Securities and Exchange Commission's approval earlier this month of Regulation National Market System.

The regulation requires stock traders to accept the best bid or offer available, no matter which stock exchange or market posted it — but customers could go to another market if they want to complete trades as quickly as possible.

This option makes the pre-merger NYSE less competitive.

Thain will remain CEO of NYSE Group, while Putnam will become president and co-chief operating officer.

The management teams of the two companies will be integrated, Thain said, and a transition team is already working on the deal.

NYSE Chief Financial Officer Amy Butte will become executive vice president of strategy and product development, while Archipelago CFO Nelson Chai will assume that role for the NYSE Group.

Pending regulatory approval, the merger is expected to be completed in either the fourth quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2006, Thain said.

Three ArcaEx board members will join the NYSE board.

The company will continue to be headquartered at its iconic Wall Street building in New York.

The deal is a major coup for Thain and a boost for a stock exchange that in recent years has been most notable for the controversy over the $187.5 million pay package given former Chairman and CEO Richard Grasso.

Thain became CEO in early 2004, several months after Grasso's forced resignation.

The move mollifies many of the exchange's seat holders, who had saw their seats decline to $975,000 in value earlier this year from $2.65 million in 1999.

Some of the decline has been attributable to the uncertainty of the stock market during that time, but the increasing competition facing the NYSE has likely been a factor as well.

"I knew this is where they had to go."

"What surprises me is that they did it so quickly and in this format, but I'm pleasantly surprised," said Tom Caldwell, chairman of Caldwell Asset Management Inc. and a seat holder and frequent critic of the NYSE.

"I'm going to have to find someone else to fight."

"I haven't seen enough to have had any concerns, but this is a very interesting deal, and I'm glad John Thain caught on to the vision we had for the exchange."

Chicago-based Archipelago trades both stocks and options based on stock holdings.

Archipelago handles about 25 percent of the trades in stocks listed on the Nasdaq, but has made little impact in handling NYSE stocks, where more than 80 percent of listed stocks trade on the floor of the exchange.

With the Nasdaq reportedly in talks to acquire Instinet, another electronic exchange owned by Reuters Group PLC, the stage is set for the NYSE and Nasdaq to compete head-on in the U.S., while also giving the NYSE Group a stronger global standing, according to Vincent Phillips, chief executive of Schwab's CyberTrader subsidiary.

"I think this will be great for retail investors and institutions, because you know the NYSE and the Nasdaq are going to compete very aggressively," Phillips said.

"Yes, it reduces the number of players in equity markets."

"You'd rather have 10 really large players instead of two, but I think the benefits will outweight that concern."

Shares of Archipelago surged 11 percent, or $1.86, to $18.76 on the Pacific Stock Exchange, a regional exchange affiliated with Archipelago, before trading was halted due to pending news.

Shares have traded in a 52-week range between $11.50 and $22.90
___

On the Net:

New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com

Archipelago Holdings Inc.: http://www.tradearca.com/default.asp

I hear the sound of snouts moving towards the trough.

The Archipelago/NYSE merger is just another in a long string of consolidations over the past decade, but is troubling since it represents an escalation; now we have not only the consolidaton of the corporations that control the country, and, through it, the world, but cosolidtaion of the means by which THEY are controlled. The process of consolidation-liquidation of America has just kicked to a higher gear by people who wrap themselves in the flag and polish their crosses while worshipping greed and not caring what happens to America as they loot it.

First of all, welcome to the "ROUNDTABLE", Morambar!

And here, I have to go with jeffmoskin's comment about "snouts" to the trough, which is a simpler version of what you are saying right above here.

Some years ago, now, and it is hard to say exactly when that was, but let us say for me, about the mid-1970's, I realized that in OUR day and age, such a thing as the LOOTING of OUR nation could actually take place, despite alleged "safeguards" supposedly put in place by what is alleged to be OUR government, and that in fact, such looting was not only possible, but was actually on-going, right then and there, and not even really out of sight, just out of the minds of most people, who were and are too distracted by the "day-to-day" stuff, or gambling now, more likely, to look around them to see what was really going on in our communities.

In New York State, where I am, and where the NYSE is also located, according to a Governor's Approval Memorandum for a bill to allegedly combat "white-collar crime" in New York State, BY 1976, "white collar crime" in New York State was already more than FORTY-FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!

And spiraling ever upward, as "economic crime has become increasingly profitable and sophisticated!"

According to the Governor of New York at that time, and this was 1986, ten years later, and who knows how many BILLIONS more in economic crime, "greedy, white collar profiteers WILL NOT BE STOPPED until we adopt strong measures to stop them!"

Now, all I can say here, is "Yeah, right, governor, and when is that going to happen?"

FORTY-FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!

In play!

And where is that money going to go?

And who is going to look too hard, when it does?

A politician?

Yeah, right, again!

And now, Morambar, there is not even pretense made!

Pedal to the metal, full speed ahead!

SO!

State sponsored GAMBLING in New York State is now the big thing, as who takes a look at where the money going through a state-sponsored gambling den really comes from?

And the money is "clean", when it comes out the other side, and the looters are in their ascendency now, and heaven, too, since there are all these outlets now in place, thanks to the state, to launder this ill-gotten money!

As to OUR democracy?

Well, we never had one in the first place, did we, and so, what is there to lose?

Greenspan: Major budget action needed MarketWatch

Ah, my old friend, theglobalchinese!

Thank you for leaving us this article to ponder!

I'm just returning from another thread where I was quoting that old Chinese proverb of "May we always live in interesting times!"

And do we ever!

Good old Alan Greenspan, what a "dancer" that man is!

The electric glide, the mamba, the cha-cha, the boo-ga-loo, the dirty dog, the mashed potatoes; why, he is the master of them all, and you can never really tell exactly where he is with any of them, since he can slide and shimmy all over the place with such ease and grace!

"OH, did I say that?"

"Well, let me say this instead!"

And such was the case with OUR Alan when he threw his considerable support behind George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich and greedy that have since not only eaten up our nation's surplus, BUT have pushed us over into a huge deficit, which Alan, with his dancer's ease, is now issuing warnings against!

"OH, did I say that?"

"Well, okay, yes, I really did!"

"But now, let me say this instead!"

Gobbledy-Gook, and Alan is a master at it.

And who gets the bill?

Why, need you guess?

Us, of course!

After all, who else is stupid enough?

And since I am in here somewhat early today, I have a bunch of "house-keeping" matters to tend to, in order to bring things more up to date than I have been able to these last couple of days, and since theglobalchinese has brought the budget deficit matter to OUR attention, this next story is directly relevant, as it helps explain where a good part of this huge deficit is really coming from:

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Senate Set to OK $81B War Spending Bill"

45 minutes ago

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate moved toward approving $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday in a measure that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give President Bush much of the money he requested, but the chambers differ over what portion should go to military operations versus other assistance.

Immigration changes, a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, military death benefits and an aircraft carrier are among the many other issues of conflict that will have to be sorted out by Senate and House negotiators.

Congressional negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the president a final bill.

The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May.

Overall, the Senate version would cost roughly $81 billion, less than the $81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion Bush requested.

The legislation is the fifth emergency spending package Congress has passed for wars since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

It would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan — as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide — past $300 billion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which writes reports for Congress, says lawmakers previously approved $228 billion.

The latest money is to last through the end of this fiscal year, Sept. 30.

Pentagon officials have said they will have to ask for more money for 2006.

In both chambers, lawmakers struggled to give troops whatever they needed while only paying for projects deemed urgent.

They were leaving other items to be dealt with in the regular budget for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1 and, in doing so, sending a message to the White House that it can't expect a rubber stamp from Congress on its emergency war-spending requests.

Still, as Bush requested, the bulk of the money would go to the Pentagon.

The Army and the Marine Corps, the two service branches doing most of the fighting, would get the most.

The House bill would add money to the president's request for defense expenses but the Senate's bill would not.

Instead, the Senate version would restore some money the House cut for foreign assistance and State Department programs.

The Senate bill also would fund a sprawling U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

The House bill would not.

Unlike the House, the Senate tacked on a requirement that the Pentagon give Congress reports every three months on how many Iraqi security forces are trained and how many U.S. troops are needed.

The Senate also added a provision that would require the Pentagon to keep the Navy's fleet of 12 aircraft carriers intact.

The Pentagon had proposed scrapping one carrier to save money.

The Senate version also would boost financial benefits for the families of soldiers killed, regardless of whether the deaths occurred in combat.

The House version limits the extra money to survivors of those killed in combat-related deaths only.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues negotiators will face is whether to include immigration overhaul measures in the final bill.

The House included some, but after a lengthy debate, the Senate opted to take up immigration at another time.
___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

SO!

$300 BILLION!

And what's that, really?

A drop in the bucket, isn't it?

Just a lousy $300 BILLION!

That's spare change for a poor man in New York City, isn't it?

Doesn't everybody have a spare $300 BILLION laying around their house somewhere?

And what on earth have we gained from the expenditure of this $300 BILLION?

Does anyone know, or even have a clue?

How about, "DO OUR POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON HAVE A CLUE?", and that answer is likely not:

Politics - washingtonpost.com

"Economic Worries Aren't Resonating on Hill"

Thu Apr 21, 7:41 AM ET

By Jonathan Weisman and Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writers

Inflation and interest rates are rising, stock values have plunged, a tank of gas induces sticker shock, and for nearly a year, wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living.

Yet in Washington, the political class has been consumed with the death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, the ethics of the House majority leader, and the fate of the Senate filibuster.

The disconnect between pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans and the preoccupations of their politicians has helped send President Bush's approval ratings on the economy down, while breeding discontent with Congress.

The problem has yet to grow into a political wave that could sweep significant numbers of lawmakers from power next year, but both parties face risks if they fail to pivot their attention to economic issues.

"There is a lot of frustration," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers ® on Tuesday, as he was returning from his district in western Michigan.

Republican leaders "need some seats from the Midwest and Northeast to maintain a majority, and if we continue at the rate we're going, we may well lose a few seats."

Few economists would say the nation is at risk of slipping back into recession, but most believe the United States is back in a "soft patch."

Inflation jumped 0.6 percent in March, the Labor Department said yesterday, the biggest price surge in five months.

The 115-point plunge that followed the inflation announcement brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its lowest level of the year, 842 points below the height it reached in late December, when Wall Street rallied after Bush's reelection.

An average gallon of unleaded gasoline cost $2.22 yesterday, 27 cents higher than election week.

Perhaps most important, wages are not keeping up with prices.

Adjusted for inflation, average weekly earnings fell by 0.3 percent from February to March, the Labor Department reported yesterday.

Inflation-adjusted hourly wages last month were a half-percent lower than a year ago.

Real weekly earnings have not risen in four years.

"Pretty much all round, March now looks like a lousy month for the U.S. economy," J.P. Morgan Chase economists warned clients this week.

The Washington Post/ABC News Consumer Comfort Index, released Tuesday, climbed two points from last week's 2005 low, but it is still down seven points over the past month.

Nearly half of those polled this month say the economy is getting worse, the most negative rating in two years of monthly polls.

"People feel vulnerable and besieged," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, "and they don't hear anybody talking about it."

Yet the only economic bills signed into law this year have tilted against the little guy: Legislation that restricts class-action lawsuits, and a major rewrite of the nation's bankruptcy laws, signed yesterday, that will make it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations.

The Washington area has been insulated from some of the current economic problems.

Gasoline prices here have risen as rapidly as elsewhere, but the area has a booming real estate market and strong job growth.

Beyond the Beltway, the real curiosity is why the economy has not become a more significant political issue this spring.

One reason may be the media's preoccupation with other news: the deaths of Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo, and debates about the future of Social Security and the federal judiciary.

Another may be the degree to which partisanship rather than the actual state of the economy shapes attitudes toward Bush's performance.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said that attitudes about Bush are generally fixed -- with Republicans overwhelmingly supportive and Democrats overwhelmingly opposed -- and affected primarily by terrorism and security.

Therefore economic changes have less impact on this administration than past administrations.

Still, there is evidence that the public may be paying closer attention to economic issues, particularly rising gasoline prices, than politicians in Washington realize.

The most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that gasoline prices ranked second behind Schiavo as the most closely followed story during late March.

Ehlers said he has been getting an earful from constituents, angered by gas prices, frightened by the latest layoff announcement, this one from the Grand Rapids-based office furniture giant Steelcase Inc., and frustrated by Congress's inattention.

The negative reaction to Congress's intervention in the Schiavo case was particularly jarring, Ehlers said.

"Many are rather upset at the Terri Schiavo issue," he said, even "moderately pro-life" voters.

"I'm getting a lot of the, 'Why are you spending time on that when we don't have jobs?' type of thing."

In Michigan, jobs and the economy have vaulted to the No. 1 concern of 34 percent of voters, with the closest other issues, health care and education, at a distant 15 percent, said Ed Sarpolus, an independent Michigan pollster.

"I haven't seen anything like that since the early '90s and crime," he said.

Michigan is not isolated.

A Des Moines Register poll released Sunday found Bush's approval rating in Iowa down to 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency.

Only 24 percent of Iowans approved of his handling of the federal budget, 26 percent approved of his efforts to change Social Security and 36 percent approved of his handling of the economy.

"There are serious pocketbook issues lurking in America," said Rep. Jim Leach (R- Iowa).

Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the NBC poll with McInturff, said gas prices and other economic indicators have directly contributed to pessimistic views about the state of the country, which have been generally negative in their survey for almost two years.

If gas prices stay high and the market remains sluggish, the economy could mushroom into a dominant issue in next year's midterm elections.

"In terms of what they're looking for out of Washington and the president and Congress, [people] are expecting some policy that will address this issue [gas prices]," said GOP pollster David Winston.

"It doesn't have to happen tomorrow, but they expect to see some progress being made."

Bush addressed rising gas prices in a speech yesterday, calling again for Congress to pass his long-stalled energy package.

But in an interview with CNBC's Ron Insana earlier this week, he acknowledged he has no short-term fix for energy prices.

"It took us a while to get to where we are today, and it's going to take us a while to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy," Bush said.

"Even signing an energy bill, you don't have an instant fix."

Democrats have been slow to seize on the economy, focusing on Social Security plan, attacking House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and a Senate showdown over filibustering judicial nominations.

But they weighed in yesterday, charging that the Energy Department had estimated last year that the GOP energy bill would raise gas prices by an average of 3 cents a gallon.

Democratic strategist Geoffrey Garin said Democrats should be working harder to make the case that Republicans are ignoring pocketbook issues while they pursue changes in the judiciary or try to protect DeLay.

"The developing story line is about an arrogant Republican majority that's lost touch with what's important," he said.

"For Democrats to convey that point, they have to invest a lot of time and energy."

Winston said the economy -- particularly gas prices and their impact on income -- represents a thorny problem for the GOP, but one with significant dividends if the party rises to the challenge.

"It's a unique opportunity for Republicans if we can solve it," he said, "and it can be difficult for Republicans if we can't."

And while we are on this subject of the economy, and OUR Congress' seeming inability and failure to grasp whether we do or don't really even have one, here is another companion article to this issue of OUR economy, this one from Wednesday, April 20, 2005:

Business - AP Economic Figures

"Inflation Surge Is Biggest in Five Months"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Consumer prices jumped 0.6 percent in March, the biggest inflation surge in five months, as the costs of energy, clothing and airline fares all rose sharply.

The Labor Department said last month's increase in the Consumer Price Index, the most closely watched inflation gauge, followed a 0.4 percent rise in February and left consumer inflation rising at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the first three months of this year.

That was a full percentage point above the 3.3 percent rise in prices for all of 2004.

The new report showed that even outside of food and energy, there were significant price pressures last month.

The so-called core rate of inflation rose by a worrisome 0.4 percent in March, the largest jump in 2 1/2 years and double what economists had expected.

It reflected higher prices for clothing, hotel rooms, airline tickets and medical care.

The government's new report on inflation showed significantly higher price pressures than had been observed in Tuesday's report on wholesale inflation, which showed a similar overall increase of 0.7 percent, reflecting a sharp jump in energy prices, but only a tiny 0.1 percent increase in prices outside of energy and food.

Economists said the new inflation report was likely to raise worries at the Federal Reserve because of price pressures becoming evident outside of the energy area.

The Fed has been raising interest rates at a gradual pace of small quarter-point moves since June of last year.

The higher inflation pressures are coming at a time when a number of reports in recent weeks have shown economic weakness, from a disappointing employment rise in March to lower-than-expected retail sales.

"We are getting slower growth and higher inflation numbers."

"The Fed is caught," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

"The Fed would like to keep interest rates low to keep the economy moving but on the other hand they have to fight against inflation."

Wyss predicted that the central bank would raise rates another quarter-point when Fed officials next meet on May 3 and probably continue with quarter-point increases in future months.

Economists and the Federal Reserve track the core inflation figure closely, believing it is a better gauge of underlying inflation pressures since the overall price number can swing widely in response to the volatile energy and food components.

The 0.4 percent rise in the prices outside of food and energy in March followed a 0.3 percent increase in February, which had been the first uptick from four straight months of more moderate 0.2 percent gains in the core inflation rate.

So far this year, the core rate for consumer prices are rising at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the first three months of the year, the fastest quarterly inflation spurt for core prices since the summer of 2001.

For all of last year, core inflation rose by just 2.2 percent.

For March, energy costs shot up 4 percent, the biggest one-month gain since a similar 4 percent rise last October.

Gasoline prices climbed 7.9 percent, reflecting the shock motorists have gotten at the pump.

There should be a further jump for April given that motorists nationwide are now paying an average of $2.28 per gallon.

Food costs rose by a more moderate 0.2 percent in March, following an even smaller 0.1 percent gain in February.

Price declines for pork and fresh fruits helped to moderate price increases for beef, poultry and vegetables.

Outside of energy and food, clothing costs, which had been declining, jumped 0.8 percent in March, the biggest one-month gain in 12 months.

Airline ticket prices rose by 2.7 percent, the largest increase in nearly four years.

Airlines have been raising ticket prices to cope with soaring fuel costs.

The costs of hotel and motel rooms shot up 3.9 percent in March, the biggest increase on record.

SO!

Here we are, America, here we are!

George W. Bush is spending $300 BILLION out of OUR national treasury on his client/puppet state of Iraq, to make it a better place for him and Dick Cheney, especially with that cushy new palace, er, sprawling embassy complex, that they are going to build over there for hundreds of MILLIONS of OUR TAX DOLLARS, and well, we have had our turn, haven't we, as a non-third world country, and so, what should we really have to complain about, as we now assume OUR role as the world's newest emerging third-world nation?

"State risks health funding - Budget stakes future of medical programs on $2.2B in stock proceeds"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, April 21, 2005

ALBANY -- The state will pull the plug on major health care programs for the poor and elderly if $2.2 billion included in the just-enacted budget doesn't materialize by June 30.

The money is needed to keep funding Child Health Plus, a health insurance program for children of poor people and a big initiative of Assembly Democrats.

It is also needed to pay for EPIC, the state program to make prescriptions for elderly poor people affordable and a favorite of Senate Republicans.

The funds also are needed to help hospitals afford to care for people without health insurance.

Although the Pataki administration and the Legislature were aware of the potential $2.2 billion hole in the enacted state budget, the Division of Budget underscored it publicly in a report Wednesday that discussed the risks in the spending plan.

The Budget Division noted the state has $1.5 billion in reserves.

It also says several uncertainties could affect the balanced budget, particularly the unresolved issue of relying on $2.2 billion from insurance company conversions from not-for-profit to for-profit entities.

The money, needed to pay for numerous programs in the about $5.5 billion Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) portion of the state budget, is tied up in litigation challenging the use of proceeds from the 2002 conversion of Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

The Court of Appeals is expected to determine if the state has a right to Empire stock.

The state hopes to sell enough of the stock to raise $1.8 billion for HCRA.

The budget counts on another $400 million from other conversions, most likely the proposed switch of the Health Insurance Plan, a New York City insurer.

The HIP conversion is far from certain because various public unions and downstate municipalities want some of the proceeds if a conversion occurs.

"No spending for certain HCRA programs may occur after June 30, 2005, unless conversion proceeds become available," the Budget Division stressed.

"The financial plan assumes that this issue will be resolved to allow full-year spending for all HCRA programs."

Besides Child Health Plus and EPIC, tens of millions of dollars would be lacking to reimburse hospitals for caring for indigent patients -- known as the bad debt and charity pool -- and millions more for nursing homes and hospitals to recruit and retain workers -- funds that the influential hospital worker union lobbied to include in the budget.

"This shows how relying on speculative one-shots can get you in trouble further down the road," said Diana Fortuna, executive director of the Citizens Budget Commission, an independent watchdog.

She said she would be surprised if the Legislature doesn't work out some way to fix the problem before its scheduled departure date of June 23.

Ken Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said if the conversion money isn't freed in time, hospitals will suffer a "train wreck."

Matthew Cox, a spokesman for the Healthcare Association of New York State, said the leaders know the money is too important to be left out of the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, noted that the financial plan could be in trouble in other ways, particularly if just one casino is built in the Catskills.

He said the state needs several American Indian casinos operating in the Catskills to assure balanced budgets going forward.

"We have planned for cash flow from those casinos."

"And we have planned for three to five, not one," Bruno said.

Mark Hansen, a spokesman for Bruno, said the Court of Appeals is hearing arguments on the Empire case this month.

If the ruling comes too late or goes against the state, the Legislature could pass new conversion laws, he said.

Assembly Insurance Committee Chairman Alexander Grannis, D-Manhattan, blames the Pataki administration for gambling on winning the Empire case and getting access to the funds.

"The pressure is going to be on," he said.

The Budget Division also determined that the size of the enacted budget is $106.5 billion and calls for a 7.4 percent increase in funds raised by taxes and fees and other state revenues over last year's budget.

Well, here we are, at least up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, where we now NEED several casinos operating in the Catskill Mountains, to assure future balanced New York State budgets going forward, WHICH MEANS THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR ECONOMIC HEALTH HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOW DEPENDS ON GAMBLERS!

Yes, America, gamblers!

WE NEED GAMBLERS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO SAVE IT FROM ECONOMIC RUIN, so, go figure that out, will you?

GAMBLERS are the only real hope left for OUR America, now, it seems, after the hard-working crowd out there failed miserably at the job, I guess, or at least the PUNDITS like "Big Joe" Bruno got it figured that way, and people like that would know these things, wouldn't they?

After all, they are politicians, and isn't that what we pay them all those big bucks to do, to know these kinds of things for us, who are just too damn dumb to get out of OUR own way as we walk down the street?

Or maybe it is only New York State where that is so, and I would hope that it was, to be truthful, although I fear this plague spreads all across OUR land, where the GAMBLER is now the MODEL CITIZEN in OUR America!

And what a statement that really is, when you think about it!

When I was young, the backbone of my community were the hard-working members of the community who taught me what are my values of today, and now, those people are passe!

Now, the backbone of the community is the GAMBLER, the "easy bucks" crowd who does not work for their earnings, but wagers for them, instead!

"Hey, I know, we can bet on the color of the next car to go through the intersection!"

"Here's my hundred on candy-apple red!"

And this is the new "favorable morality", or "vogue morality", that is being taught to OUR young folks up here by such MORALISTS as "Big Joe" Bruno and George Pataki, the "9 and a half MILLION DOLLAR REPUBLICAN MAN" in New York State:

"Gambling IS GOOD, kids!"

"Gambling is what pays for these nice schools that we are giving you, and gambling is providing an education for you, where without these good God-fearing and UPRIGHT GAMBLERS, you would be going ignorant, just like all those people out there who can't see all the good that GAMBLING does for us REPUBLICANS, er, ah, well, I mean the state!"

"And so, when you get your education, thanks to these good God-fearing and UPRIGHT GAMBLERS in OUR society who made it possible for you, be sure that you go out and do your part for future generations of Americans by becoming a GAMBLER yourself!"

And there, America, is where we are!

And what of tomarrow, you ask?

Well, what odds are you going to offer me if I answer that question for you?

After all, we do have to help OUR economy, don't we, so, pony up, America, pony up!

"Getcha, getcha, getcha LOTTERY TICKET HERE, hey, hey slot machines over here, step right up, folks, step right up, it's for a good cause, the education of our next generation of suckers, er, gamblers, er, model citizens, and so, pony up!"

And here IS where we are up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, where older people like myself encourage younger folks to get right out of this corrupt hole while they are young, and have the energy to do so!

"Get yourself free of this crap, go somewhere decent and a lot less costly to live, and you'll be just fine, and no, don't worry about us, we'll make out somehow!"

"State losing numbers game - As New York sheds residents, concerns raised about political clout, federal funding"

By KENNETH AARON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, April 21, 2005

Florida already has plenty of sunshine and Disney World and oranges.

And pretty soon, it's going to have New York's spot as the nation's third-most populous state.

Come 2011, New York is expected to swap positions with Florida and drop to the country's fourth-largest state, according to projections the U.S. Census Bureau will release today.

Besides the psychic disappointment of slipping another spot in the head count horse race, there are more tangible issues, too:

Fewer people means fewer representatives in the U.S. Congress and a shrinking share of some federal dollars.

"This is unpleasant news but not a surprise," said Robert B. Ward, director of research for the Public Policy Institute, part of the Business Council of New York State, an Albany lobbying group.

"People vote with their feet."

"People go where they can find opportunity, and for half a century now other states have been beating New York at providing opportunity," he said.

Ward's group calculates the state will likely lose two of its 29 seats in the House of Representatives if the census figures hold true.

That's the state's lowest level since 1810, when there were 186 members in the House.

It gets worse: By 2030, the delegation may slide to 23.

In 1950 it was 45.

The state's share of federal highway dollars, among other things, is also determined by population.

The more people who move elsewhere, the more money those places receive.

Frequently, that money will go toward building new infrastructure while New York will need bigger investments to support what it has, said Rocco Ferraro, executive director of the Capital District Regional Planning Commission.

Besides that, he's worried more people will start maintaining dual residences -- sunny places for part of the year, New York for the rest -- yet not be counted as New York residents.

That could leave local communities holding the bag for services they need to provide yet can't generate enough revenue to support.

All this fretting puts the state in an unfamiliar position.

After spending most of the nation's history as its most-populated state, a string that ran from 1810 to 1970, New York has taken a relatively quick spin through spots two and three, behind California and Texas.

That said, this is not exactly a last-person-out-hit-the-lights situation.

The state is still picking up population, and is expected to do so until 2019, when the numbers start to dip a bit annually.

New York is likely to be the nation's fourth-largest state in 2030, the last year for which demographers have issued projections.

And No. 5 on the list, Illinois, isn't exactly rising with a bullet -- it will have 6 million fewer residents than New York.

But growth has definitely shifted to the south, leaving New York and other industrialized states to limp along.

Only Ohio and Iowa are adding residents at a slower pace; West Virginia, North Dakota and the District of Columbia are expected to lose residents during that period.

The Sunshine State's ascendancy was seen as inevitable by demographers.

While New York used to grow quickly, its growth is now stunted by falling birth rates, an aging population and a continued exodus of foreigners who come to New York but move elsewhere.

It did happen more quickly than expected, though.

The last time the Census Bureau released state-by-state projections, in 1996, they didn't figure Florida would pass New York until 2025.

A spokesman for Gov. George Pataki said the numbers don't reflect the growth the state expects from its efforts to attract high-tech companies, and jobs.

"The governor's committed to bringing the jobs of the future to New York," said Todd Alhart.

The news has left some talking about silver linings.

Slower growth means communities might be able to get a better handle on where they're headed.

"If you look out to Arizona and Nevada, where they have runaway growth, they have some tremendous problems dealing with that growth," said Warren A. Brown, a demography professor at Cornell University who worked with the Census Bureau in preparing the state's figures.

"They're probably not going to run out of sunshine."

"But they might run out of water."

Even so, this might call for a little emotional pick-me-up for New Yorkers.

"We haven't really lost anything, but there's probably a need to market to self-esteem statewide," said David Brown, chief executive of Sawchuk, Brown Associates, an Albany marketing, public relations and public affairs firm.

This state still has New York City, after all, the nation's biggest.

And there's plenty of interesting things happening.

But not enough to stop lots of people from packing their bags.

"Florida's, like, the hottest spot," said Jack Dring, vice president and general manager of Arnoff Moving & Storage of Albany.

"I could keep a caravan running there."

The amount of tonnage his moving vans send down there is "ridiculous," said Dring, who said everybody from the young to retirees are heading south.

Not that it's necessarily calling him.

He flew into Orlando with his wife once and saw nothing but houses being built upon houses.

If others want to go, though, he's fine with that.

"As long as they keep coming to us so I can fill my trucks," he said.

Works out to about $1.50 per barrel. A pretty good "investment," wouldn't you say?

Man, I'd settle for that right now. We Kah-lee-FAWN-yuns are looking at $2.60 to $2.75 a gallon. Of course, we have special gas.

Because we are special people.

I'm surprised by how expensive gas is out there in AH-nold-ville, as we easterners now think of Kah-lee-FAWN-yuh!

And where is this $2.28 per gallon?

I paid $2.45 yesterday for 89 octane!

And we have the same special gas as you, as well, jeffmoskin, exactly the same, and for the same reasons, I would guess, although nobody ever does really tell us what they are!

BUT ....

Despite that, WE yokels up here in upstate New York still feel that "pride" nonetheless, that we are burning the exact same gas in our old Toyotas and such, as the TERMINATOR GOVERNOR of AH-nold-ville uses in his HUMVEE!

Somehow, isn't that supposed to make us proud to be an American?

Isn't that really why we imported AH-nold in the first place, to teach us all how to be good Americans, starting with the Kah-lee-FAWN-yuns, because you all are such special people, and so, should have a good dose of AH-nold, before he comes to bring the blessings of democracy to all the rest of us benighted folks out here in OUR America?

What I think would be a real good investment for OUR tax dollars would be to come up with a nation-wide system of voting, here in OUR America, that has some integrity to it, so that no more of OUR elections can possibly be hijacked!

I think a real good place to invest OUR tax money is right here, where it belongs, and not in some place like Iraq, which has the funds from its oil reserves to pay its own way!

But oh, I forgot, we stole that oil, didn't we?

SO!

Is this where that line about letting them eat cake comes in?

And speaking of elections being hi-jacked, what's this from the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York on that exact subject of "reforming" the electoral process, here in OUR America?

"Assembly OKs voting package"

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, April 21, 2005

ALBANY -- The Assembly on Wednesday gave final legislative approval to limited reform on voting in New York as a federal deadline looms.

The biggest and most contentious items remain undone as the Legislature faces a June 23 end-of-session deadline to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act.

The Legislature has yet to agree on who should control the process of selecting new voting machines and what will be acceptable voter identification.

Wednesday's action will create a statewide official record of registered voters and establish a complaint procedure for voters who feel their rights were violated.

The voter list would be a compilation of county - and city - election registration lists, but the state would be able to identify and take action against duplicate registrations, convicted felons still registered despite losing their right to vote and deceased voters, said the bill's co-sponsor, Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, an Oneida County Democrat.

The registration list is less than what good-government advocates sought.

They wanted instant registration at polling places through the use of laptop computers and other measures, said Rachel Leon of Common Cause of New York.

The groups also said the bill lacks enough privacy protections and voters won't be informed when they are removed from the list.

HAVA requires states to have new machines and statewide lists for the 2006 elections.

If it meets the deadline, New York would receive $200 million in federal funding to buy modern machines.

You know, I don't recall ever hearing of any major problems or scandals up here resulting from the use of our present voting machines, which are the mechanical lever-type, and so, I am really curious as to where the United States government gets off telling us that we have to have new voting machines, when the "new" machines the Bush government is "pushing" inspire absolutely no confidence in me, or other older Americans in New York State, for that matter, based on their track record of errors, and the fact that nobody knows what is happening to OUR votes once they are put into those computerized machines.

And while the Iraqis are eating their cake, what about us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York?

What will we be eating?

Not the fish from most of our lakes and other water bodies, thanks to environmental contamination, and that is a fact!

BUT .....

Since we are now an emerging third-world nation, what does that matter?

In fact, isn't that a sign that we are a third-world nation, that we can't eat anything, because it is so contaminated?

"State expands cautions on eating fish - Health officials warn of mercury in Adirondack and Catskill catches"

By MATT PACENZA, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Saturday, April 16, 2005

ALBANY -- State health officials Friday warned women of childbearing age and children younger than 15 to not eat most fish caught in the Adirondacks and Catskills -- the most expansive warning ever in New York -- because of mercury contamination.

The warning says young women and children should avoid eating northern pike, pickerel, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass and larger yellow perch from all waters in the Adirondack and Catskill regions because of mercury.

Those species are larger predator fish, more likely to have higher concentrations of the potent neurotoxin in their tissues because they mostly eat other fish.

The advisory follows years of restricting individual ponds, lakes and other waterways, an approach that health and environmental advocates said was not nearly protective enough.

Many other states have the blanket advisory that New York has now adopted.

"This is something that has long been needed," said Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.

The state Health Department and Department of Environmental Conservation regularly test the state's waters.

But John Sheehan of the Adirondack Council, an environmental group, said the blanket warning makes sense because the state doesn't have the resources to check enough bodies of water.

"We can only test a few each year, but the consistent pattern is we find contaminated fish almost every time we tested."

In addition, the state Health Department issued 25 more specific advisories for water bodies statewide, all but one of which are for mercury contamination, including a ban on eating any walleye and no more than one meal per month of smallmouth bass from Dunham Reservoir in Rensselaer County.

The complete list is available at http://www.health.state.ny.us.

A meal is defined by the Health Department as a half-pound of fish.

Last year, 50 waterways had health advisories for elevated mercury levels, 30 of them in the Adirondacks.

That region now has nearly 40 ponds, lakes and rivers with specific warnings, which go beyond the region's women and children advisory, Sheehan said.

Mercury can damage a developing nervous system as well as the growth of organs in a fetus, infants and young children.

Some of the contaminants may also build up in women and are passed to babies during breast-feeding, according to the state Health Department.

The advisories could hurt the Adirondacks and Catskills, which draw tourists and anglers from around the world, said Sheehan.

The fish advisory was also unusual because it came early in the fishing season.

Previous years' warnings have come as late as August.

"It's good to see the Pataki administration is taking this seriously enough to get the advisory out on time," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

"It's tragic that we have to do this," Sheehan said.

"But we may be seeing the worst of it right now," he said.

Mercury pollution has been a hot topic at both the state and national levels.

Environmentalists blasted the Bush administration last month for not moving quickly enough to force coal-burning power plants -- the biggest domestic source of mercury -- to put controls in place to limit mercury emissions.

The White House plan, which is being challenged in the courts, uses a controversial "cap-and-trade" approach to cut power plants' mercury emissions from 48 tons per year currently to about 15 tons by 2025.

State officials, including Gov. George Pataki, had called on President Bush to enact a stronger mercury policy, citing the state's fish contamination.

State officials have said they will consider their own mercury policy.

But they point out that a recently enacted state rule concerning power plants targets nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, which contribute to acid rain and smog, will likely cut New York's mercury pollution between 40 and 80 percent, depending on how the plants choose to cut the toxins.

Acid rain accelerates the absorption of mercury in fish.

Matt Pacenza can be reached at 454-5533 or by e-mail at mpacenza@timesunion.com.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Actually, there have been instances where "technicians" have filed a few teeth off the wheels, but in so doing they leave EVIDENCE. Of course, if nobody checks, then they get away with it.

In Ohio, my guess is that the "phantom software patch" that transferred a Kerry vote to a Bush vote "mysteriously" erased itself without a trace at, say 0300 November 3.

The only way we will ever be able to prove the existance of such a patch is for the programmer to come forth.

And doing so risks sleeping with the fishes.

If that is not already where he sleeps.

And here is a real, modern-day "NEW YORK" story if ever there was one!

"Gambling official under state scrutiny - Field investigator allegedly bilked investors through schemes"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Monday, April 18, 2005

ALBANY -- A state gambling official is under investigation by state and local law enforcement authorities for allegedly fleecing thousands of dollars from investors in his private business schemes and improperly using his job.

Patrick Walsh, 43, of Albany, an entrepreneur whose day job involves investigating legal gambling halls for the state Racing & Wagering Board, is under scrutiny.

His activities, linked to State Racing & Wagering Board colleague Louis J. Rossi, could put him in jail for years, State Police investigators say.

Numerous criminal charges were lodged against Walsh last week.

More are expected.

Peter Lynch, Walsh's lawyer, who entered not-guilty pleas for his client in Schenectady and Albany city courts, said complaints were sworn out by business associates after Walsh filed for bankruptcy protection.

"The disputes are civil in nature, and it is wrong for individuals to use the criminal justice system as a collection agency," Lynch said.

Rossi did not return a call.

Walsh is on indefinite suspension without pay from his $49,197-a-year job as of last week, when he was charged with three counts of grand larceny, scheme to defraud and eight counts of issuing bad checks.

He is accused of bilking a co-worker at the Racing & Wagering Board of $20,000 and taking thousands of dollars from friends and acquaintances, including from people at Schenectady's Bingo Palace, one of the gambling halls that Walsh, a field investigator, is supposed to keep an eye on for the state but at which he actually operated the food concession.

Rossi is a desk investigator, officials said, also in the charitable gambling unit, and a partner in several businesses with Walsh.

Those who call themselves victims thought they were investing in some of Walsh's and Rossi's moonlighting businesses.

The ventures include pizza shops and a private investigation firm, according to court documents.

In all, more than $63,000 was taken by Walsh in criminal schemes, State Police claim in their charges.

But investigators add that the file of those alleging fraud keeps growing.

"It's substantial," said State Police Investigator Walter J. Hadsell.

"It's a rarity you see someone who will screw over friends."

He declined to say if Rossi is under investigation, but said the Walsh probe is broadening.

The state Inspector General's Office also is looking into Walsh, according to both Hadsell and Stacy Clifford, a spokeswoman for the Racing & Wagering Board.

Clifford said the former executive director of the board, Ed Martin, turned Walsh in to the Inspector General for "inappropriate" activities.

A spokesman for the Inspector General, Steve Del Giacco, declined to comment.

Clifford said Rossi's job, which pays $52,114, is unchanged.

Both men filed for bankruptcy protection in the past year.

The bankruptcy records show Walsh declared $644,529 in debts, including liabilities to some of the people who have sworn out criminal complaints against him, and $17,051 in assets.

Rossi listed $303,639 in liabilities and $5,974 in assets.

The records show they co-owned businesses, including Sbarcheesy's Pizzeria, Little John's Pizza, Rossi and Walsh Management and MLLP, all of which were pizza enterprises that apparently have since closed or were sold.

Another business is listed as Amnic Corp.

Alleged victims include Joseph F.W. Ryan, a Racing & Wagering Board employee, who said Walsh induced him to take out $20,000 in credit-card loans to invest in two prepared-food businesses.

"I feel that he conned me out of the money," Ryan told police in a statement.

Robert Neals, the manager of the Bingo Palace, provided a series of checks to Walsh totaling about $33,000 as an erstwhile business partner.

"I trusted him since he worked for New York State as an investigator," Neals said.

"He was supposed to uphold the laws."

"I thought he was honest."

Richard Rudolph told police that he worked as Walsh's manager of the food concession at the Bingo Palace.

He said Walsh told him he'd become a partner in Sbarcheesy's if he gave him $10,000.

Rudolph said he regrets doing so because he did not get anything in return.

He said Walsh paid him $100 a week for managing the concession and $400 under the table, but that his paychecks kept bouncing.

Bernard Martinese, who owns Bingo Palace, said he agreed to the concession contract with Walsh because he was told by Walsh that superiors at the Racing & Wagering Board authorized the business relationship.

Clifford said she could not confirm that.

Martinese rented the concession space to Walsh for $2,000 a week and often didn't get paid, he said.

Another alleged victim, Paul Vincent Oliver, said he gave Walsh $12,000 to become a partner in a Niskayuna pizza parlor but he never received stock ownership as promised.

Instead, he said, he received notice that he was a creditor in Walsh's and Rossi's bankruptcies.

Oliver also said that as he considered Walsh's invitations to become an investor,

Walsh portrayed himself as someone able to pull strings within the state bureaucracy.

Oliver said he was concerned about a liquor license for his La Casa Di Canali restaurant and Walsh told him he would make a call to the State Liquor Authority to help.

A few days later, as Walsh had suggested, a liquor license was issued.

And here I have to say that the most interesting thing in this story is this guy telling all the world, including the IRS, that he has been making $400 per week under the table, working for this other guy in this story, the gambling investigator!

Presumably, if he was making $400 "under the table", then there was no record of that money, and of course, this guy making that $400 per week was likely not reporting it on his income taxes, and so ......

Now, of course, it is pretty obvious to all the world that this guy has likely been cheating on his taxes, besides getting screwed by the scam artist, and so, I wonder now what the IRS is going to do about that admission!

It's like a story I heard on Paul Harvey the other day about a clerk in a store wanting to defeat the security cameras in the store so he could then rob the store, so, he placed pieces of clear tape over the camera lenses!

Rocket scientists!

This country is getting overrun with rocket scientists!

Must be NASA's fault, somehow, or maybe it is just plain, old evolution, and the natural selection of the fittest at play here, in OUR America!

Stay tuned and see!

And on a more serious note:

Middle East - AP

"Iraqi Leaders May Recruit Ex-Saddam Agents"

59 minutes ago

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Iraqi leaders trying to rebuild the country's government are struggling over whether to enlist some of Iraq's most experienced intelligence operatives.

The problem is that the officers' training comes from working at the fear-inspiring agencies once run by Saddam Hussein's ruling party.

Factions involved in the painstaking process of building the democratic government are voicing their reluctance to let former members of the Baath Party into the fledgling intelligence and security services.

"There is a fear among some Iraqis that I talk to that ex-Baathists are burrowing into these organizations with the express purpose of waiting for the opportune moment, such as when the U.S. leaves, to use these security organizations to make a big move," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which provides analysis to lawmakers.

He said he believes the fears are well founded.

After forming a new intelligence service last year, outgoing interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi decided to recall some of Saddam's former intelligence operatives, including individuals working in Iran, Syria and Russia, to help staff the new service.

American intelligence veterans say the U.S. supported the move, seen as an effort to bring trained people into the government and give them jobs.

Current and former U.S. officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the CIA has been intimately involved in helping establish the organization by assisting with basic building blocks such as how to assemble intelligence information in databases and keep the material secure.

The agency declined to comment for this story.

For months, however, larger issues have loomed.

Shiite and Kurdish groups, persecuted during Saddam's regime but now in power, have been anxious about efforts to include former Baathists in government positions, which is one of the trickiest political questions facing the loose coalition that's forming the new government.

The Baathist-run intelligence agencies were blamed for some of the former regime's worst brutality.

Yet anyone who wanted a government job had to be a member of the Baath Party, making it hard now to sort out true-believers from those who were trying to earn a living.

U.S. officials, on the alert for a sudden — or even gradual — purge, are watching closely for any number of changes in the intelligence service, including whether ex-Baathists or Iraqis deemed too close to the United States are put out of work.

While it remains unclear who will assume power in Iraq and what action they'll take, some are already sending strong signals that they will not tolerate Saddam holdovers.

"We will depend on the good elements that have no link to the former regime."

"They should have loyalty to Iraq and its people," said Abass Al-Bayati of the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance, which won the most votes in the Jan. 30 elections.

Haitham Al-Hussaini, an official from the Shiite political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said reform steps will be handled by "the well-known parties and figures."

"We will reconsider the Iraqi intelligence and security services to find out those who were working in the former services and have no loyalty," Al-Hussaini said.

U.S. decision-makers don't want a fracturing of security efforts because it likely would prove embarrassing and make it harder for the United States to reduce its presence in Iraq.

On a trip there this month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned against house cleaning of the leadership of security organizations.

"My personal hope and the hope of the United States is that those judgments will reflect a desire to have highly competent people who are not going to politicize security forces," Rumsfeld said.

But the potential confrontation puts the United States in a difficult spot:

American officials want new Iraqi institutions, including the intelligence service, to be stable and employ individuals from a variety of political backgrounds.

Yet they also want to ensure the new government is not penetrated by former elements loyal to Saddam who may use their position for harm.

"If the U.S. were to substantially pull out — and let's say there were a coup — it would be a big black mark on the U.S. record in Iraq," Katzman said.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Middle Eastern specialist with the CIA, said he believes it's likely there will be a "cleansing" of the intelligence service, which is considered compromised.

The new government, he said, will pay close attention to ties between any current or potential intelligence service members and the Sunni-led insurgency.

"There will not be former senior Baathists or others who were involved directly in the oppression of the Shiites and Kurds under Saddam Hussein."

"I don't think there is any chance in the world that the new government, dominated by Shiites and Kurds, would allow this," said Gerecht, now with the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.

Well, here we are in Iraq, all right, and well, who ever really knows, but me, well, what I think is that if we have a president who does either stupid or ill-thought-out things, that that makes all of us over here look weak and stupid, for having such a person as OUR president, and I don't think that is good in the long run, for either OUR America, or us!

BUT ....

Well, here we are!

And so .......

And here we are indeed, and rising up from some bunker somewhere deep in the very bowels of the earth itself once more again to do battle with the forces of evil in the world is OUR VERY OWN Richard "Halliburton Dick" Cheney!

And who, prey tell, is his target today, now that Saddam Hussein is no longer over there for OUR Dick to kick around?

Let's look and see:

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Cheney Warns Dems on Judicial Filibusters"

19 minutes ago

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote in the Senate to stop filibusters of judicial nominees if given the chance.

That means President Bush is breaking his word to stay out of the fight over Senate rules, Democratic leader Harry Reid responded.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wants to change Senate rules by banning judicial filibusters — a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member body.

Minority Democrats have used the tactic to block confirmation votes on 10 of Bush's appeals court choices.

Republicans hold 55 seats in the 100-member Senate, but a vote on changing the rules is expected to be close.

Cheney would be able to vote only if there is a tie.

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association at the National Press Club.

"But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote."

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the White House was "shattering the checks and balances in our government in order to put radical judges on the bench."

He said Bush was making it clear he no longer wanted to work with Democrats.

"Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules," Reid said.

"Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power."

Cheney said a minority of senators are using the filibuster to, in effect, establish a 60-vote requirement for judicial confirmation "in an astounding departure from historical precedent."

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney said.

"The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable, particularly when you are dealing with men and women of the caliber of those nominated by George W. Bush."

"By any standard of judicial merit, they are fully qualified to serve and by any standard of fairness, they deserve a vote in the United States Senate."

Democrats say it is Cheney who is trying to reinvent Senate history by changing the filibuster rules.

"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Cheney recognized in his audience one of the judges who has been filibustered, Charles Pickering of Mississippi.

Bush used a recess appointment last year to install Pickering to an appeals court.

Pickering announced in December that he would not seek the nomination for a permanent seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Republicans want to resolve the matter before a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court because they worry that having to get support from 60 senators would affect who Bush picks for that seat.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.

The Family Research Council, a conservative organization, has arranged a rally for this weekend in Tennessee to build support for the GOP plan.

It accuses Democrats of waging filibusters based on faith.

Frist is scheduled to appear by videotape.

Democrats have condemned those attacks and countered that their opposition is based solely on the conservative views of the nominees.
___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA)

As the principal national organization of lawyers affiliated with the Republican Party, the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) strives to advance professionalism, election integrity, republican ideals, and career opportunities for the... Copyright © 2003 Republican National Lawyers Association. All rights reserved ...

http://www.rnla.org


Find a Republican Lawyer

... by members is greater than the quality of other lawyers. Neither RNLA nor its officers or employees ... Copyright © 2003 Republican National Lawyers Association. All rights reserved ...

http://www.rnla.org/bio/BioDetail.asp?MemberID=67

Missions of the Republican National Lawyers Association

As the principal national organization of Republican lawyers, the Association has a targeted set of missions - all complementary, and none of which duplicate missions accomplished elsewhere.

Each member of the Association and every local chapter must ascribe to the accomplishment of these missions, which include:

Advancing Republican Ideals.

The RNLA further builds the Republican Party goals and ideals through a nationwide network of supportive lawyers who understand and directly support Republican policy, agendas and candidates.

Don't have the bad luck to go up against a bunch of REPUBLICAN lawyers when challenging alleged REPUBLICAN corruption in a REPUBLICAN-controlled county in the State of New York when you are standing before a REPUBLICAN judge in Federal Court, eh, Mr. A.B.!

Just might not be your day if you do, is my thought on the matter, anyway!

"Senate moves closer to filibuster showdown"

By Edward Alden and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Financial Times
Published: April 22 2005 18:19 | Last updated: April 22 2005 19:12

US business groups are urging the Senate Republican leadership to avoid the “nuclear option” for pushing through controversial judicial nominations, fearing it will bring to a standstill work on a range of business-friendly legislation.

Thomas Donohue, chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce, told reporters on Friday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that use of the tactic to block Democratic filibusters would indefinitely tie up numerous pieces of legislation important for business interests.

“If we do that, then all else is going to stop,” he said.

The comments by Mr Donohue, who represents the largest business lobby in Washington, underscored tensions in the Republican party over whether it should use its control of the White House and Congress to push a pro-business agenda or a social agenda favoured by religious conservatives.

Bill Frist, the Senate Republican leader who has presidential aspirations for 2008, will speak in a taped telecast to be broadcast in many churches on Saturday in an effort to build grassroots support for ending the filibusters.

The determination of social conservatives in the Republican party to appoint more sympathetic judges was reinforced by the courts' refusal to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, who died last month after her feeding tube was removed at the request of her husband.

On Friday, Dick Cheney, vice president, said he would back changes to Senate’s filibuster rules.

“[I]f the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor” for a vote, Cheney said in a speech.

On Thursday the Senate voted to move forward with two of President George W. Bush's controversial judicial nominees, Janice Rogers Brown of California and Priscilla Richman Owen of Texas, who were blocked by Democrats during Mr Bush's first term.

Both are nominated for federal appeals courts, one level below the US Supreme Court.

The move could set up a confrontation in the next month.

Mr Frist has threatened to use new procedural tactics to push through the nominees on a straight majority vote.

Under normal Senate rules, 60 out of 100 votes are required to end a filibuster, and the Republicans control just 55 seats.

But Democrats have made clear they will use every procedural tactic at hand to tie up all Senate business if the Republicans adopt what has been dubbed the nuclear option to push those judges through.

Mr Donohue said on Friday this would probably block several pieces of legislation that business interests care about deeply.

These include an energy bill, reform of medical liability and asbestos lawsuits, and a trade pact with Central America.

Mr Donohue used cautious language in opposing the nuclear option, reflecting fears among some business lobbyists that strident opposition could anger Republican leaders.

In addition, business groups have been active on the issue of judicial nominations, hoping to put more business-friendly judges on the bench.

"3 Justices Respond Personally to Criticism of U.S. Judiciary"

By DAVID STOUT, NY Times

Published: April 22, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 21 - Three Supreme Court justices gave rare, personal reactions on Thursday evening to criticism of the federal judiciary and agreed, not quite unanimously, that it does not bother them very much.

"This isn't new," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said when asked to comment on remarks that America is suffering from a judiciary "run amok," as Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader, put it recently, although he was not mentioned by name.

Across the decades, she said, there have been many instances of lawmakers, or presidents, savaging one court or another in moments of political passion.

(Mr. DeLay's annoyance with the Supreme Court and the "inferior courts," as the Constitution describes the lesser federal tribunals, has to do with a recent landmark ruling on capital punishment and the way the courts handled the Terri Schiavo case.)

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was similarly unruffled by what Tim Russert of NBC, the moderator of the justices' discussion at the National Archives, termed "a rising tide" of criticism against judges.

"Our job," Justice Breyer said, "is to decide the case in front of us."

He said he understood that occasionally "emotions run very high" in cases not just before the Supreme Court but the lower tribunals.

Besides, Justice Breyer said, high emotions notwithstanding, "there's no talk of needing the paratroopers" to keep order in the streets.

"I dissent," Justice Antonin Scalia said, apparently not referring to the possibility of paratroopers but to whether the courts, and ultimately the American people, are being damaged by the intersection of law, politics and what some people characterize as an "evolving Constitution," a description that Justice Scalia generally does not endorse.

Justice Scalia recalled that he was confirmed by the Senate, 98 to 0, two decades ago, even though senators of all persuasions knew he was a conservative.

He wondered aloud, in the discussion before several hundred people, whether he would get a similar vote today.

But a moment later, he laughed.

"I don't worry about my legacy," he said.

"Just do your job right, and who cares?"

The appearance of the three justices, sponsored by the National Constitution Center, the National Archives and the Aspen Institute, came as court-watchers are increasingly wondering when there will be a change among the nine members.

The current lineup has been the same since Justice Breyer took his seat on Aug. 3, 1994.

The period without a change is one of the longest in the Supreme Court's history, but there has been speculation that President Bush may soon have an opportunity to nominate a justice, or even two.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is 80 and battling throat cancer, and Justice John Paul Stevens just turned 85.

The free-wheeling discussion, among three justices who are not always intellectual soulmates, seemed to reveal personal affection for one another and for the institution on which they serve "during good behavior," as the Constitution puts it.

Mr. DeLay has gone so far as to suggest that lawmakers explore exactly what the Constitution means by that phrase.

His criticism of the judiciary has escalated since federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, ultimately refused to intervene in the case of Ms. Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who was the focus of a battle between her estranged husband and parents over whether she should be kept alive by a feeding tube.

Mr. DeLay also criticized Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for citing international law in writing the court's ruling in March barring the execution of juveniles.

"That's just outrageous," Mr. DeLay said on Tuesday.

And on that point, at least, he got some support from Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia said Thursday evening, as he did in dissenting from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, that the feelings and practices in other countries were irrelevant in deciding what to do about the death penalty in the United States.

And Justice Scalia repeated his oft-noted wariness of the notion of an "evolving Constitution."

Justice Breyer did not quite agree.

"It's appropriate in some instances" to look at what goes on in other countries, he said.

"They do not bind us by any means."

In the capital punishment decision that Mr. DeLay found so offensive, Justice Breyer was in the 5-to-4 majority.

All three justices said Thursday that young people need to know more about their Constitution.

They laughed ruefully when Mr. Russert recalled an interview with young people waiting to get into "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."

What did they think of the Fifth Amendment, the young people were asked.

"Is that the one that says you have to be 21 to drink?" one replied.

WEB EXCLUSIVE | JOAN VENNOCHI

"GOP bullying on Bolton"
By Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe Columnist | April 22, 2005

What kind of moral value is this?

Faced with a Republican with a conscience, President Bush attributes GOP concern over the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations to partisan bickering.

‘‘Sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people’s business,’’ Bush said yesterday in a speech to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America convention in Washington.

He urged senators to ‘‘put aside politics’’ and confirm Bolton.

That is an overt presidential mischaracterization of what is happening to his nominee, a mischaracterization that a morals class might even consider a falsehood.

Democrats surely can be accused of partisanship in trying to block Bolton’s nomination.

But how does that charge apply to Republicans who are feeling queasy about the nominee and want more information from him?

"My conscience got me,’’ said Republican Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, explaining on Tuesday why he changed his mind about supporting Bolton as UN ambassador.

‘‘I wanted more information about this individual and I didn’t feel comfortable voting for him.’’

As a result, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was forced to postpone a vote on Bolton’s nomination.

Since then, other Republicans are wavering as well.

Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, who earlier was inclined to support Bolton, said he wanted to consult with colleagues.

And Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, is also expressing concern about some of the accusations against Bolton.

‘‘I think these charges are serious enough to demand they cry out for further explanation,’’ he said.

Voinovich got a conscience after hearing Senators Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, make the case against Bolton.

Part of the case submitted by the Democrats involved a statement from Melody Townsel of Dallas, a former contract worker for the Agency for International Development.

In an open letter to the committee, Townsel wrote that Bolton, as a private lawyer, routinely visited her hotel room in Moscow ‘‘to pound on the door and shout threats’’ because she complained about inefficiencies by one of Bolton’s clients, a contractor in a foreign aid program.

‘‘Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and genuinely behaving like a madman,’’ Townsel wrote.

She also said Bolton falsely told US Foreign Service officials that she was under investigation for misuse of funds.

One co-worker has corroborated some of the charges, while the president of the company has challenged some.

Bolton has not responded to the charge.

Bolton’s critics also accuse him of trying to intimidate intelligence analysts and have them fired when they did not agree with him.

At an earlier hearing, he defended his treatment of two analysts, saying he only meant to signal his lost confidence in them, not retaliate against them for their views.

The charges make temperment, not just ideology, an issue for Bolton.

And temperment is fair game for a man nominated as ambassador to the UN, even one committed to ‘‘reforming’’ it.

In a fitting tribute to Bolton’s bullying style, the Wall Street Journal editorial page yesterday waded in with its own journalistic door-pounding and threat-shouting, belittling Voinovich and Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The pressure is now on Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Will they fold in the face of the onslaught from Bolton’s supporters, or do the right thing and ask Bolton to come back and address the charges?

Lugar has not set a date for new hearing, but said his committee’s plans ‘‘would include the possibility that Secretary Bolton might be asked to come back for additional testimony.’’

Clearly, Bolton’s supporters do not want that to happen.

They know that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is correct in assessing the potential for the nominee to die a ‘‘death of a thousand cuts.’’

But how does the GOP, the self-proclaimed party of moral purpose, overlook a Republican senator’s freely expressed conscience?

Democrats did not beat that out of Voinovich; they did not pound at his door, shout threats, chase him down hallways, or throw things at him.

They merely presented information that gave him and other Republicans pause, making them desire more information from the nominee.

That is not stopping the people’s business, as Bush charges.

That is that is doing the people’s business, as high a moral purpose as there is in Washington.

Joan Vennochi’s e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Presidential Nominees Usually Get Approved"

Fri Apr 22,10:42 AM ET Politics - U. S. Congress

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Beyond the sound and fury of the Senate fight over U.N. ambassador-nominee John R. Bolton is the reality that presidents typically get their man — or woman — and President Bush boasts one of the better records on high-level appointments.

The stunning turn of events in the Bolton case — the Senate Foreign Relations Committee postponed a widely expected affirmative vote on the nomination to investigate new charges of abusive personal behavior and misuse of government power — highlights the history of the venerable advice and consent that the Senate gives presidential appointments.

Senators traditionally have saved their fights for judicial nominees, particularly Supreme Court choices, and let presidents have their picks for the Cabinet and other senior executive branch jobs.

"These are relatively rare events for the Senate to scrutinize and not give the president deference for appointments," said Sarah Binder, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

Few nominations have faltered over whether the candidate is a bully, and some point out that Congress itself has more than its share of hard-driving bosses.

"That's a standard a lot of senators might not be able to pass," said John J. Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College who, paraphrasing the line from the movie "Apocalypse Now," said denying a nomination over boorish behavior is like "handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."

Since 1789, presidents have made hundreds of Cabinet appointments, and the Senate failed to confirm just 15 — nine rejections, four withdrawals, two died in committee, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The last failed Cabinet nominee is one Bush would remember — his father's choice of former Texas Sen. John G. Tower to be defense secretary.

In January 1989, Tower seemed headed to confirmation despite allegations of a drinking problem and womanizing.

Then conservative activist Paul Weyrich testified about Tower's personal behavior and the Senate Armed Services Committee rushed into closed session, stalling the nomination.

Amid the delay, the committee received fresh allegations about Tower, giving new life to the opposition.

The committee eventually gave the nomination an unfavorable recommendation, on an 11-9 vote, as partisan rancor rose.

The Democratic-controlled Senate had the final say, rejecting the Republican president's pick of Tower, 53-47, on March 9.

Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, sees similarities between the Bolton nomination and the Tower fight.

"Anybody who has an overbearing boss, tyrannical, hopes there's a day of reckoning," said Baker, who argued that the problems arise when there is a significant postponement in the vote, giving "time for people who might have been tempted to come forward."

Said Pitney: "It's payback time for anyone he's mistreated."

"And it sounds like it could be a very long list."

Bush offered a strong defense of Bolton on Thursday, calling him "the right man at the right time for this important assignment" and urging the Senate to confirm him.

Like his father with Tower, he is bound to see the nomination through to the end.

But it was a Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, whose reservations about Bolton prompted the committee to delay the vote.

William Binning, a political science professor at Youngstown State University, said once Voinovich makes up his mind, the White House should forget about trying to change it.

"He's a bulldog, he doesn't yield," Binning said.

Said former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., of Voinovich:

"He's independent."

"He calls them as he sees them."

In the face of strong opposition, many a nominee has either jumped or been quietly pushed by the White House before a vote.

Some realized their problems would surely scuttle their selection and abandoned the fight before the gavel sounded on their confirmation hearing.

Two of Bush's picks — Linda Chavez for Labor secretary in 2001 and Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security in 2004 — withdrew their names due to potential problems involving hired help.

Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, had picks for attorney general (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) falter over nanny problems and his choice to head the Justice Department's civil rights division (Lani Guinier) undone by her legal writings on racial issues and strong Republican opposition.

William Weld, a liberal Republican and Clinton's pick to be U.S. ambassador to Mexico, couldn't get past the determined effort of former Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the conservative chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Donna Cassata covered the Tower nomination for The Associated Press in 1989.

By Melissa Rogers
Originally published April 22, 2005
Baltimore Sun

I AM A CHURCHGOING, Bible-believing Baptist, but I recently learned that I'm not a Christian.

Indeed, I've not only learned that I'm not a Christian, I've also learned that I'm anti-Christian and hostile to religion.

Why?

Because I dare to disagree with a certain political and legal agenda.

That's the message that is scheduled to be preached in a Kentucky church Sunday, at an event sponsored by the Family Research Council and joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The event is titled "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith."

The press release for the event states that certain judicial nominees are being opposed "because they are people of faith and moral conviction."

It labels a broad range of court decisions as "liberal, anti-Christian dogma," claiming that "activist courts ... have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

In sum, the release says that "we must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

Thus, according to supporters of this agenda, including one of the foremost leaders in Congress, anyone who has a different view of the Constitution is an advocate of "liberal, anti-Christian dogma."

Anyone who takes a contrary position on Senate rules of procedure is hostile to faith.

End of story.

It's time to tell the truth.

There is no "filibuster against people of faith."

Religious people are on both sides of the debate about the filibuster and certain Bush-nominated judges.

And it's wrong for one of the country's foremost political leaders to lend legitimacy to a contrary notion.

Just as no one should have to pass a religious test in order to hold political office, no one should have to pass a political test in order to claim religion or morality.

Further, the Senate has already confirmed the overwhelming majority of President Bush's judicial nominees, and there is every reason to assume that most of these judges are religious people.

Many of these judges presumably share the president's views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Of course, it would be improper to oppose judges because of their faith, but it is legitimate for senators to inquire about a judge's constitutional philosophy and ability to follow settled law, whatever his or her personal opinion.

And surely reasonable minds can agree that something is seriously awry when a non-Catholic senator, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, lectures Catholic senators about Catholic doctrine during a hearing on judicial nominations.

Moreover, contrary to the Family Research Council's claims, court decisions have not resulted in the "banning of school prayer" and "the expulsion of the Ten Commandments from public spaces."

As courts have repeatedly recognized, students have every right to pray in public schools, as long as the school does not sponsor the prayer.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that if public parks are generally open for community group rallies and signs, religious rallies and signs must be welcome, too, so long as it's clear that the government itself isn't promoting religion.

Indeed, many deeply religious people support these principles precisely because they don't want the government secularizing the sacred and otherwise meddling in religion.

Just as the government always perverts the faith it promotes, politicians cheapen the religion they seek to embrace when they push partisan politics in churches.

When Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple, He said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer."

Houses of worship are holy places, not political precincts.

Dr. Frist is wrong to seek political advantage through this event, and his error is compounded by his tacit approval of these illegitimate claims of persecution and the smearing of others as "anti-religious" simply because they differ on certain political and legal issues.

When I hear attempts to manipulate people in the pews, I always think of one of my grandmother's favorite Bible verses:

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

May people of all faiths and political stripes reject a spirit of fear and speak the truth, with power and with love.

Melissa Rogers is a visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School.

Amen.



Dr. Frist is no doctor. The Hippocratic Oath states, "First, do no harm."

"Dr." Frist rates an "F" here.

Just one of the tons of ways it can be done. I repeat,

My simple solution: Voting machines with printers. You mark all your choices, verify them, and the machine spits out a ballot that you place upside down in the box. BEFORE you do that, you check the printout to make sure it's right and if it's not, you do it again til you get one that is; you put ONE piece of paper in the box, and leave. Is that too complicated? Or is democracy no longer within the means of our Bush-whacked country?

Meanwhile, bear in mind: The first instance of which I am aware where e-voting machines were used was a tight Senate race in Nebraska. They went with a system provided by Diebold. The winner: former Diebold CEO Chuck Hagel. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Could be worse; remember Operation Paper Clip? End result was a bunch of Nazis running the burgeoning CIA. Didn't much like it when JFK beat their un-official boss in '60, but they took care of that, huh? And the Commander-In-Thief was there in Dallas to shake his hand the day he was shot. Of course, most folks let their minor children travel 200 miles unescorted all the time, so I'm sure his CIA daddy was nowhere in the area. Then '68 rolls around and a Kennedy was gonna run against Nixon again, 'til he won Nixons home state in the primary. So how ticked was 41 when REAGAN gets the nomination in '80? Ask John Hinkley. Or ask Niel Bush; they did have dinner together the day before he shot Reagan.

I could go on and on like this, lowering my life expectancy more and more by the minute, but the bottom line is: Operation Paper Clip was a horrible mistake; I see no reason to do it again in Iraq.

Supposedly, Tower had a lot of Iran-Contra dirt on 41, and this nomination was an attempt to buy him off. When it failed it was all gonna hit the press. Unfortunately, the pilot of John Towers plain somehow failed to notice an entire mountain with which he collided as a direct result, killing all aboard, including the Texas Senator.

All comes full circle. ANYONE WITH ANY INFO ON WHICH CHURCHES WILL BE RECEIVING THE BROADCAST, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON AUSTIN, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO ME. ALL SUCH DATA WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

"Do not Love the world or the things in the world. If anyone Loves the world, the Love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world." (I John 2:15, 16) In other words, the obsession with wealth and power, and subservience to the thiefs and murders also obsessed with it, is NOT Godly or Christian.

"There is no fear in Love; but perfect Love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in Love. We Love Him because He first Loved us. [B]If someone says, 'I Love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not Love his brother whom he has seen, how can he Love God Whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who Loves God must Love his brother also."[B] (I John 4:18-21)

Christians don't bully people. Any Christian politician should remember not to be intimidated by fear, certainly not from psuedo-Christians; have faith in God and no fear of liars. Meanwhile, those calling themselves Christians while professing and practicing hatred have clearly identified their TRUE master and loyalty.

Perhaps the Oath should've read "Frist, do no harm."

Well, I'm in and out of here in a hurry this morning, and so, I won't respond to any posts above til later.

In the meantime, I'll leave this, and one other, for the record!

And Morambar, if you get a moment and want to take a look at what passes for justice up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, I have a thread running on that subject over in "JUDICIAL", entitled "Death Blow to Dissent!"

Science - AFP

"Climate change: Hundreds of Antarctic glaciers in retreat, says study"

Thu Apr 21, 4:11 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - Scientists have issued a fresh warning about the effect of climate change on Antarctica, saying that more than 200 coastal glaciers are in retreat because of higher temperatures.

Of the 244 marine glaciers that drain inland ice on the Antarctic peninsula, a region previously identified as vulnerable to global warming, 87 percent have fallen back over the last half century, according to research by British experts.

Using 2,000 aerial photos dating back to the late 1940s and 100 satellite pictures, experts from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) compiled a record of glacier-ice shelves and tidewater glaciers along the peninsula -- the tongue of land that juts 800 kilometers (500 miles) northwards out of continental Antarctica.

Glacier-ice shelves are floating glaciers on the shoreline that are still connected to the land glaciers from which they flowed.

Tidewater glaciers rest on rock and break off into the ocean when they reach the water's edge.

Over the last half century, during which time regional temperatures have risen by around 2 C (3.6 F), these glacier fronts have reversed direction, the authors note in a study published on Friday in the US weekly journal Science.

Until the mid-1950s, most of the glaciers advanced.

For the next decade after that, they were roughly stable.

Since then, though, most have been shrinking.

In the past five years, the retreat has accelerated, and the pattern of retreat is widening.

It started in the warmer northern tip of the peninsula and is heading progressively to the colder south as atmospheric temperatures rise.

"Fifty years ago, 62 percent of the glaciers that flowed down from the mountains to the sea we looked at were slowly growing in length, but since then this pattern has reversed," said lead author Alison Cook.

The average retreat of the 212 shrinking glaciers has been 600 metres (yards) over 50 years.

But this does not take into account a dramatic acceleration in recent years, exposing numerous islands that were once ice-smothered.

Sjogren Glacier, at the northern tip of the peninsula has fallen back eight kilometers (8.5 miles) since 1993, while Widdowson Glacier, on the west coast of the peninsula, has been retreated at 1.1 kms (0.6 miles) per year over the past five year.

As for the cause, the BAS team caution against a leap to judgement.

At present, it is unclear that the man-made "greenhouse effect" -- the burning of fossil fuels which disgorged carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, trapping solar heat -- is entirely to blame, they say.

They note that over the past 50 years, a minority (32) of glaciers has grown, by an average of 300 metres (yards), and that key data on local ocean temperatures and circulation remain scarce.

Antarctica's geology is split into three main regions: East Antarctica, which comprises the bulk of the continent; West Antarctica, which has two huge ice shelves on either side; and the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out of West Antarctica.

Previous research had already identified the peninsula as a vulnerable "hot spot" for global warming, although the reasons for this are debatable.

In February, BAS researcher Chris Rapley presented evidence that ice flows into the Southern Ocean from three big inland glaciers were accelerating, spurred by the loss of the vital shelves of floating glacial ice at the coast.

Like a cork released from a bottle, the lost shelves let the icy river flow swiftly into the sea, causing sea levels to rise by some 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per year.

The new study repeats that warning, although without giving figures.

It says the erosion of floating glacier ice could spur glacier flow from inland and "make a substantial contribution" to rising sea levels.

Antarctica, the fifth largest continent in the world, contains more than 90 percent of the world's ice, most of it above sea level.

If even a small part of this cap melts, rising sea levels could drown low-lying island states, cities and deltas.

Hhhhmmmm.

March 10, 2005!

Anyone ever hear anything more about this?

NO?

Me, neither!

Anyone surprised?

No, me, neither!

Europe - AP

"Italy's Berlusconi Forms New Government"

45 minutes ago

ROME - Conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi formed a new government on Saturday, presenting a list of ministers to Italy's president.

He was to be sworn in later in the day.

Berlusconi received a mandate to govern during a meeting Friday with President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, only two days after he quit as prime minister in a power struggle with his coalition allies.

With his reconstituted government, the Italian media magnate hopes to improve his sagging popularity and remain in power until the next election, due in mid-2006.

After a meeting at the presidential palace on Saturday, Berlusconi presented his Cabinet, saying he would keep Gianfranco Fini, head of the right-wing National Alliance party, as his foreign minister, and that he had chosen former Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti as deputy premier.

The government was to be sworn in at 6 p.m. (noon EDT), said Gaetano Gifuni, an official at the president's Quirinale Palace.

end quotes

Isn't it something how much can disappear from our minds with the simple passage of time.

A blessing perhaps, especially for politicians!

I saw your comment earlier, Morambar, but did not have an opportunity to address it at that time, and one of my thoughts is that your comment says much about you, if you know about this thing, and its impact on us today, if there might be one!

I am just coming back here right now from Mr. A.B.'s "FDR v. George W. Bush" thread, and earlier today, I was thinking that the Bush's and FDR have in essence been at war themselves since WWII, and that war is ideological, where FDR had one distinct point of view about the activities of George Herbert Walker and Prescott "Cottie" Bush in alleged connection with the National Socialists of Germany in the 1930's, and they had another.

SO!

There is no real surprise in the minds of many that these Nazis were brought over here, by OUR government, after WWII, and FDR's death.

But many people today do not even know of what you are talking about here, and I would be very surprised if any young people do, and so!

Operation Paperclip
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Project paperclip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_papercl

Originally called Operation Overcast, Operation Paperclip was the codename for the operation by the US intelligence services and military to extract scientists specialising in rocketry (e.g. V-1, V-2), chemical weapons (e.g. Zyklon-B) and medicine from Germany after the collapse of the Nazi government during World War II.

These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval.

None of them qualified for visas because they had all served to further the cause of Hitler's Third Reich in World War II.

Scientists were deployed at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico, Fort Bliss, Texas and Huntsville, Alabama to work on guided missile and ballistic missile technology, and led to the foundation of NASA and the US ICBM program.

Over 700 members of the Nazi scientific community were brought to the US as a direct result of Operation Paperclip, many of whom were still ardent Nazi supporters.

Although President Harry S. Truman gave explicit orders not to allow any scientists who were thought to have strong Nazi leanings to enter the US under Operation Paperclip, many dossiers were re-written to "clean-up" the histories of many of the scientists involved, to prevent them and their expertise falling into the hands of the Soviet Union.

Much of the information surrounding Operation Paperclip is still classified.

Separate from Paperclip was an even-more-secret effort to capture German nuclear secrets, equipment and personnel.

See Operation Alsos.

Another American project (TICOM) gathered German experts in cryptography.

Key figures:

Wernher von Braun
Bernhard Tessmann
Arthur Rudolph
Kurt Blome
Major General Walter Schreiber
Reinhard Gehlen
Allen Dulles (Op architect)
Alexander Lippisch
Hans von Ohain

Key Locations:

Nordhausen
Mittelwerk/Dora Concentration Camp
Peenemünde
White Sands Missile Range

See also:

war crimes
ODESSA
Nazi medical experiments

External links

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/V2/v-2.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip"

"How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler Rise to Power"

by BEN ARIS & DUNCAN CAMPBELL (THE GUARDIAN - U.K.)

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time.

There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair.

But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power.

It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him.

But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

TANTALISING

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars.

One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands.

More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border.

During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.

The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement.

All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets.

What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director.

Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself.

Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society.

He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC.

Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering.

After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand.

He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, 'I Paid Hitler,' when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party.

He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party.

The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad.

According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery.

However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank".

UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs.

The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act.

What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business.

The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel.

Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941:

"Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands."

"My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank."

"Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets.

Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote:

"Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary."

"The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

RED-HANDED

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war.

Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim.

No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland.

According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s.

Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant.

"The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight.

"After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have."

"You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC."

"All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country.

Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said:

"President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions.

He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case.

A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states:

"From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz."

"The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22, 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews.

The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history.

The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s.

Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush.

Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus.

"At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back."

"Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit."

"They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus.

"As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

"They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time.

"My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to."

"Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement.

His supporters suggest that he had one token share.

Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement.

There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay.

Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor".

He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him.

The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned.

Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings.

The charges were dropped last month.

BIOGRAPHY

Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story.

Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush.

Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz.

The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages.

The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised."

"He made available all records and all documents."

"Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president.

It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile.

He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family.

In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years."

"These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

http://WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

Snoopy ties it together again, thanks. Should I post my JFK/RFK/MLK theory here, so they can get two patriots with one shot?

John Foster Dulles had a brother, name of Allan. Used to run this thing called the Central Intelligence Agency, which was literally built on the Naval OSS. During WWII the OSS had a member who would himself later rise to prominence, largely on the basis of his wartime service, fella named Nixon. In between the war and Nixons inauguration as Vice President several things happened: John Foster Dulles became Secy. of State, the health of General Eisenhower deteriorated rapidly (but not his affection for Kay Summersby,) and Operation Paper Clip transported a number of Nazi war criminals to the US with full pardon because we couldn't risk the Russians getting them (after all, if it wasn't for the Germans the Japanese probably beat us to the bomb and the world is a VERY different place.)

So the US has this ultra-secret, brand new intelligence agency developed from Naval Intelligence. In 1952 one of their former members begins an eight year reign of the country while the nominal leader plays bridge and golf, runs around on Mamie with Kay, and has two heart attacks and a stroke, during all of which time, guess who's making tuff decisions like whether we should intervene in Vietnam? Everythings going along swimmingly; who knows more about running a shadow government than the Nazis?

Then something unfortunate happens. The Vice President loses his bid to become President outright by a little over a hundred thousand votes. A few years later, a young man who would one day become President shakes the hand of the victor on the day he is shot, despite being a teen-age resident of a city 200 miles away, leading us to at least consider the possibility he was accompanied by a parent, possibly his father, a CIA agent. A commission is quickly convened to get to the bottom of the event, whose members include a young and unremarkable Congressman from Michigan named Ford and the director of the CIA, a fella named Dulles. They conclude there was no conspiracy, just a lone nutter.

Meanwhile the body count mounts in Southeast Asia, on both sides, and the man we wouldn't have to kick around anymore comes in to save the day on a platform of ending the war (a platform on which he campaigned TWICE.) All is going well, and then something unfortunate happens. The President is so crushed by a war the Intelligence community won't let him end, and the consequences of that war for the Great Society that was to be phase two of the New Deal, that he announces he will not run, nor even accept the nomination if it is thrust upon him. Suddenly, the young Senator from New York decides that maybe he wants to be President after all. As the popular brother of the martyred former President, a champion of blacks, latinos, and all the poor, AND A DOVE he can't lose. And then he went to CA. Who do we know from CA? Oh, gee, a couple people huh? (Including the Chief Justice appointed by "Eisenhower" who presided over the Warren Commission.)

So how p----d was that guy who took his kid to see JFK when Reagan got the nomination? Don't ask me. Ask John Hinkley. Or maybe his brothers dinner partner the day before Reagan was shot. This is a secure line, right?