- The Anti-Obama Hours -- No name, 09:21:15 07/23/08 Wed [9]
Are the hours from 7 to 10 in the local market considered the Bash Obama hours?
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Virginia McCabe?????? -- No name, 17:47:14 04/14/08 Mon [52]
What has become of Ginny McCabe? Her PM talk show on 1490AM and web site- GallowayNews.com are not to be found. Anyone know?
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- New Ginny Blurb !! -- No name, 13:38:53 07/09/08 Wed [10]
People are really concerned about the disappearance of Ginny McCabe. We wish she would surface so that we know that she is all right.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told, 02:19:38 05/20/08 Tue [48]
Langford repeatedly lied during the debate on Pinky's program.
HATCH ACT:
The Hatch Act is a FEDERAL LAW.
Langford said he didn't break any laws.
Langford pled GUILTY to VIOLATING the HATCH ACT.
Why did Langford plead GUILTY to VIOLATING a FEDERAL LAW?
Is Langford crazy?
Is Langford a liar?
Or is Langford a crazy liar?
Langford said he broke no laws.
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DISAGREES!
THE $850,000.00 FLEECING OF THE ATLANTIC CITY TAXPAYERS:
Read the ruling by THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT and count the number of times THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT said LANGFORD VIOLATED NEW JERSEY LAWS when he orchestrated the the fleecing of $850,000.00 from Atlantic City taxpayers:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-44-06.doc.html
Langford pled guilty to violating federal law and the New Jersey Supreme Court found that he violated NJ laws numerous times as he fleeced AC taxpayers out of $850,000.00.
Did Langford lie when he pled guilty to violating federal law? If so, that disqualifies him as unsound of mind. If not, he lied on Pinky's show and that disqualifies him as untrustworthy. (Like his midget friend, the liar of the morning on LIEf radio)
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Hi Lance! -- No name, 05:14:13 05/20/08 Tue
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told, 07:24:05 06/01/08 Sun
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told...the midgets have returned, 18:13:55 06/01/08 Sun
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told===MIDGET ALERT..MIDGET ALERT, 07:59:50 06/02/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told===MIDGET ALERT..MIDGET ALERT, 19:30:13 06/02/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told===MIDGET ALERT..MIDGET ALERT, 05:30:27 06/03/08 Tue
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told===MIDGET ALERT..MIDGET ALERT, 20:08:50 06/03/08 Tue
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told Delusional Midget heard singing money songs, 11:30:45 06/05/08 Thu
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 15:23:05 06/09/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- truth-be-told NERVOUS MIDGET ALERT!!, 06:39:44 06/10/08 Tue
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 12:20:13 06/20/08 Fri
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 13:18:39 06/20/08 Fri
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 19:15:42 06/20/08 Fri
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 08:41:17 06/21/08 Sat
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 09:34:55 06/21/08 Sat
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 10:04:27 06/22/08 Sun
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 02:30:10 06/23/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 06:42:19 06/25/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 11:17:18 06/27/08 Fri
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: RETURN OF THE TOXIC MIDGET -- Did Aldrich call the toxic midget a leech?, 14:48:30 06/27/08 Fri
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- three hots and a cot, 13:11:46 06/29/08 Sun
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- midget supports langford. langford supports rev. wright, 07:44:07 06/30/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- Job Opening, 02:31:21 07/05/08 Sat
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 10:46:18 07/05/08 Sat
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- HISSING MIDGET, 22:29:46 07/05/08 Sat
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- Begging midget, 12:15:58 07/08/08 Tue
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- muffled, miffed mr. midget, 08:20:12 07/09/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- political pimping is profitable for mr. midget, 08:55:52 07/09/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- midget reminises of days when it was easier to fool listers, 11:49:19 07/09/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- anyone see a midget?, 17:26:41 07/09/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- oh my. a very busy mr. midget, 18:02:17 07/09/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- Truthman, 18:35:49 07/13/08 Sun
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- Who is the midget?, 15:02:05 07/14/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 23:53:49 07/16/08 Wed
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- IRS, 13:26:06 07/17/08 Thu
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- Stonewall Langford, 01:23:59 07/21/08 Mon
- Re: LANGFORD LIES: Giant Lies from Midget's friend Langford -- No name, 01:16:06 07/23/08 Wed
- Bush still does business with Iran -- No name, 03:59:52 07/09/08 Wed [4]
Boy the lies this administration tells. If they were such a threat you wouldn't do business with them. Wait to you see what Bush sells to Iraq:
See What We Sell to Iran
Posted: Tuesday 07/08/08 07:47 PM EDT
Filed Under: News
Despite the harsh rhetoric directed toward Iran by President Bush, exports to the Middle Eastern country increased more than tenfold during the Bush administration. See what Iranians wanted from America and which states were more than happy to sell it to them.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Mc Cain and Global Warming -- No name, 17:36:41 06/24/08 Tue [4]
McCain Joins Global Warming Cult
by Cal Thomas
Posted: 05/14/2008
In an effort to win over those “moderates” who believe that global warming is about to destroy the planet, Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke Monday at a Portland, Ore., training facility for Vestas Wind Technology. He claimed, “The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.”
There certainly is more “hot air” on this and a lot of other subjects in Washington, but that isn’t what he meant. The era of big government is so not over, as Bill Clinton claimed it was in 1996. It is just beginning and increasingly the political contests seem to be about who will manage its growth, not who will reduce its size, cost and reach.
Despite a recent Wall Street Journal editorial characterizing his position on global warming as “Obama lite,” McCain asserted, “We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.” No, the most relevant question is whether global warming is true. Cults ignore evidence and facts contrary to their blind faith. Science should never be blind to opposing views, but the apostle of global warming, Al Gore, and his new disciple, John McCain, want us to believe in a 2008 version of the Pete Seeger anti-war lyric: “we were — knee deep in (carbon monoxide) and the big fool said to push on.”
McCain would have done better to push back against the global warming cult and conduct a raid on the cultists similar to what Texas authorities did to the FLDS polygamists.
Instead of buying into the claims of global warming alarmists who seek more control over our lives through big government intrusion, McCain should demand a debate on the issue. Global warming cult leaders won’t debate. Al Gore has refused every debate challenge, asserting the facts are undeniable and that global warming is real. That’s another mark of a cult leader; he will tolerate no doubters.
Growing numbers of atmospheric scientists and others with related expertise are emerging from the global warming cult and testifying to their conversions. They are mostly ignored by the media and by politicians who have embraced the cultists’ doctrines.
Two years ago, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearings and produced a document quoting anti-global warming scientists. Among the conclusions was this: “Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called ‘consensus’ that the Earth faces a ‘climate emergency.’ On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian prime minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists: ‘Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. … Significant (scientific) advances have been made since the (Kyoto) protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.’”
Among the noted converts is Claude Allegre, a member of the French Socialist Party and a former Minister of National Education. Allegre is also a member of the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences. He once was a believer in the “science” behind global warming, but no more. He, too, wants a debate and his ranks are growing.
If global warming alarmists are right, they will only strengthen their position by having robust debates, not between politicians who seek votes, but among scientists who seek truth. The issue is too important to allow politicians to decide it for us because it has the potential to drastically change the way we live.
Sen. McCain may win a few votes from some “moderates,” who mostly are uneasy about having convictions about anything that matters, but if he persists in embracing the global warming cultists, he risks experiencing a temperature drop from the conservative base that could cast him out in the cold when the weather and his election prospects turn chilly in November.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Mc Cain is a Flip Flopper -- No name, 04:21:54 07/09/08 Wed [3]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-flip-flopper-on-iraq_b_111551.html
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Vincent Bugliosi sees the lies too -- And he is a Top lawyer., 04:27:27 07/09/08 Wed [4]
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Posted May 19, 2008 | 11:48 AM (EST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Bush, Bush Impeachment, Bush Lies, Bush War Crimes, Impeachment, Iraq Casualties, Iraq War, Murder, Prosecution Of George w Bush, War Crimes, Politics News
The Legal Framework for the Prosecution
That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)
With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.
Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?
Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his budget."
Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No President of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war." But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn't be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?
The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, "the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, . . . inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans." But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn't say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.
In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that "the president and his top advisers . . . did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections." But if it's "obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans" in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you're just going to go on to the next paragraph?
I'm not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.
In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.
If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.
On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.
Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting -- that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom -- many have argued that "Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes" (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.
*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.
**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis "Scooter" Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.
In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush's perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.
The above is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Published by Vanguard Press; May 2008;$26.95US/$28.95CAN; 978-159315-481-3
Copyright © 2008 Vincent Bugliosi
Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney's office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, is available May 27.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Iraq War -- Are you for murder?, 04:05:48 07/09/08 Wed [2]
Iraq War Based On Fraud -
Bush Proven Immoral, Unethical
By Frosty Wooldridge
1-11-8
The latest in America's misguided leaders, George W. Bush proves the most immoral and unethical president in recent history. His legacy makes Richard Nixon and Lyndon Baines Johnson look like saints. His corruption makes Ulysses Grant's administration resemble Mother Theresa's chastity. He stands daily in violation of his oath of office to the U.S. Constitution.
The fact remains that Bush contrived and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He lied about Iraq being a threat to America. He manufactured a lie to create a hysterical and perceived danger by a sandbox thug named Saddam Hussein in the Iraq desert.
Bush fertilized a centuries-old civil war in a country that did nothing to provoke or instigate violence toward the USA. He pushed Muslims into deep and long lasting hatred toward the USA. He created terror where no terror existed.
The Bush War
Every month for the past six years, George Bush's Iraq War piled up dead American soldiers, now at 3,900, while Halliburton piled up billions of dollars in profits. More than 28,000 U.S. soldiers returned without legs and arms or suffered paralyzed bodies--while munitions dealers counted their billions of dollars.
In the same breath, according to the Johns Hopkins Report and www.antiwar.com George Bush killed 1.16 million Iraqi citizens thus far! He destroyed a functioning society and created over 2.5 million refugees. While Saddam ruled with terror, today, Iraq staggers through incredible violence on a daily basis.
"Enemy" deaths and "collateral damage"
George Bush advocated and used 'bunker busting bombs' filled with high density, depleted uranium which creates deadly radiation in Iraq that lasts for centuries. Experts say it creates mutations and cancer defects not only in the people and future children of Iraq, but it creates horrific consequences for the children of our U.S. soldiers who breathe its deadly contents daily while policing Baghdad. Of his failures as a man and as a president, his legacy of horribly disfigured babies, men and women make him the most immoral and unethical president of the 21st century.
Where peace reigned, Bush created war. Where respect and admiration for the U.S. abounded in the world after 9/11, Bush cultivated anger, animosity and deep distrust.
While he wages his farcical and preposterous "War on Terror" 10,000 miles away, he openly invites terrorists into the United States via open borders. He invites millions of illegal aliens into our country when enforcement of this nation's laws ranks on the low rung of his ladder. He's fostered three times more American citizens killed at the hands of illegal aliens on American soil than all the soldiers that died in the war zone. He's allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in drugs to cross over our borders without lifting a finger to stop them. Bush promotes our schools, hospitals and prisons to be overrun, distorted and destroyed by illegal aliens. His actions make his "War on Terror" the biggest fraud in the history of the United States.
While he sacrifices our young men and women as cannon fodder, he drives us into a $9 trillion debt that plunges our civilization into a financial crisis from which we may not recover. Who makes money? International and national bankers ride the 'interest wave' to uncounted billions of dollars. The military-industrial complex reaps a world-wind of profits.
While spending $2 billion a week in Iraq and $1 billion a week in Afghanistan, he leads protracted wars that do nothing for U.S. stability or safety.
All the while, he injects 572,000 military personnel onto 700 bases in 120 countries around the world. For what? Answer: the American empire. What result? Answer: ultimate collapse of America by driving it to the cliff of its own financial death.
If you still shake your head thinking Bush protects Americans from terrorists by attacking Iraq, I invite you to look back at similar political horse manure by Johnson and Nixon while they protracted the Vietnam War. Over 58,000 men gave their lives in the same senseless, trumped-up façade by politicians puppetted by the military-industrial complex. The fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution created that war. Vietnam accomplished nothing but death for both sides. For that matter, you can say the same thing about Korea!
Our lower middle-class suffers foreclosures and job losses
At the same time, Bush degrades and debases America's middle class with an unending line of immigrants, both legal and illegal. He partners with multinationals and other corporations that offshore, outsource and insource millions of American jobs as he destroys our manufacturing base.
While he shreds America's middle class, he floods our country with millions from the third world. He creates a new slave class that will work any job for peanuts while it destroys our working poor and undermines our middle class. All the while, scant few of those immigrants speak our language or invest in our nation. They no more know what our U.S. Constitution means or what lives paid for its creation than they know the name of our first president.
What's happening in the meantime? He forces us to educate, feed, medicate and pay for incarceration for millions of poor, illiterate and unskilled that flood into our country.
Result of massive, relentless and unending immigration?
We face social, environmental, infrastructure, resource, water and carrying capacity consequences greater than anyone can imagine in 2008.
All the while, he takes away our individual freedoms with the Patriot Act while he allows terrorists open access to our country at their convenience. Homeland Security and threat levels prove the biggest deceptions and perpetrated skullduggery in the history of our nation.
What's the worst aspect of Bush's legacy? He does not respect our U.S. Constitution! He arrogantly supports the dissolution of our borders in favor of a North American Union. He signed the Security Prosperity Partnership that delivers our nation into the hands of the New World Order his father promoted. George 43 promotes the loss of our sovereignty, language and culture as a distinct nation.
No man ever did as much damage to the United States of America as George W. Bush. God help us make it through the next 12 months of his immoral and fraudulent control. If ever a president needs to be dismissed, George W. Bush's actions meet or exceed every article of impeachment.
An American mother summed up George Bush with these words, "Why is George Bush going to his daughter's wedding while I'm going to my son's funeral?"
##
Take action: www.thesocialcontract.com ; www.numbersusa.com ; www.fairus.org ; www.firecoalition.com ; www.alipac.us ; www.capsweb.org ; www.vdare.com ; www.immigrationcounters.com ; www.proenglish.org www.cairco.org ; www.politicaltruthandfact.com ; WWW.immigrationshumancost.org ; www.limitstogrowth.org
Tuesdays and Thursdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.republicbroadcasting.org at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Re: Iraq War -- mr. midget loves bush, 08:13:06 07/09/08 Wed
- Treason? -- No name, 05:24:16 06/29/08 Sun [16]
http://www.petitiononline.com/bush911/petition.html
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Re: Treason? -- No name, 11:40:31 07/01/08 Tue
- Re: Treason? -- No name, 20:46:13 07/01/08 Tue
- Re: Treason? -- No your sick to fully believe that gov is all good, 05:44:33 07/03/08 Thu
- evans gutting city? -- This is true...., 06:38:40 07/06/08 Sun [1]
He's stripping the departments of their leaders and focusing on the fire dept. giving it everything it wants. This is serious!
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
- Oil Drilled in Alaska goes to China, but did you know this? -- No name, 05:41:02 06/29/08 Sun [1]
Where would ANWR oil go?
By Warren Cornwall
Seattle Times staff reporter
Archive: Alaska Native corporation a lead player for oil on wildlife refuge
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens stood on the floor of the Senate a month ago and urged his colleagues to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Do it to boost our domestic oil supplies, he said. Do it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
What Stevens did not mention was this: Alaskan oil could wind up being sold overseas.
The Senate vote, which gave Stevens a 51-49 victory, makes no promise the oil pumped from the wildlife refuge (ANWR) has to be sold to domestic refineries.
Some pro-drilling forces say a final bill could ban refuge oil from going overseas, a restriction contained in an energy bill now before the House that would open ANWR to oil exploration. Such a ban, however, wouldn't apply to other Alaskan oil. And a similar pledge was reversed in the past.
As Congress again considers opening the refuge in a quest for oil, the prospect of exporting Alaskan crude poses a political conundrum for those who say drilling is a way to get more oil to domestic markets.
Detractors have jumped on the issue, charging that claims the refuge must be drilled to satisfy a domestic thirst for energy are hypocritical.
"If we are going to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Washington Democrat who led efforts last month to block drilling in the refuge.
While Stevens, a Republican, could not be reached for comment, his spokeswoman Courtney Schikora Boone said that if ANWR is opened up, exporting oil "could happen."
"But it would not be something we would push for because we consider domestic oil production in the United States to be a national-security issue. We believe our dependence on foreign oil makes us weaker in the world," she said.
In the Senate, a proposal to open the refuge to drilling is contained in a budget resolution, which must be reconciled with the House version. The House, meanwhile, is expected to vote this week on the overall energy bill, which would allow drilling in ANWR.
Even without an export ban, drilling proponents say the talk of exports is an empty political ploy, and that it's highly unlikely there would ever be enough oil to warrant selling Alaskan crude to foreign consumers.
"Talk about exporting ANWR oil to foreign countries is a red herring," said John Katz, head of Alaska's Washington, D.C., office. "In fact, there's a huge demand on the U.S. West Coast and that's where Alaska oil goes and will go."
"It's called trade"
Drilling opponents, meanwhile, also leave some parts of the export issue unmentioned.
Much of the oil would likely wind up in West Coast refineries that once consumed far more Alaskan oil than they do now. And while several prominent oil economists were split over the likelihood of Alaskan crude exports, none considered exports a problem.
"It's called trade," said Philip Verleger, an energy analyst who thinks exports are possible.
The debate echoes from three decades ago, when the country was reeling from the Arab oil embargo of 1973.
As the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was authorized that same year to open Alaska's North Slope oil fields, Congress banned exporting the oil amid concerns that it might wind up being shipped overseas while Americans stood in lines at gas stations.
Soon after, oil companies and Alaskan leaders started lobbying to lift the export ban, arguing it threatened to flood West Coast refineries, artificially depressed the price of Alaskan oil and forced oil shipments to parts of the U.S. that lay much farther from Alaska than Asian ports.
The ban was overturned in 1995, an effort led by Alaska's congressional delegation, including Rep. Don Young and Stevens.
Stevens at the time hailed the decision as a "great victory for Alaska" that would encourage further oil development and create more jobs.
"This ban is unconstitutional and unjust. Lifting the ban would mean Alaska could sell its oil on the world market, which would increase state revenues by as much as $700 million," he said in a press release.
The end to the export ban never produced the big jump in foreign shipments some predicted, though it did boost prices for Alaskan oil, according to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Just 4 percent of North Slope oil trickled to Asia between 1996 and 2000, before the flow shut off almost entirely. Since then, the only export was a single tanker in 2004, which delivered a load of oil to China en route to getting repaired at an Asian port.
The reason is that Alaskan oil fields aren't gushing crude as they once did. Alaskan oil production was cut in half between the 1988 peak and 2000. Now West Coast refineries soak up nearly every drop, according to data from the federal Energy Information Administration.
Washington is one of the major destination points for that oil. A string of refineries near Anacortes and Bellingham rely on Alaska for more than 90 percent of their crude oil, according to a 2004 report from the Seattle and Pierce County chambers of commerce.
Debate renewed
The prospect of another surge of Alaskan oil has revived the export debate, though this time backers of drilling aren't talking about exporting oil.
If the refuge is opened to drilling, it could raise Alaskan oil production from roughly 908,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004 to between 1.1 million and 2.1 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Energy Information Administration estimates.
A glut of Alaskan oil could be more than West Coast refineries can use, said Verleger, a senior fellow for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.
At their 1991 peak, West Coast refineries used 1.44 million barrels of Alaskan oil a day. While refineries have increased overall production since then, at this point it's not enough to process the potential increase in Alaskan crude if ANWR is opened.
"It is possible if they were to find a lot of oil in ANWR — and once they start drilling there they may move outside that little area — that the oil couldn't go to any place in the United States," Verleger said.
That could change if refineries make Alaskan oil a much larger percentage of their overall crude-oil supplies, or if refineries are expanded by the 2020s, when oil production from the refuge could peak if it's opened soon.
Sam Van Vactor, a Portland-based energy consultant who studies the West Coast oil market, said oil discoveries in the refuge probably wouldn't be big enough to trigger pressure for exports.
Even with an export ban on refuge oil, Alaskan oil could still be sold overseas. If the refuge oil were to meet all the domestic needs of West Coast markets, producers could put oil extracted from other North Slope oil fields that aren't subject to an export ban on tankers bound for Asia, Van Vactor said.
But he saw little reason for concern: Because oil is traded around the globe, the U.S. is in a better strategic position if it has more oil to trade, Van Vactor said.
"The companies don't like to argue this, I think, because they seem to think the American public doesn't understand economics very well. So they use these security and supply arguments that don't really make a lot of sense," Van Vactor said.
Cantwell countered that oil exports from Alaska, even if they don't trouble economists, do nothing to reduce U.S. reliance on a global petroleum network.
"If you're thinking about security, this isn't going to answer the question," she said. "The best solution is to get off of dependence on fossil fuels in general."
Katz, the Alaska lobbyist, said that while he considered exports a nonissue, they could make sense in economic terms.
"The problem is that in political terms it takes eight seconds to say, 'Well, they're exporting Alaskan oil abroad.' And it takes a long time to explain how oil is fungible and an export in one place might lead to an import in another place."
Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall@seattletimes.com
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
- Whishy washy -- CHW2, 05:27:13 06/27/08 Fri [1]
Let me get this straight:
For the first time in history people are counting on other people working to survive.
1.But more people are working than ever?
The country is in good shape
2. But people are selling things to pay for gas?
People are buying homes.
3. But people are loosing their homes in droves for the first time in history?
4. The first time in history gas has been at an all time high.
5. The President and Congress is at an all time low.
But this isn't Republican fault? Bush's Fault?
6. Food is at an all time high.
If this was this other group, they would be blamed for everything.
Someone is scare for a change? Most people welcome it.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
- DUI? -- No name, 14:37:40 06/19/08 Thu [4]
Was sa certain someone from AC stopped DUI in Galloway Wed night or is this a rumor
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Re: DUI? -- No name, 14:57:12 06/19/08 Thu
- Re: DUI? -- Who was it?, 22:47:37 06/20/08 Fri
- Re: DUI? -- No name, 08:39:36 06/21/08 Sat
- A quiz -- No name, 08:18:00 06/19/08 Thu [4]
Which local talk show host had his major sponsor call him to tell the talk show host that the host is of the same caliber as Tim Russert?
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Harry's double standard -- CW2, 04:27:27 06/19/08 Thu [1]
First he talks about Obama's brother religion, then he talks about how his brother's region is banned. To put it in his terms when he talks to Lance:
Even a broken clock is right twice.
No matter what, this guy cannot be right. So he cannot talk about Lance. He's has a double standard.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
- harry obsess with Obama -- CHW 1, 06:01:25 06/12/08 Thu [9]
he has been all over the place with this guy. First he said the man should get rid of the minister, then he says yesterday he dumps him. he said he's is better than clinton, but now he's takes up for clinton. He said the media is takes up for clinton. Then he says they are unfair.
Now he wonders why not many Black people call him. If your for Obama your're lable a kook. If your for Mc Cain your right.
Rumor has it he has been told by many Blacks to stop his mis-steps. soon he will lose all credibility with them.
Word in the street: if it looks like Obama might get in, Bush might cause another war to keep his oil wells running or call mashall law.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Thank you to a councilmen's aid -- CHW 1, 04:09:43 06/13/08 Fri [8]
Rumor has it as councilmen aid called to defend Obama. He/she told Harry what made Obama Qualified. Harry couldn't deny her answer instead he redirected it to other questions about Blacks voting for Demos. The Aid who is in City Hall was stopped by every minority and other people called to thank her for the call into the show. As rumors go, there is a boycott of ethnic people not to call Harry show. He is considered hardheaded and even a "Mayor" is upset with his obsessiveness with bashing Obama and his wife. When Harry usually say a person's family is off limits.
Rumor has it he has changed so much with the back and forth and double stander that a boycott has taken place.
Rumor also has it Mayor Scott is retiring early and Mayor Langford is coming in. Tom Foley is suppose to be Public Safety Director.
Got to get to work...
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Evans Going Down! -- He's a crook!, 00:31:25 06/03/08 Tue [3]
When you have convicted thugs who used to work for the jailed city council president working for you, it's very clear where your loyalties like. Time to turn him out for good.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- caretaker langford -- dave202, 07:16:09 06/04/08 Wed [1]
I don't think he'll ever get re-elected if some serious candidates come out to challenge him, such as Bruce Ward or George Tibbits. And what's Speedy going to do? You know he liked his short term as mayor, so what's his deal? There's also a dark horse out there. We need to press the legislature to get rid of the casino ban on running for office. Then we'd have sum fun!
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
- Evans Drug Test -- So what's the truth???, 08:10:47 05/21/08 Wed [3]
Is he really a coke head? Does anyone know?
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Callaway Ties Langford and Cappella -- No name, 16:26:41 05/12/08 Mon [2]
Excuse me, Evans, believe it or not has the least ties to Callaway. How do you think Langford beat Whelan. Yep, absentee votes. Who do you think got them? Yes again, Craig Callaway and guess who else? Evans wasn't even around then.
Domenic Cappella was working with Callaway for Langford. After Langford got elected he hired Cappella.
Every single person on City Council was put there by Callaway until this year with a few exceptions. Speedy Marsh won on his own, Dennis Mason was there before Callaway, Steve Moore got in after Callaway. Mancuso was there but made deals with Callaway when it suited him. So don't say hold your nose.
The truth is Langford and Callaway were best buddies for a long time until Langford dumped Callaway after he used Callaway to get elected with absentee votes.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- Cappella and Callaway -- Mr. P, 20:09:17 05/11/08 Sun [2]
Didn't Cappella drive the Callaway's to Camden in his City vehicle and now he wants to separate himself from them, What a joke.
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
Replies:
- So who do we vote for? -- dave202, 09:20:33 04/30/08 Wed [1]
Langford is hiding something about his finances and squandered somehow $400,000.
Evans = Callaway
Cappella is a mean-spirited dirty politician.
And Polillo is a big joke.
So do I vote for McQueen?
[ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]
