Some good news about the general population’s attitude towards who’s to blame for the nosebleeding at the pump and what to do about it:
Even as the price of oil nearly doubled over the last year, the percentage of Americans pointing the finger of blame at oil companies fell, from 37% a year ago to 20%.
And 57% favor drilling in areas of the US that are currrently off limits.
Be still my beating heart. Could it be that the Moron Block that keep fucking up Washington DC and our country with their less-than-rudimentary understanding of even the most basic of facts are beginning to add two and two, arriving at a number approaching 4?
Doubtful, but our incurable optimism and trust and faith in our fellow man (and womyn) will not be denied, so here’s the next exercise for those out there who are finally beginning, for the first time in their overrated, almost entirely useless existences, to find a Clue™:
Now that you, some of you anyway, are finally beginning to grasp that the reason for increasing prices is increasing demand coupled with no commensurate increase in SUPPLY, perhaps it is time for you to take another step into the real world that those of us with functioning synapses are forced to share with you:
This is the Democratic Energy Policy. Someone to explain to me how any of these policies will help our current crisis?
Democrat asks public to push for oil-policy changes
First they misdiagnose the Problem:
Price of oil, fostered by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney’s close ties to the oil industry, is no longer just a burden.
Democratic Solution:
The Democratic proposals for changing energy policy. Those call for:
• Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
• Forcing the oil companies to invest some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
• Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
• Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 97 percent full.
• Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high.
The biggest threat to America is not terrorism, or illegal immigration, or any other made up political talking points propaganda. The biggest threat to America is IGNORANCE!
Legislative Fraud… This applies to your state too…
Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008
By Mrs. Snoop
Wanted – People who have tiny brains, very flexible back-bones, and no personal integrity, to spend a lot of time talking at each other 6-9 months out of each year, pose for pictures, give interviews, kiss babies, pretend to understand written information that they haven’t even read, and do all they can to feather their own nests and serve their own personal interests, all the while making rules that everyone else – but not them - must follow. Pay, $82,000+ per year plus $200 per day extra for every day you actually show up for work. No experience needed. In fact, the more you know about real life, the less qualified for the job you will be. To apply, simply run a campaign (with the help of special interest groups) and win office to become a Kansas State Senator or Representative.
Check this link out. Page 17 lists the salaries and extra payments for Kansas state lawmakers. No wonder the Legislative session lasts longer and longer every year. We give the legislators almost $200 a day EXTRA pay for every day they are in session! That’s over and above their already grossly over-inflated yearly salary over $82,000 per year.
They aren’t earning this salary. Not even close. Most of the real “work” is done by Legislative staff; they draft the bills language (according the wishes of the people who support a particular bill). They keep track of meeting times and following procedures. They come to work on time and don’t leave until after the bosses do. And the vast bulk of them are not paid as much as the politicians who barely understand what is going on around them (if at all). In addition, each year there is an increase in the number of “resolutions” – do nothing statements of policy supported by the members of a particular house (or both). Do we really want to pay people $82,000 per year to re-name highways, tell the US Congress how we feel about illegal immigration, and pass laws that allow them to by-pass the laws that apply to all other branches of government (e.g. state surplus laws, state open government laws, state conflict of interest laws…etc.)? I sure don’t.
But apparently we are so used to being bilked and buffaloed by our lawmakers that the majority of voters don’t care that these well paid Legislators are spending many millions to improve the looks of the place they work and increasing the number and value of the perks they get for having their titles, while the rest of the state budget requests are in limbo and in danger of more cuts.* While many Kansans struggle to keep their lights turned on, the state house is now lit with hand-cut, hand-blown Austrian Crystal globes. While many Kansans are cutting back on the days they eat meat, so they can afford the gas it takes to drive to work, the Legislators have given themselves a break from the state surplus laws, so they can purchase their “old” (2 years) laptops at Goodwill prices. While most Kansas employees must pay for parking if they work in Topeka, the Legislators spent millions to tunnel under the state house and give themselves free parking.
I know I’ve said it before, but I will say it again – anyone who wants to pass laws that apply to other people should only be allowed to do so if and when the laws they pass apply to them too!
Now, I want to add one more thing; anyone who works for the people should never get paid for more for work then they would pay their constituents for their jobs, and no pay at all for anything that does not actually benefit their employer (the public).
I think those yahoos across the street owe me, and every Kansan, a big fat apology for all of our time and money that they waste annually. In addition to an apology, I want a big refund. Now. How about they pay each of us for all the time they waste giving themselves extra perks or doing nothing?
There are currently 40 state senators and 125 state representatives. That is 165 people who run the state and are paid $82,000+ per year ($200 per day extra when they are actually at work). That is $13,530,000 (not counting the $200 per day bonuses). The US Census office ** reports that there are approximately 2,764,075 residents in Kansas, as of 2006. Divide that 2,764, 075 into the $13,530,00 and that means that each year we all (man woman and child) pay about $5 a year to support them.
I could use an extra $5 per year in income. Couldn’t you? I’d have a whole lot more to show for it then I get from my state representatives!
Fred Thompson’s Plan to Reduce Federal Government Spending
Thursday, January 10th, 2008
In 2007, the federal government’s spending rose to an astounding $2.8 trillion– the equivalent of $22,000 per household. Growth in federal government spending, however, rarely translates into better services for the American people. Solutions for many public policy problems are best found in the private sector, and then at the State and local level–not in Washington, DC. Indeed, the federal government loses billions every year due to ineffective programs, poor management, waste, and fraud. And, the problem is getting worse. Within the next five years, federal spending is expected to reach more than $3.2 trillion, or about 20 percent of our economy; more than half of this amount is mandatory spending for entitlements. Increasing government spending is not the answer to our country’s problems. It is time to get it under control with better solutions and better management of our federal government.Balance the Budget and Eliminate Underperforming Programs
Congress has consistently refused to balance the budget and address the deficit. In fact, federal spending continues to grow at rates double inflation. This rate of growth in federal spending is not sustainable and must be brought under control. The following actions will result in better control of the growth of non-defense discretionary spending:
Limit Non-Defense Federal Spending to Inflation. Federal spending is expected to grow an average of 4.5 percent each year over the next five years. This growth is more than twice as fast as the estimated rate of inflation! Slowing the rate of growth in federal spending would help the federal government balance its books. Further cost savings can be achieved by limiting increases in the annual rates of growth for mandatory federal spending programs.
Implement a One-Year Hiring Freeze Pending Completion of Federal Government Strategic Assessment. Initiate a senior-level Administration assessment of the federal government’s activities to determine their proper alignment with national priorities. This assessment will permit a re-shaping of the federal government to best address these priorities. Until that assessment is completed, institute a one-year freeze on the hiring of all non-essential civilian workers and contractors. This will give a new Administration time to assess its personnel requirements in order to “right size” the federal workforce, commensurate with national priorities, to match staffing and contracting needs to agency responsibilities across the executive branch.
Conduct a Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis of All Federal Programs. Over the past few years, the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool has found that many federal programs are ineffective or only moderately effective. With the aid of rigorous cost-benefit analysis and relying on the Government Performance and Results Act, the President must work with Congress to determine which federal programs to eliminate, reduce, combine, or place on probation.
Enact Meaningful Earmark Reform
Congressional earmarks add up to tens of billions of dollars each year. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the cost to the American taxpayer was more than $64 billion. Even more disconcerting is the fact that many earmarks do not benefit the America people but only serve to support special interests. To accomplish real and meaningful earmark reform, the following actions must be taken:
Provide President with Line-Item Veto Authority. Congress can provide this authority without a Constitutional amendment. Such authority would better control spending and prevent the use of public funding for wasteful earmarks.
Direct Agencies to Ignore “Soft” Earmarks. “Soft” earmarks are those included in Congressional report language, but not in actual legislation. Failure to include such earmarks in the bill language itself makes it easier for Members of Congress to hide their earmarks and prevents the full House and Senate from voting on them. Federal agencies must not fund these “soft” earmarks unless they otherwise meet agency standards for a funding award.
Propose Legislation on Earmark Procedures. Promote greater transparency by urging Congress to approve legislation that requires the posting of all earmarks on the Internet for the public to view at least 24 hours before the underlying bill is brought to the floor for consideration.
The Los Angeles Times digs into Hillary’s finances and uncovers more mysterious Chinatown donors with dilapidated addresses in NYC and jobs unlikely to put them in the position of maxing out campaign contributions. They include dishwashers, waiters, contributors who deny making contributions, and another who “admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” And more:
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown……Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.
Will Hillary accuse the Times reporters of “stalking” now?
Ottawa, Ontario (CNSNews.com) - President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a “New World Order” that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government’s Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to “increase security and enhance prosperity … through greater cooperation and information sharing.”Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a “New World Order” of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.
“George Bush and his daddy [former President George H. W. Bush] have both used the term ‘New World Order.’ It was used by Woodrow Wilson. It was used by Adolf Hitler. It was used by a number of people, and the New World Order relates to the desire of many people in the world to submerge national sovereignties to international institution.” (See Video)
Other conservatives who joined Phillips at the news conference included author and columnist Jerome Corsi; John McManus, president of the John Birch Society; Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center; and Bob Park, founder of Veterans for Secure Borders.
The SPP meetings (the fourth since 2005) have afforded little access to the media and no access to the general public except for leaders of some large corporations taking part in the concurrent North American Competitiveness Council. The secrecy has led activists on both sides of the political aisle to develop ideas about what might be happening behind closed doors.
Responding to protests staged in Ottawa Sunday by leftist, anti-government, anti-corporate activists, Phillips acknowledged a difference of approach. But, he said, “if we’re all firing in the same direction, let’s work together.”
Conservative author Jerome Corsi criticized supporters of the SPP for labeling opponents “conspiracy theorists.” (See Video)
“We’re the Internet black helicopter conspiracy theorists?” asked Corsi. “What’s going on over in Montebello behind closed doors? Is that not the real conspiracy?”
“Only to call us names does not answer the arguments we’re making,” he said. “We’re called names because those supporting the Security and Prosperity Partnership wish to keep their secret agenda being advanced in secret, and we’ve ruined the party by exposing it.”
Most recently, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins called the opposition to the SPP “conspiracy theories.” In an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen Monday, Wilkins said that “while conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a ‘North American Union,’ a ‘North American super highway’ or a ‘North American currency.’”
Wilkins further wrote that “security with prosperity remains the defining vision of the leaders’ meeting” and that “each [nation] will continue to protect its own interests, but it makes sense, as friends and neighbors, to sit down together and see what we might accomplish better together.”
Phillips responded by noting that Wilkins was appointed by Bush and represents an administration that “does not have a reputation for straight talking or accuracy … .” And it’s high time for the SPP organizers to “tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do,” he said.
The GOP must have been guilty of this at some point, but of course they were the problem the most ethical Congress ever was swept to power to solve. Apparently the solution involves junkets to London, Brussels, Key West, the Caribbean, and of course the mandatory layover in the Virgin Islands to attend to, er, homeland security business. All at the cost of a cool 10 G’s an hour, and with nary a Republican in sight despite the rule requiring trips on military jets to be bipartisan.
Plus, think of the carbon emissions.
Nice to see CNN on the ball here, and a good thing too. If this had come from FNC, there’d be torches and pitchforks outside News Corp. headquarters.
Exit question: Was Nancy Pelosi really the right person for CNN to ask about congressmen abusing their privileges with military aircraft?
MERRILL, Wis. - A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices.
Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon.
But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals violate Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.
Bhandari said he received a letter from the state auditor last month saying the state would sue him if he did not raise his prices. The state could penalize him for each discounted gallon he sold, with the fine determined by a judge.
Bhandari, who bought the station a year ago, said he worries customers will think he stopped the discounts because he wants to make more money. About 10 percent of his customers had used the discount cards.
Dale Van Camp said he bought a $50 card to support the local youth hockey program. It would have saved him about $100 per year on gas, he said.
Yet again an anonymous Senator has placed a secret hold on legislation that would increase transparency. This time a secret hold has been placed on a bill, S. 223, that would mandate that Senators file their campaign finance reports electronically. This process would not only make these reports more readily available to the public but would also save money and resources.Yesterday this bill was blocked by an anonymous Senator who placed a secret hold on the bill. Secret holds are so looked down on these days that earlier this year the Senate itself banned the practice, although the bill containing that provision has yet to become law. But until secret holds are banished forever, we need your help in exposing the culprit who is blocking consideration of the electronic filing requirement for Senate campaign finance reports.
We need your help to find out who placed this secret hold! Call your Senators and ask them if they are the one with the secret hold on S. 223. Then report back here in the comments with your findings or contact us using this contact form. Below is a list of Senators, organized by state, and their contact info. If a Senator issues a denial we will indicate that next to their name.
More Than Half Of All Americans Are living off the Gubment
Monday, April 16th, 2007
Maybe the era of big government isn’t over, after all.
As Americans finish their annual tax-filing flurry to meet a Tuesday deadline, it is true that tax rates are lower than they were a few years ago. But according to a different yardstick, the federal government’s reach is expanding.
Over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That’s up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President’s Reagan’s move to scale back the size of government.
That two-decade shrink-the-government trend now appears over, if for no other reason than demographics. The aging baby-boomer generation is poised to receive big payments from Social Security and government healthcare programs.
“New Deal programs persist,” despite the Reagan revolution and its aftermath, says James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. “They persist because they are largely successful and highly popular.”
Mr. Shilling’s analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.
Many Americans, in surveys, say they don’t like the way their tax money is spent. And a majority now says, in a reversal from a year ago, that their federal income taxes are too high, according to an April Gallup poll.
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Congress is keeping Andrews Air Force base plenty busy this year ferrying lawmakers all over the globe at taxpayers’ expense. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took his wife, nine Democrats and two Republicans - Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Mike Rogers of Alabama - on a whirlwind tour of the Caribbean last week. After stops in Honduras and Mexico, they stopped in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the delegation stayed at the five-star Caneel Bay resort.
In a separate trip to the Caribbean last week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York squired his wife and four Democratic members to Grenada and Trinidad.
All told, the military flew at least 13 congressional delegations to various destinations during the Easter recess — at an estimated rate of $10,000 or more per flying hour.
The congressional delegation trips, known as CODELs, are paid for by taxpayers. They are supposed to be directly related to members’ official duties, and House guidelines also stipulate that delegations include members of both parties to qualify for military planes — a requirement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi waived for Engel’s group and two other delegations.
Read the rest, but why bother, congress will continue to rip-off the American taxpayers because frankly y’all don’t give a shit and they know it.
When Pelosi became speaker and immediately bitched and moaned about wanting a bigger aircraft to take her family around the world the flood gates opened.These corrupt politicians know that the American people are either out of touch or are too stupid to care that they take golfing trips on their dime. Bon voyage!
Sheehan-linked ‘Peace House’ at war over ‘missing’ money
Saturday, April 7th, 2007
Bunch of lying conniving liberals, these bastards obviously scammed money from anti-Bush, anti-American types and what a shock the money is missing. Never ever trust liberals particularly when they are asking for donations, LOL!! *hillary*cough*hillary*
***
The Crawford Peace House, a home started by anti-war activists in the wake of “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan’s demonstrations outside President George Bush’s Texas ranch, has been accused of mismanaging tens of thousands of dollars in donations by an insurgent member who has seized legal control of the group’s name and is calling for a state investigation.
Sara L. Oliver, who left the group in 2005 following a dispute surrounding her efforts to secure grant funding for the organization, and other disaffected members have gone public with their suspicions and accusations against the Peace House, calling for an official investigation into why the group only has $14,700 in its bank account. Tens of thousands in donations, collected during Sheehan’s 2005 anti-war protest at the Crawford site, are unaccounted for, Oliver claims.
“There are people who have said, ‘Don’t say anything because you’ll hurt the peace movement,’” Oliver told Associated Press. “But if the peace movement isn’t pure and transparent and holy as it can be at its heart, then it’s just like George Bush: lying, thieving, conniving, backstabbing bastards.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband’s companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.
As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein’s resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband’s companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing “quality of life” issues for the veterans of the United States military services.
“As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design,” wrote Peter Byrne in the report. “She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband’s companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.”
He suggested perhaps Feinstein resigned “because she could not take the heat generated by metro’s expose of her ethics… Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?”
I wonder if Code Pink will be camping out in front of her house?
Will anti war groups throw feces at her office windows?
Will anti war protesters be carrying “Fuck Feinstein” signs in front of the Capitol?
Will anti war groups call for an investigation into her pro war money deals?
After all she is responsible for all of the dead soldiers in Iraq is she not?
Feinstein’s family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, right?
The Club for Growth puts the heat on freshmen Blue Dog Democrats:
* Nancy Boyda (KS-2): Nancy Boyda recently came out in support of the pork-stuffed Iraq supplemental bill, but her campaign website told a different story. Running against Republican Jim Ryun, she wrote “Congress must never waste a single taxpayer dime on needless spending…Wasteful spending has increased exponentially in recent years.” Does Nancy Boyda think $75 million for peanut storage is not a waste of taxpayer dollars?
* Heath Schuler (NC-11): In his race to unseat Republican Representative Charles Taylor, the former football player attacked the incumbent Republican for his “irresponsible” earmarks (Wall Street Journal, 10/11/06) and said that “the people of North Carolina deserve better” (US Fed News Service, 10/11/06). We hope he remembers those words when it comes time to vote on the Iraq spending bill.
* Nick Lampson (TX-22): Nick Lampson campaigned on fiscal responsibility and took a harsh stand against congressional pork on his campaign website: “We have terrible waste in our government that can be addressed right now. We shouldn’t be spending on pork projects like bridges to nowhere in Alaska and a tea pot museum in North Carolina. We must set priorities and stick to them.” By that standard, Rep. Lampson should cast a “no” vote on the Iraq war spending bill.
* Tim Mahoney (FL-22): According to his campaign website, Rep. Tim Mahoney campaigned on wide-sweeping ethics reform that included a platform to “Cut the Pork.” Interestingly, the supplemental bill includes money for citrus growers in Rep. Mahoney’s district. Could that possibly have something to do with Tim Mahoney’s support for the Iraq supplemental bill?
* Harry Mitchell (AZ-5): Rep. Mitchell beat the fiscal responsibility drum on his campaign website: “Unfortunately, fiscal irresponsibility and pork-barrel spending has Washington swimming in red ink . . . In Congress, I will promote fiscal policy that is both responsible and accountable, just as I did at the local level.” Now that his own Democratic leadership is the one doing the drowning, will Rep. Mitchell have the courage to just say no?
Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat Negro/Mass) unabashedly defended his use of a $46,000 Cadillac DeVille for state business, saying yesterday that he abandoned the more customary and less expensive Crown Victoria used by former governor Mitt Romney because “they don’t make it anymore.”
Crown Victorias are still being made, they said, but do not meet security standards mandated by State Police.
A State Police spokesman said the new Crown Victoria’s side airbags interfered with special security equipment that would be installed in the governor’s car. He would not describe the equipment.
As the focus intensified on the new governor’s spending habits, the administration also found itself fielding questions about hiring a $72,000-a-year aide to handle scheduling and interview requests for Patrick’s wife, Diane, a law partner at Ropes & Gray. The new aide, Amy Gorin of Wellesley, and her husband, Norm, led the governor’s fund-raising committee.
Patrick is the first governor since Michael S. Dukakis, who left office in 1990, to hire a staff member for a spouse.
“Mrs. Patrick has a full-time job as a practicing attorney, so staff assistance relative to her official duties as first lady is necessary, ” said Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan.
In appearances and interviews yesterday, Patrick gave a series of defenses for his use of the luxury DeVille.
He said that in conjunction with State Police, he made the decision that the $1,166-a-month car was “useful and appropriate,” and that he was too busy with state financial issues to focus too much on which car he used.
Hey if I were some high ranking dude, I would be driving a BMW or Mercedes not a piece of shit Cadillac, I don’t give a shit how broke my state was or how many people bitched about it. There I said it!!
The appointment will be announced Friday, according to one aide who requested anonymity because the decision isn’t yet official.
[…]
Other lawmakers were angling for the seat on Homeland Security, which was the last slot available on the panel, according to another Democratic aide.
The committee oversees the Homeland Security Department and its web of agencies designed to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil.
The committee has oversight of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was widely panned for its response to Hurricane Katrina in Jefferson’s hometown of New Orleans.
As a member of the committee, Jefferson will not have direct oversight of the FBI or the Justice Department.
A former Jefferson aide has already pleaded guilty to corruption in the ongoing investigation, as has a businessman who alleged in his plea agreement that he bribed Jefferson in order to win contracts with African nations.
The most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history indeed!
Update: Congressional Quarterly has confirmed Paul Kane’s scoop linked above.
Google’s YouTube and a company called Live Digital will offer no refuge to users who uploaded pirated copies of Fox Television’s “24″ and “The Simpsons” onto their video platforms.
In an e-mail to internetnews.com, a 20th Century Fox Television spokesperson said that Google and Live Digital complied with subpoenas issued by the U.S. District Court in Northern California and disclosed to Fox the identities of two individuals who illegally uploaded entire episodes of “24″ prior to its broadcast and DVD release. More
Was searching through some You Tube stuff and found this, I thought what the heck why not post, nothing else going on.
Peter Franklin Paul is the Hollywood entrepreneur and former international lawyer who co-founded Stan Lee Media with Spider Man creator Stan Lee. His efforts during 2000 to hire Bill Clinton, after he left the White House in 2001, resulted in his underwriting and executive producing The Hollywood Gala Tribute Concert and Salute to President Clinton in August, 2000. Paul hired Grammy producer Gary Smith to produce the largest private concert ever produced and unseen by the public. The Gala was also the largest fund-raising event for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign. Hillary Clinton’s efforts to hide Paul’s role as her largest campaign contributor resulted in the criminal prosecution of her finance director and the FEC settlement with her campaign treasurer that forced an admission of filing false reports that hid more than $721,000 contributed by Paul.
Remember the pledge for the most [tag]ethical Congress[/tag] ever? Well, not so much now.
Democratic [tag]lobbyists[/tag] are planning to take congressional staff jobs, attracted by the chance to wield real clout.
Sure, sure, the next paragraph talks about the Democrats’ full bore assault against [tag]lobbyists[/tag], once they’ve hired all the lobbyists to help write the legislation. Sure, sure, that’ll punish them.
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Democrats’ takeover of Congress this month has turned official [tag]Washington[/tag] upside down.
Labor and environmental representatives, once also-rans in congressional influence, are meeting frequently with Capitol Hill’s incoming [tag]Democratic leaders[/tag]. Corporations that once boasted about their Republican ties are busily hiring Democratic lobbyists. And industries worried about reprisals from the new Democrats-in-charge, especially the pharmaceutical industry, are sending out woe-is-me memos and hoping their GOP connections will protect them in the crunch.
“Change is in the air,” said Melinda Pierce, a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. She had never even been invited to meet with Republican House leaders, but since Election Day, Democrats have welcomed her advice.
Not that many complimentary things are said about politicians. When a problem arises, people say, “Government ought to do something.” They seem to have forgotten that it’s the politicians who are running the government. Many think things can be changed by electing different politicians, but I ask: Given the incentives politicians face, why should we expect one politician to differ significantly from another? We should focus less on personalities and more on rules.
The kind of rules we should have are the kind that we’d make if our worst enemy were in charge. My mother created a mini-version of such a rule. Sometimes she would ask either me or my sister to evenly divide the last piece of cake or pie to share between us. More times than not, an argument ensued about the fairness of the division. Those arguments ended with Mom’s rule: Whoever cuts the cake lets the other take the first piece. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.
By creating and enforcing neutral rules, we minimize conflict. Consider one area of ruthless competition — sports. In Super Bowl XL, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Seattle Seahawks had a lot on the line. Specifically, there’s the $73,000 payment per man, contract enrichment and other benefits to the winners. Despite a bitterly fought contest and all that was at stake, the game ended peacefully and winners and losers were civil to one another.
How is it that players with conflicting interests and reasons for winning can play a game, agree with the outcome and walk away as good sports? It’s a minor miracle of sorts. That “miracle” is that it is far easier to reach agreement about the game’s rules than the game’s outcome. The rules are known and durable, and the referee’s only job is their evenhanded enforcement. Even football teams with losing records would find their long-run interests lie in known, durable and evenhandedly applied rules. They can more adequately devise a winning strategy because predictability is enhanced.
Suppose the game rules were flexible and referees played a role in determining the game’s outcome. In other words, imagine the referees were more interested in what they saw as justice than enforcement of neutral rules. What might one predict about team behavior? Instead of trying to raise team productivity, owners would allocate resources to influence-peddling in the form of lobbying or bribing the referees.
In the case of last year’s Super Bowl, the referees might have argued that since the Pittsburgh Steelers won four previous Super Bowl championships, justice demands that the game be rigged in favor of the Seattle Seahawks, who have never won a Super Bowl. It’s easy to imagine all the conflict that would arise — team owners bringing lawsuits for what they see as biased referee decisions, and games ending in rancor and fights. There would be a reduction in the skill and fitness of all players and a lower overall quality of the sport. After all, if the outcome is determined by how well the team influences the referees, why spend resources recruiting and training superior players? It’s better to use those resources for lobbying and bribes.
We have a set of rules that are known, neutral and intended to be durable. Those rules were created by our founders and embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Those rules have been weakened by a Congress of both parties that picks winners and losers in the game of life. The U.S. Supreme Court, which was intended to be a neutral referee, has forsaken that role and become a participant. All of this means we can expect a future of bitterly fought elections and enhanced conflict.
Next time some libertarian friend of yours tells you that there isn’t a dime’s worth of different between liberal Democrats and “big government conservative” Republicans, slap him upside the head.
Irwin M. Stelzer has a rundown in the Daily Standard of some of the delightful things the new Democratic Congress will treat them (and us) to. They include: a minimum wage hike; pharmaceutical price controls; tax increases, protectionism, and lots and lots of frivolous investigations into corporate “price gouging.”
But hey, those damned Republicans tried to keep that girl in Florida alive, so screw them, too, right?
Apparently the Ankle-biters are not paying very close attention to those they wish to slap, because the areas they point the finger at the Dems for are precisely the areas the libertarians are pointing the fingers at them:
First, a minimum wage hike. Of course it’s stupid economics, as are all price controls, and yet I note that it is an this area where the current GOP President has already signed on with the Dems. True, Bush is not “all Republicans” or even most of them, yet the lack of distinction lies not in how high each party wants to set it but the fact they wish to set one at all. I note the complete absence (despite 6 years of GOP rule) of a move to eliminate government mandated wages, so while the GOP may think raising the current arbitrary level is bad - depending upon how high and how fast it’s raised - they are perfectly willing to live with the current badness. It’s like the old joke that if the Dems wanted to burn down the Library of Congress, the GOP would insist that it be phased in over three years.
Second, pharmaceutical price controls. Yes, the Dems want to do that, yet I remind the ankle-biters that the GOP is the party that last implemented price controls. And is not the socialization of pharmaceuticals via Medicare Part D, wherein the government contracts with the company to provide medicines free of charge to the user, any different in result than direct price controls? If it is, the distinction is very minor. Under the Democratic plan, the shareholders get screwed, under the GOP one, it’s the taxpayers.
Third, tax increases. The Ankle Biters studiously ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So the Dems want to pay for their spending binges via taxation (theft) while the GOP pays for theirs via inflation (theft). The real problem is the spending, not how it’s paid for.
Fourth, protectionism: Yes, the Dems are protectionist and that ultimately hurts consumers to the benefit of government and politically-connected companies. Yet the GOP does the same thing when they need votes. I hope the move backfires on the Dems as it did on Bush, but let’s not pretend the Republicans are paragons of free trade. If one wants free trade, all one has to do - all one can truly do - is remove one’s own tariffs. I note that we have yet to do so.
And last but not least, frivolous investigations. Like this one, I suppose.
In each case, the Democrats are wrong, but the GOP is a party that does the same things, just to a lesser extent. If the argument is an argument over extent - as it appears to be for the ankle biters - then the GOP is quite distinct from the Dems. But if the argument is over whether we ought to have price controls, investigations, protectionism, wages mandated by law, or trillions in government spending in the first place, then there is no significant difference between the parties, all the yapping of the ankle-biters notwithstanding.
Baker accused of skirting U.S. sanctions on Saddam
Tuesday, December 19th, 2006
Businessman charges ex-secretary of state used middleman to ’sell out’ Israel for profit
RAMAT HASHARON, Israel – The law firm at which former Secretary of State James Baker is a senior partner used an Israeli middleman to bypass U.S. sanctions on Iraq and push through a multimillion-dollar collection effort involving the regime of Saddam Hussein, according to a businessman here who said he mediated the deal.
Nir Gouaz, president of Caesar Global Securities in Israel, told WND that Baker’s firm, Houston-based Baker Botts, made about $30 million collecting funds owed to a South Korean company by the Iraqi government at the peak of American sanctions imposed against Baghdad.
He claimed Baker was directly involved in the deal.
Gouaz told WND he decided to come forward with details of the alleged transactions after the release earlier this month of a report by the Iraq Study Group, a commission headed by Baker that recommended an eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and dialogue with Iran and Syria.
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
(CNSNews.com) - Even a liberal group is calling it “sad” that voters in Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District have re-elected Rep. William Jefferson to a ninth term.
The Democrat — who’s being investigated for bribery — defeated Democratic State Rep. Karen Carter, 57-43 percent, in Saturday’s runoff election.
Carter was quoted as saying that she guesses the people of Louisiana “are happy with the status quo.”
The FBI reportedly found $90,000 in marked bills in Jefferson’s freezer during a raid on his home. Although the congressman has not yet been charged, two of his associates have entered guilty pleas.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said she believes it is only a matter of months before Jefferson himself is indicted for bribery.
“Rep. Jefferson is likely to spend much more of the coming term worrying about his own legal problems rather than the serious issues facing the people of Louisiana,” Sloan said in a news release on Sunday.
“So far, the House ethics committee has failed to take any action against Rep. Jefferson despite the fact that he has been caught on videotape soliciting a bribe and was found with $90,000 in his home freezer.”
Sloan called it “further proof” that the new Congress needs to concentrate on ethics reform, including the creation of an independent Office of Public Integrity.
Earlier this year, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders removed Jefferson from the House Ways and Means Committee pending completion of the federal bribery investigation. Pelosi had no comment on Jefferson’s re-election, which is sure to be an irritant for the woman who has railed for years against “Republican corruption.”
Last year, CREW - a liberal-leaning government watchdog group — named Jefferson as one of the 13 most corrupt Members of Congress. (Eleven were Republicans; the two Democrats singled out by CREW included Jefferson and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.)
The Blotter reports that the Feds are going to pay Mr. Senate Majority Leader-Elect a visit:
As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.
A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.
“We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue,” Sen. Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News.
What’s there for Abramoff to save? He’s going to prison for God’s sake.
A source close to the investigation says Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff’s clients “were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid.”Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., backed funding for a bridge between Nevada and Arizona that could affect the value of property he owns nearby.
The planned span over the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., got an $18 million boost in last year’s massive federal transportation bill.
Reid, who’s in line to become Senate majority leader after last week’s election, owns 160 acres of undeveloped property in Bullhead City, several miles from the proposed bridge sites. Development is booming in the area and local officials in Laughlin and Bullhead City support a new crossing to ease traffic on the one existing bridge. They also expect it would add to property values.
Reid aides said his support for the bridge has nothing to do with his ownership of the Bullhead City property, which he values between $500,000 and $1 million on his annual financial disclosure forms. His spokesman said he had no plans to develop the property.
After the Los Angeles Times published a story on the issue Monday, Reid’s office issued a five-page fact sheet in response.
According to the statement, Laughlin officials began pushing for another bridge after the nearby Hoover dam crossing was closed because of security concerns after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, pushing traffic onto a single Laughlin-Bullhead City bridge.
Reid and others in the Nevada delegation responded, securing $500,000 for planning in 2004. Reid and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., then pushed for the $18 million in last year’s $286 billion highway-mass transit bill.
A final location has not been designated for the bridge, which is projected to cost $30 million to $40 million.
“Sen. Reid’s support for the bridge had absolutely nothing to do with property he owned,” said the statement from his office. “Sen. Reid supported this project for one reason only - his continuing efforts to move Nevada forward.”
Reid and other incoming Democratic leaders have promised to bring more openness to the practice of earmarking, where lawmakers insert funding for pet projects into legislation with little scrutiny.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was criticized after it was disclosed that he sold property near his home in Kendall County, Ill., for a $1.8 million profit last year after championing a $207 million earmark in the same bill for a nearby connector road.
Most types of congressional pork merely transfer money from the taxpayers to some favored constituency. Other types of pork are more nefarious: They also trample on individuals’ property rights. Regrettably, Sen. George Allen’s (R.-Va.) “Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act,” which is co-sponsored in the House by Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), is an example of the latter.
The Allen-Wolf initiative seems harmless at first glance, save for the wasteful spending. It appears to only divert federal dollars to a local special-interest group for the stated purpose of promoting heritage tourism, thereby allowing politicians like Allen and Wolf to boast about the project in their stump speeches.
If only it were that simple.
For those who may be unfamilar with them, national heritage areas are federally-designated, heavily-regulated land areas over which special interest groups and federal employees are given special powers and federal resources to help them steer land-use decisions. Property rights frequently are curtailed.
Allen’s bill, which would create a new national heritage area covering large parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, would create a “management entity” for the region comprised of federal employees and preservationist interest groups—many of the latter having a history of anti-property rights agendas. This new management entity would be required to create an “inventory” of all property to be “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.” The new management entity would be granted the authority to disburse federal funds to encourage restrictions on local land use and the acquisition of private property.
Citizens of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania might look to property owners caught within the boundaries of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in Arizona to catch a glimpse of their possible future. A report about the Yuma Heritage area from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources states:
“When the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area was authorized in 2000, the public in Yuma County did not understand the scope of the project and was surprised by the size of the designation… Concerns were raised by citizens about the size of the designation and the potential for additional Federal oversight. The fear of adverse impacts on private property rights were realized when local government agencies began to use the immense heritage area boundary to determine zoning restrictions.”
Considering some of the groups that would round out Sen. Allen’s management entity, property owners caught within the boundaries of “Hallowed Ground” could fare much worse that those in Yuma. One of the groups pushing for the Allen bill is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, whose senior vice-president, Peter Brink, currently serves as vice-chairman of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. The Partnership would join the federal government in managing the Heritage Area, should Allen’s bill become law. The National Trust is an organization with a clear record of hostility toward property rights. For example, last year a Louisa, Va., man who wanted to renovate his home ran into opposition from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Emily Wadhams, a National Trust vice president, argued against the rights of the homeowner in a hearing on Capitol Hill, declaring, “[P]rivate property rights have never been allowed to take precedence over our shared national values and the preservation of our country’s heritage.”
It is curious that an organization claiming to be a guardian of history would so casually revise it.
The National Trust also has worked to defeat state ballot initiatives designed to restore the private property rights of landowners. Recently in Oregon, the National Trust and various environmental groups fought passage of a measure that would fairly compensate property owners when government takes their property rights and devalues their land. In 1995, the group helped bankroll the opposition to a similar property rights referendum in the state of Washington.
Last year’s unpopular U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London sparked a national outcry for stronger protections for property owners—not for more legislation that further tramples property rights. The uproar over the “bridge to nowhere” shows that many taxpayers are fed up about funding pork. Unfortunately for property owners within the proposed Hallowed Ground Heritage Area, some members of Congress still have not gotten the message.
Sen. Allen has always been quick to invoke the names of Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan when describing his political philosophy. Yet Jeffersonian principles and Reagan-era conservatism do not allow for federal boondoggles like his National Heritage Area.
It’s a sign of just how hot an issue pork-barrel spending has become that the biggest game in political Washington this summer is trying to smoke out the senator who is blocking a bill to create a searchable database of federal contracts and grants.
The bill has the support of the Bush administration and activists on widely divergent sides of the political spectrum. It also passed a Senate committee without any objections, so the unknown senator is annoying many people.
Sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, and Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, the bill would require the administration to create a searchable Web site that would list the name and amount of any federal grant, contract or other award of money amounting to $25,000 or more.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, tried to win speedy passage just before the Senate left for its summer break, but at least one senator objected anonymously.
Now Porkbusters.org, a Web site dedicated to exposing wasteful government spending, is conducting a public campaign to smoke out the obstructor or obstructors, while blogs on both sides of the political spectrum have
By Susan Jones
It’s a sign of just how hot an issue pork-barrel spending has become that the biggest game in political Washington this summer is trying to smoke out the senator who is blocking a bill to create a searchable database of federal contracts and grants.