What I'm thinking on immigration...

I've only heard/read secondhand accounts of the Congressional immigration legislation -- legislation I believe the Senate has since shot down -- but if true, I think it is an extremely bad idea to make it a felony to "deliver assistance" to illegal immigrants. (That is the term I heard quoted; laughable in its lack of legal clarity if accurate.)

Everything in my American and Christian upbringing is offended by that idea. Frankly, the discussions on kicking out 12 million people, or footing the bill to lock 1/2 that many up, making the head of a household (we usually call him Dad) leave every few years on a hope and a prayer he can come back, making it a felony to "deliver assistance" (?) (food? insulin?), fining illegal migrant workers some whopping percentage of their income, folks on bullhorns shouting "criminals!" at people they don't know jack about -- a lot of it goes against my moral grain... and its turning my tide to a more sweeping approach than I had previously assessed. Yes, we need to secure our borders, but we also have to remain Americans here. John made an Irish joke earlier... no sweat here... but we have treated our nation to much difficulty in the past when we backlashed against an immigrant group, whether Chinese or Irish or German or Peurto Rican. My grandparents immigrated here, now I'm like all-get-out-entitled.

This is a whopping issue... the more I consider it, the more complex it becomes. I sooo don't know the answers, but I am concerned the combination of heated emotions, election year posturing, polls, and knee jerk reactions will leave us on a course for tomorrow's civil rights movement. I've heard the arguments against amnesty, and don't outright reject them... but I do question if it would be better to deport criminals, and put working illegal families here on a track to citizenship that is forward oriented -- learning the language, laws, etc, not punative -- fines, harassment as a lumped sub-class in our society, etc. All Mexicans -- all Latinos -- whether legal or not, are being ensnared in this growing hostile environment. We're growing hostile to people as groups again. And we've become plumb insane when everyone repeats "jobs Americans won't do..." but never questions what the hey that says about Americans.

A couple weeks ago I thought the "new slavery" leftie stuff was over the top. But I've been thinking about it (ya'll will say mesmerized by the MSM)... we have some x million-odd people we're paying below minimum wages to, under constant threat of harassment by the law, thugs, whatever, with no recourse. Okay, yep, they volunteered to come here, and broke our laws doing it... not the same thing as the history of black slavery, but, you've still got Americans profiting off a sub-class of people. That's not right. And I know, kids are cutting school to protest, they're waving Mexican flags, etc. But, OTOH, they got an idea of how civil protest is done in America, the idea that in America their voice will matter (read: no carbombs, no flag burnings, loves and wants to be in America).

What is still missing from this debate is some of the problems at it's core: How do we farm our food without abusing a class of people -- whether legal or illegal migrant farm workers -- ? America was the world's bread basket... small farms were run by a family's wits and sweat and sold locally. Everybody from Leno to the Congress is commenting on what will happen to the price of peas. That's a problem. If Americans can't produce their own food sensibly without employing a shadow class at below legal pay rates, something more fundamental than documentation is wrong.

President jokes about taking the 5th

From Raw Story

Bush admits declassifying Iraq intelligence after question from student, not reporter
RAW STORY
Published: Monday April 10, 2006

President Bush, who admitted Monday to declassifying an Iraq intelligence report that was later leaked to the New York Times by Vice President Dick Cheney's then-chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, informed the American public of his declassification order after a question from a student, not a reporter. Of note: White House reporters asked White House press secretary Scott McClellan no questions about the leak the first day after it was reported. Bush spoke today at the The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, at The Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C.

In fairness, one White House reporter told RAW STORY that they hadn't had opportunities to ask questions of Bush directly, and that the morning of the McClellan press briefings the wires had not moved a story about the leak until around the time the press conference began on Air Force One.

STUDENT: First let me say thank you very much for being here. And thank you for taking questions. I know we appreciate that. My name is Ben Dearing (sp). I'm a second-year Masters student studying international energy policy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: International -- ?

Q Energy policy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, good!

Q Sorry. (Laughter.) My question, sir, is -- well, as Anthony eluded to earlier, and as you're aware, we have many students at SAIS who are currently working for or considering working for the State Department, the various intelligence agencies, and such. And how do you respond to the recent report by Prosecutor Fitzgerald that there is, in his words, "evidence of a concerted effort by the White House to punish Joseph Wilson," who himself has a distinguished record of government service.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. No. I -- this is -- there's an ongoing legal proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There's also an ongoing investigation that's a serious investigation. I will say this, that after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people's minds about, you know -- about the basis on which I made the statements, in other words going into Iraq. And so I decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted to see people -- people to see what some of those statements were based on. That's what I wanted to see. I wanted people to see the truth. And I thought it made sense for people to see the truth, and that's why I declassified the document.

...And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing, you know, ongoing intelligence matters, and so I did. And as far as the rest of the case goes, you're just going to have let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it. (Chuckles.)

Yeah? Please.

Phone-Jamming?

From Yahoo News

Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
Mon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was "preposterous" to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.

Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.

Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.

Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.

The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.

A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.

A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls — mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office — between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.

There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.

Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.

Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors "tried a very narrow case," said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.

The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices "at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day."
While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the
Republican National Committee' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.

By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.

Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

"As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.

"On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington," Kelner said.
"If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day," he said.

Dejavu?

Dems call for Bush to 'come clean,' cite 8 denials
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday April 6, 2006

After today's claim by Ex-VP chief of staff "Scooter" Libby that he was led to believe the President had approved the leak of classified information to reporters, Democrats have called for the President to set the record straight about his alleged involvement.

"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in a brief statement. "It's time for the President to come clean about his involvement in the leak case."

The statement was accompanied by eight of the numerous instances in which Bush or his spokesman, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, denied the President had knowledge of the leak.

That incidents identified by Democrats follow:

President Bush, 9/30/03:
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

President Bush, 9/30/03:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

President Bush, 10/28/03:
"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

President Bush, 6/10/04:
Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

President Bush, 10/28/03:
"I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:
"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03:
"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

The WH smeared Wilson? surprise, surprise...

Evidence Suggests White House Conspiracy
By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t Report
Thursday 06 April 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves "multiple" White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements.

Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak. The attorneys are desperately trying to obtain evidence from the government that will prove Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he was asked how he found out about Plame Wilson and whether he shared that information with the media.

Furthermore, Libby's attorneys have argued that they are entitled to the evidence in order to prove Libby was not engaged in a "plot" to discredit Wilson. However, Fitzgerald says the evidence he has obtained proves there was a coordinated effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson.

Fitzgerald wrote in the filing, "There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003."

Complete article here

Note to DeLay supporters: He dropped out... Doh!

Updated: 06:42 AM EDT
DeLay Supporters Crash Democrat's Event
By JUAN A. LOZANO, AP

SUGAR LAND, Texas (April 7) - Supporters of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay protested at an event Thursday held by the Democratic candidate for the congressman's seat, and the event quickly dissolved into a shouting and shoving match. Police were called, but made no arrests.

"I got pushed. I got hit. I got a sign wadded up in my face and my hat pulled down over my eyes," said Marsha Rovai, 69, a supporter of Nick Lampson. "They just did it to be nasty."
DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said he organized the protest but DeLay, a Republican, didn't know about it.

"Mr. Lampson is going to have to get used to being confronted about his voting record the next seven months," Homan said.

DeLay, who is under indictment on campaign finance charges, announced this week that he will resign from Congress sometime before mid-June.

At the news conference, Lampson called on the governor to set a May 13 special election so the district would be represented after DeLay leaves.

But moments after the event began in DeLay's home town, Lampson and his supporters were surrounded by protesters who held up hand-written signs. Lampson was silenced by their chanting.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry later said that, unless DeLay offers him his resignation letter by the end of the week, the seat would not be filled until the November general election. The election of a Democrat now could give the Democratic Party a leg up in November.

Lampson represented an adjacent district for eight years until DeLay-engineered redistricting cost him re-election in 2004. He said the protest was nothing new.

04-07-06 00:33 EDT

Frist Funny

Frist's Southern Hospitality

By Al Kamen
Friday, April 7, 2006; A17

It was with some trepidation that we opened a most interesting card, which announced on a blue-jeaned cowboy's belt buckle something called the "5th Annual VOLPAC '06 Weekend" in Nashville on April 21-23.

Problem was you had to unbuckle the cowboy's pants and look inside to see what this was all about. Seemed a bit too "Brokeback Mountain."

Imagine our relief to find only that we were "cordially invited" to the event honoring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and "Mrs. Bill Frist, M.D." This is Frist's political action committee to raise money for other senators, making friends and positioning him nicely for his 2008 presidential bid.

Big-time donors can golf, ride bikes, tour a recording studio and have lunch at the Frist Center for the Visual Arts. Then, after a cozy cocktail reception, there's Saturday night at the Grand Ole Opry and breakfast at the lovely Hermitage Hotel on Sunday morning.

"Don't miss a celebration of southern hospitality," the invite says, "one-of-a-kind music and special friends . . ." though it's unclear who those friends are and what makes them special.
The back of the card shows the cowboy from behind with a red flowered handkerchief sticking out of his right pocket. Wait a minute -- wasn't there something about how this used to be some kind of code in the gay community years ago? A way to signal each other in crowded, noisy bars?

So we checked the GayCityUSA.com's Hanky Codes. Sure enough, there it was in the chart explaining what they mean: red hanky in right pocket. Oh, dear.

From The Washington Post.

Cuntler commits voter fraud... precious!

PAPER: Ann Coulter Given 30 Days to Explain Vote Fraud Felony Allegation!

Brad Blog April 1 2006

You'll recall that in February the Palm Beach Post reported that "conservative" extremist Ann Coulter may have committed a vote fraud felony by signing someone else's address to her registration form in Florida and then voting in the wrong precinct -- a crime which, if convicted, could earn her three years behind bars.

(It's been pointed out to us that such bars would have to be very close together to keep her from simply slithering through them to escape...Though even at that, we're not sure there is steel strong enough to keep her from being able to chew her way to freedom. But we digress.)
A few days after the story originally broke, Coulter claimed publicly she didn't even live in Palm Beach where she reportedly committed the crime. The Post reporter who broke the story, Jose Lambiet, quickly replied that he had hard evidence that she does, in fact, live in Palm Beach (next door to town councilman Bill Brooks on Seabreeze Ave.) and he characterized Coulter's denial as "absolutely a bold-faced lie."

Yesterday the Palm Beach Post offered still more "skinny" on the latest in the Ann Coulter Voter Fraud Felony Scandal. Her denials about being a Palm Beach resident is about to be tested -- first by the Palm Beach County Election Supervisor Arthur Anderson, and then perhaps by the Florida State Attorney to whom the entire matter may be referred.

Coulter's now got 30 days to 'splain herself, according to Lambiet in the Post. Please read on...

Complete article is here

Jill Caroll, we're glad you're free

The world received very good news today... journalist Jill Carroll was freed! That is good news, right?

Not to the Right it ain't. Ms. Carroll says she was treated well by her captors and that puts the Cons in a pickle... Arab "Islamo-Fascists Terrorists" treated her well. Oh, shit! She must be lying, or we look like assholes, so she must be lying! Or maybe she was in on it the whole time?

Am I defending the people who kidnapped her? Hell No! They killed her interpreter and held her since January 7th! Butttt, they didn't waterboard her, use dogs on her, make her pile up in a human pyramid, or make her masturbate for the camera. That presents a problem for the Cons...

The following excerpt from Think Progress demonstrates again, what low-life scumbags Cons really are:

John Podhoretz Attacks Jill Carroll

Today, Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll released after three months of being held in captivity in Iraq by kidnappers. The National Review’s John Podhoretz responded by attacking her mental state:

It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days.

[Jean's note to Podhoretz... how fucking dumb are you? Jill Carroll left in the same dress she was taken in -- did ya see any of the pre-kidnapping pics dipshit??? Carroll wore appropriate garb for the culture she was trying to blend in with to report on without carrying a neon sign announcing she was a Western reporter.]

This is a day that we should celebrate Jill Carroll’s courage. She put herself in danger to try to give the world a more accurate picture of Iraq. It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth.

Podhoretz owes Jill Carroll an apology.

UPDATE: Imus Executive Producer: Carroll is “The Kind of Woman Who Would Wear One of Those Suicide Vests, Sneak Into the Green Zone”

UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan agrees JPod was out of line.

UPDATE III: Right-wing author and blogger Orrin Judd says Carroll’s comments prove “she was a willing participant” in her own kidnapping.

UPDATE IV: Powerline’s John Hinderaker joins in: “…I want to register a small protest against her statement, widely quoted in the press, that she was ‘well treated’ by her captors. This is a sentiment that one often hears from people who have been released by kidnappers; one gets the sense that the victims are grateful–understandably, perhaps–to the terrorists for letting them go.”

Has Bush started WWIII?

Another Prominent Military Figure Denounces NeoCons, Iraq, War on Terror
Delta Force founder joins ranks who say there is no real threat to the US and war is based on lies

Steve Watson / Infowars March 27 2006

Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney, founding member of the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit, Delta force, has stated publicly for the record that he sees the war in Iraq as an "Utter debacle" based on intentions by the Bush administration that were "not what they stated" and that "there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world".

Haney made the comments in an exclusive interview with David Kronke for the LA Daily News published yesterday.

After Haney retired from the military his book "Inside Delta Force" became the basis for the hit CBS drama "The Unit," where he now assumes technical adviser and executive producer duties.
When questioned on Iraq Haney responded with the following:

Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

We'd better take it seriously when the founder member of one of the most elite military forces in the world says Bush has fomented a third world war for personal gain.

Complete article is here...

250,000 dead in Iraq

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

Original address http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Iraq_war.php

by John Stokes

New studies make the Bush administration's "liberation" argument for a 'pre-emptive' war against Iraq seem questionable.

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.

The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the U.S., and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

Complete article is here...

Lantos to Afghanistan, "absolutely unacceptable"

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Congressman to Afghanistan: 'We will not put up with this' Lantos says possibility of death for Christians 'absolutely unacceptable' for country we freed

Posted: March 26, 20065:23 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite Afghanistan's dismissal of the case against a convert to Christianity who faced the death penalty for leaving Islam, a U.S. congressman is blasting the Asian country for its ancient system of laws, and says he will not let the matter rest.

"This is clearly not the end of the story," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., told Fox News today. "The dots spell out Islamic fanaticism. ... We will not let this matter rest."

....

Even with the dismissal, Lantos, a U.S. citizen who immigrated from Hungary and now serves on the House's International Relations Committee, lambasted Afghanistan for continuing its system of Sharia (Islamic) law, which has been in practice since the 7th century.

"It's absolutely unacceptable, and I made it very clear to [Afghan] President Karzai and the foreign minister in very plain English that this has to stop, not as an individual case, but as a generic solution. We simply will not put up with this," Lantos said.

He continued: "President Karzai has a tremendous opportunity at the moment because he's now naming new members to the supreme court, and it's absolutely critical that every single member he names be a civilized, moderate individual who understands that having death sentences passed on people who convert to Christianity is not acceptable in the 21st century, particularly not by a country which has been liberated by soldiers of the United States and other NATO countries, most of whom are Christian."

Complete article is here...

Farewell Afghanistan

I've been out of town, so apologies for this blog not being updated...

On returning to the real world today, I've read the updates that the Afghani leadership has opted to take a coward's stand by moving to dismiss Abdul Rahman's case, claiming he is "mentally unstable." (Rahman is the man in Afghanistan facing the death penalty for a religious conversion.)

Maybe Rahman is mentally ill, maybe he is not... it's not pertinent. Nor is the religion Rahman has chosen adherence to pertinent. What is pertinent is that the Afghan nation has codified as law the penalty of death for any man, or woman, who dares to think differently than the State sanctions.

There is no offense to our humanity more grievous than this.

When the State legally snuffs out a man's free will to THINK, man loses everything, man IS NOTHING. Man becomes only a THING, a non-thinking automaton that serves the State lest he be extinguished by the State. By raising questions of Rahman's mental state to move the matter out of the court's jurisdiction in an attempt to save his life, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has chosen a route to a "solution" no less dangerous than the clerics calling for Rahman's death. Karzai's legal hoop-jumping blurs the matter at hand and could very well lead to legal precedent in which any subsequent covert from Islam is considered mentally ill by way of the Afghan state's handling of this case.

What then?

The Afghan state will dismiss their cases and release them to be brutally murdered at the hands of the mob? Or send them away from their families to other nation's willing to let them live? Or will such a "religious-based mental illness" become grounds in itself for state sanctioned execution?

Whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Bugs Bunnyism, there is nothing more subjectively human than a man's thoughts cum beliefs. Afghanistan claims the right to kill a man for thinking differently than the State. If that is the Afghan citizen's prerogative, made law by the Afghan Constitution, so be it, but America cannot be complicit.

If we still believe in the principles this nation was founded upon, not a dollar, not a bullet, and certainly not tomorrow's Pat Tillman may be sacrificed for Afghanistan.

Physics still apply in Texas

Landmark Implosion Looks Like WTC Collapse
Classic crimp and leaning mirrors Building 7, South Tower

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com March 20 2006

The controlled demolition of a North Texas building Saturday provided a stark reminder that WTC Building 7 and the twin towers could not have been brought down by any other means than planned implosion.

Watch the video of the Landmark Tower implosion in downtown Fort Worth and compare it to the South Tower of the WTC.

Complete article here...

Watch the video and ask yourself: Why can't anyone explain how WTC7 came down?

Conservatives were whiny, insecure brats... and they still are!

How to spot a baby conservative
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...

Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

Complete article here...

ROTFLMFAO!
Jean

Pray Mr. Roberts is wrong, but don't bet on it

Is Another 9/11 in the Works?
by Paul Craig Roberts

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?

Yes, you would.

Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.
Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That’s what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black ops" group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?

Fantasy? Let’s hope so.

Fantasy or not, we are faced with a horrific reality: This nation's clarity has been destroyed. We cannot face ANY threat without questioning if our "leaders" have manufactured it. Welcome to America, land of the justifiably paranoid. Note the first hints of a possible attack on the Sears tower are coming out on the same day the President has restated his pre-emptive attack policy and his Admin is escalating the "we're all gonna die" rhetoric on Iran. Message: Be Afraid, and rally around the President (read: improve those approval ratings!).

God help us,
Jean.

Santorum and Murdoch, a frothy mixture...

From the fine folks at Attytood:

Murdoch's NY Post makes an "in-kind" contribution to Santorum

Here's a New York Post article that needs some perspective.

First, some quick background: Raw Story recently had a bit of a scoop about Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and the unusual level of support that he was getting from a media outlet: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the operators of the Fox News Channel...and the New York Post. It was a riff on the fact that one of FNC's big stars, Sean Hannity, had actually hosted a Santorum fundraiser:

Fox News host and commentator Sean Hannity may have been recently singled out, but he isn't the only News Corporation employee padding the re-election coffers of Rick Santorum (R-PA), RAW STORY has learned.

A simple search of Federal Election Commission records reveals that many News Corp. employees, including chairman and chief executive officer Rupert Murdoch, have made direct, personal donations to the Senator's re-election campaign, as well as other mostly Republican candidates.

Records indicate that in November, 2005, Murdoch personally donated $2,100 to Santorum's campaign. This wasn't he first monetary gift Murdoch made to Santorum; the right wing media mogul shelled out $1,000 to elect the Senator in 2000.

And now today -- well, isn't this odd? Murdoch's New York Post -- a good hour and at least two fairly large bridges away from the Keystone State -- is suddenly taking a serious interest in the arcania of Pennsylvania politics. Well, this one aspect, anyway..."DEMS' PA. DISARRAY":

Some locals are upset that [Bob] Casey was seemingly anointed for the nomination by New York's own Chuck Schumer (the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. A few activists are rallying around his opponents in the May 16 primary, Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals.

Casey's failure last week to win the endorsement of the Bucks County Democratic Committee raised a few eyebrows. Again, abortion seems the deal-breaker; the county encompasses several wealthy Philadelphia suburbs. Pennacchio, a pro-choicer, says many voters want "a real Democrat who will fight for Democratic principles, not someone like Casey who is mimicking Rick Santorum every step of the way." (The Casey steamroller also came up short in Lancaster County, the farming - and Amish - country west of Philadelphia.)

Interesting -- as most locals know, Pennacchio and Sandals would pretty much have to be found in bed with a dead woman or a live man to get press coverage here in their home state (a travesty, we know) -- but suddenly they're the toast of the Great White Way? And the New York Post covers the Bucks County Democratic Committee now?

Or, put another way, is this story just another campaign contribution to Santorum, an "in-kind" one?
It's a shame, because the article does raise some legitimate points. It's true that Pennsylvania Democrats are yearning for an anti-war, anti-Alito, pro-choice candidate, and it will be interesting to see if Pennacchio or Sandals can make headway against Bob Casey Jr., who under different circumstances might be called "a Fox News Democrat."

But Murdoch and his executives crossed a line by giving money to Santorum. And so when it comes to the Pennsylvania Senate race, can we believe anything the New York Post says?

Diebold in California... beware 2008

Global Eye
Party Hacks
By Chris Floyd
Published: March 3, 2006

Excerpt:

After Diebold's machines failed miserably in a battery of tests last year, McPherson vowed to put their certification on hold until his own hand-picked panel of experts had fine-combed the system to a fare-thee-well, blogger Brad Friedman reports. The panel delivered their conclusions last month -- and the results were staggering, far beyond the worst fears of the most hard-core "conspiracy theorist." The panel found that Diebold's machines were riddled with curious built-in glitches that effectively "ceded complete control of the system" to hackers who could "change vote totals, modify reports, change the names of candidates and change the races being voted on."

What's more, "hackers wouldn't need to know passwords or cryptographic keys, or have access to any other part of the system to do their dirty work," the Los Angeles Times notes. "Voters, candidates and election monitors wouldn't necessarily know they'd been rooked." A more perfect vehicle for fixing an election can hardly be imagined. And it would require nothing more than a handful of high-tech zealots, not a vast conspiracy.

Naturally, after such a blistering condemnation, McPherson did what any official charged with guaranteeing the integrity and credibility of his state's elections would do: He approved the slipshod system by the dark of the moon, on a Friday before a holiday weekend, without any public hearings -- indeed, without waiting for the results of a pending federal review of Diebold's mole-infested code. Now, the Diebold contraptions, whose chronic "breakdowns" have featured in numerous contested elections and last-second "miracle" victories by Republican candidates across the country in recent years, will control California's pot of electoral gold.

Complete The Moscow Times article is here...

Feds pull web info to appease fundie group

From The Memory Hole:

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. For years, a section of the SAMHSA site dealt with the prevention and treatment of substance abuse as it specifically relates to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. It was here:

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/features/lgbt/

But on 11 January 2006, a Christian fundamentalist group complained about the material, and, sure enough, within two weeks the feds had pulled it off the site. (This impeccable timing was just a coincidence, says the agency's associate administrator - they had planned to delete the LGBT material long before now. The full story is in a Southern Voice article here.)

The Memory Hole was able to recover 15 deleted pages, one that was changed, and a PDF report that the censors apparently missed.

A special thanks to The Memory Hole! Deleted pages are here.

The $64,864 Question: Where's the money?

Senator's charity "a weak effort"
Wiens' late filing shows less than half of donations aided military kin
By Mark P. Couch Denver Post Staff Writer, Article Launched: 03/16/2006 1:00 AM MST

A state lawmaker Wednesday released the annual tax filing for the charitable group he established, showing only 46 percent of donations went to financially strapped military families.

Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock, reported to the Internal Revenue Service that the Stand in the Gap Project collected $119,336 in 2004, passing $54,472 along to needy families.

...

Wiens started the Stand in the Gap Project in 2004, during his final year in the House of Representatives and while preparing a run for the state Senate.

Wiens is president of the group and fellow lawmakers joined him on the board. Current House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, is treasurer. May said he has not been active with the group for a year.

Wiens also sponsored a resolution that was passed by the state legislature in February 2004 that encourages Coloradans to find out how to contribute money to Stand in the Gap Project.
Of the $119,336 the project collected that year, $100,000 came from military contractor Lockheed Martin. [Sure smells like a campaign contribution to me, Jean]

Complete DenverPost.com article here...

To Missouri House Rep Susan Phillips: You Suck!

Low-income women would be affected
House OKs birth control funding ban
By KIT WAGAR, Posted on Thu, Mar. 16, 2006

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.

Critics jumped on the proposal, saying it would lead to more abortions and more unwanted children on welfare.

But the proposal’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. “If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,” Phillips said. “But we don’t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.”

Read all the whole damn KansasCity.com article here...

Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure

From: RAW STORY
Published: Thursday March 16, 2006

A new poll finds that a pluraplity of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.

A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 46% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.

Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.

Original Raw Story article here...

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Take some time to review the Scholar for 9/11 Truth website.

I've tried, and tried again to steer clear of this "conspiracy" but, damn it, the men and women who formed Scholars for 9/11 Truth are a hard bunch to ignore, and the questions raised by them and countless others are even harder to ignore.

No one wants to believe Americans orchestrated the attacks on September 11, 2001. But the men running our country have orchestrated an unnecessary war, why would 9/11 be outside of their moral boundaries? No matter how painful the truth may turn out to be, it must be looked at with open eyes.

The starting point for all questions is WTC Building 7. It also came down on 9/11/01, without being hit by a plane, debri or suffering more than minimal sporadic fire. No steel building has ever come down as a result of fire, until 9/11/01. WTC7 didn't just come down either, it free fell into its own footprint in less that 7 seconds... that's not achieved by sporadic fire, that's controlled demolition. Controlled demolition takes weeks to wire.

That's one paragraph, only the tip of the tip of the iceberg, but the government has not been able to provide any plausible explanation for building 7 coming down.

A quick slideshow on WTC7 is here.

The entire Scholars site should be given due time and consideration, especially if you have kids or grandkids growing up in George Bush's America.

Salon.com publishes all 279 Abu Ghraib photos

Email the link below to every asshole you heard utter the words "college prank" to describe the torture that went on at Abu Ghraib prison under US command.

The Abu Ghraib Files

WARNING TO THE HUMANS AMONGST US: The photos are very disturbing; don't open for at least an hour after eating.

33%

Correction: Bush's 36% approval rating is now down to 33%.

Another 3% of far right nutjobs have woken up!

36%

Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low
Americans pessimistic on war as president launches new push

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 Posted: 0035 GMT (0835 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)

Complete CNN article here...

Conservative mag Insight: Bush clueless

Issue Date: March 13-19, 2006
Posted On: 3/13/2006

Bush delegates most issues, focuses only on Iraq, '06 campaign

President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.

Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections

...

"Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them," a source familiar with the White House said. "In some cases, this has resulted in chaos."

The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.

Complete article here...

30 US Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe

Matthew Cardinale / Op Ed March 11 2006

30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.

“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.

Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment.

Read the complete article at Prison Planet...

The GOP's Abortion Anxiety, Newsweek

The pro-life movement is on a roll. So why are the Republican Party's top guns suddenly so shy on the subject?

By Howard Fineman and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
March 20, 2006 issue

Excerpt:

Other presidential hopefuls are squirming a bit. Asked whether he supported the South Dakota law, Sen. John McCain riffled through his mental notecards and said he didn't know the "technical" details of the law. But he said he would support the measure if it were consistent with his long-held view that abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or incest—or to protect, as he put it, the "health" of the mother. His aides had to scramble to correct the record: he meant, they said, the life of the mother.


Complete article at Newsweek...

The President's port deal debacle

ABC news is reporting "White House Asked Dubai Ports to Pull Out." Okay, we all knew that the moment the announcement came only 24 hours after the 62-2 vote by the Appropriations Committee to block the deal. Some important highlights:

The President claims to have learned about the deal from the media, a clear violation of the law known as CFIUS. (see post here: Are Bush, Rummy and Snowy lying?).

The President made what amounts to his 5th threat to use his veto power to protect the deal. (To date this President has not carried out one of those threats, having NEVER vetoed anything).

The President makes the outragous claim on the White House website that "[t]he UAE is ... a long-time supporter of all aspects of Middle East peace efforts." We know that is a lie, read here, here, and here.

The President now has the audacity to claim "...the collapse of the Dubai ports deal could hurt U.S. efforts to recruit Mideast governments as partners in the worldwide war on terror."

Rumseld: Coincidence that he's making a mint on bird flu stock?

Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug
By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen
Published: 12 March 2006

Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease.

...

The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. It is now made and sold by the giant chemical company Roche, which pays it a royalty on every tablet sold, currently about a fifth of its price.

Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding .

The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled, to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year. During this time the share price trebled.

Mr Rumsfeld sold some of his Gilead shares in 2004 reaping - according to the financial disclosure report he is required to make each year - capital gains of more than $5m. The report showed that he still had up to $25m-worth of shares at the end of 2004, and at least one analyst believes his stake has grown well beyond that figure, as the share price has soared. Further details are not likely to become known, however, until Mr Rumsfeld makes his next disclosure in May.

Read the complete article at The Independent...

DeWine spits on the first amendment

Provisions make reporting on government surveillance illegal
AP March 11 2006

Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law.

But an aide to the bill's chief author, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said that is not the intention of the legislation.

"It in no way applies to reporters — in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.

The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.

Fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jailUnder the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

Read the complete article at Prison Planet

Team 4 exposes Santorum's charity lies

Team 4: Lobbyists Running Santorum's Charity

The following report by Team 4 investigator Jim Parsons first aired on Channel 4 Action News at 5 p.m. on March 8, 2006.

Sen. Rick Santorum calls himself the Republican point man on lobbying reform in Washington.
But Santorum's reform plan doesn't deal at all with lobbyists running charities on behalf of members of Congress.

Good thing for the Senator, because Team 4 has discovered that's exactly who's in charge of his charity, Operation Good Neighbor.

...

But Santorum's charity has also put money -- $216,000 -- into unexplained travel and meetings through 2004.

That's almost half of the $501,000 donated to community organizations, mostly in Philadelphia.
Who's doing all that traveling and where are they going? Team 4 asked the charity and the Senator, but they've refused to release the records.

"One thing I'm very clear about is to try to keep a separation between anything I do officially and the charity. I don't want the charity involved in politics," Santorum said.

But politics is involved in the charity. Santorum put political lobbyists and campaign staffers in charge of Operation Good Neighbor.

Charles Black is a member of the board of advisers for Operation Good Neighbor, and a federally registered lobbyist with the Washington firm BKSH.

One of his clients is Alcoa, a company that last year received a $1.9 million federal defense contract that Santorum and fellow Sen. Arlen Specter trumpeted in a news release.

Barbara Bonfiglio is treasurer of Operation Good Neighbor. She's also treasurer of Santorum's reelection campaign and his political action committee, America's Foundation. Bonfiglio is a principal in Williams and Jensen, a top Washington lobbying firm.

And Operation Good Neighbor's executive director is Rob Bickhart, who gets paid a salary by the charity and rent because Operation Good Neighbor is located in the suburban Philadelphia offices of Bickhart's company, Capitol Resource Group.

Complete article and video here...

Not My Charity sez Slick Rick

Attytood, a blog out of Philly, has the pics and quotes to demonstrate -- once again -- what a lying sack of shit Rick Santorum is! Thank you Attytood for a job well done!

Some excerpts:

In addition, the article referred to my "personal charity." I do not have a personal charity.

Promoting the spirit of charitable giving, Sen. Rick Santorum is advancing his own foundation aimed at helping communities. Santorum, R-Pa., was a key figure in forging a bipartisan compromise on a charitable-giving bill. Santorum is also chairman of Operation Good Neighbor, a national nonprofit foundation that dispenses money to small, community-based organizations.
-- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 8, 2002.

The reference was an allusion to Operation Good Neighbor, a charitable organization that I founded in 2000.

A financial program for youths in Lindenwold got a $10,000 boost from a local senator's nonprofit foundation.U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., visited Bethany Baptist Church Thursday morning to announce the grant to The Mustard Seed Initiative, a church-based financial literacy program for young men.
-- Camden Courier-Post, Oct. 26, 2002.

There's more at Attytood, including a collection of neat "its not my charity" pics showing Slick Rick handing out checks for his charity. Doh!

Visit Attytood here...