Monday, March 31, 2008
Elections
Write in Ron Paul's name on the ballot for president if it is not there. Ron Paul is the only one to resist the feminist pork so he is definitely more preferable to Obuma or Hitlery. He is still running,perhaps as an independent or better yet Libertarian. The second choice is would be John "Open Borders" McCain. The third choice would be leaving the country.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
More anti-white racism
RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A black father was sentenced to two to four years in prison Wednesday for fatally shooting an intoxicated white teenager during a racially charged confrontation with two carloads of young people at the end of his driveway.
Parents Joanne and Daniel Cicciaro said they were unhappy with the sentence.
3 of 3 The parents of victim Daniel Cicciaro Jr., 17, were irate after learning that John White did not receive the maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.
White, 54, was convicted in December of second-degree manslaughter and a weapons charge.
"Nice message it sends to society that as long as you're black and there's a problem at the end of your driveway you can grab an illegal handgun and shoot someone in the face and get away with it," an infuriated Daniel Cicciaro Sr. told reporters while dozens of supporters sobbed nearby.
"Well, let's see what happens when Aaron White gets shot, and see how the laws are," Cicciaro said, referring to White's 19-year-old son.
Defense attorney Frederick Brewington said Cicciaro's remarks appeared to be a threat and demanded an investigation. Prosecutor Thomas Spota said the matter was referred to police, and the Whites were assigned extra protection at their home.
White was led away in handcuffs, but his attorneys planned to seek approval from a higher court to let him remain free pending appeal.
"I've always remained remorseful about this incident," White told the judge.
At the trial, the defense invoked the nation's violent racist past in arguing the shooting was justified, referring to the teenagers as a "lynch mob."
White testified that he was trying to protect his family on a hot August night in 2006 when he got an unregistered pistol from his garage after a group of angry white teenagers turned up at his house late at night to fight his son. He claimed the handgun discharged accidentally, killing Cicciaro.
The conflict was fueled by a bogus Internet posting claiming Aaron White wanted to rape a female friend of one of the white teens.
Cicciaro, who had a blood-alcohol reading above the legal limit for driving, was just 3 inches from the pistol when he was shot in the face, a medical examiner testified.
White said Aaron had wakened him around 11 p.m. to tell him he had been feuding with other teens after being asked to leave a party and a group of the teens was headed to their house in Miller Place, a predominantly white community on eastern Long Island.
White, a construction worker, testified that he grew up in Brooklyn hearing stories about how the Ku Klux Klan torched his grandfather's business in Alabama in the 1920s and that he feared a similar attack was about to happen.
Source:here
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Secret Shadow Government
House Closes Its Doors for Spying Bill
Thursday, March 13, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House held a closed session Thursday for the first time in 25 years to discuss a hotly contested surveillance bill.
Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping measure that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.
Lawmakers were forbidden to disclose what was said during the hour-long session. The extent to which minds were changed, if at all, should be more clear Friday, when the House was expected to openly debate and then vote on the bill.
Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas said she didn't believe anyone changed positions but that the session was useful because no one would be able to complain on Friday that their views had not been heard.
"We couldn't have gone more of an extra mile to make sure we're doing the best for national security," she told The Associated Press.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that he read aloud the titles - but not details - of intelligence reports "that shows the nature of the global threat and how dynamic the situation is, and how fluid."
Hoekstra said the House discussed the procedures intelligence agencies use to protect the identities of innocent Americans whose calls and e-mails are incidentally intercepted in wiretaps.
Hoekstra said three Democrats spoke as did eight or nine Republicans.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said "there was nothing new, nothing that wasn't public, nothing that can't and shouldn't be debated on the floor tomorrow in open session."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he heard nothing new that would change his mind about the bill.
"Tomorrow, I will urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation," Hoyer said.
The last such session in the House was in 1983 on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825.
Four members declined to sign the confidentiality oath required to participate in the closed session, House staff members said.
Many Democrats initially objected, calling it a political ploy by Republicans to delay a vote on the bill. House leaders did in fact push off the scheduled vote until Friday, just before taking a two-week recess. If it passes, the bill would need Senate approval before going to the president.
President Bush has vowed to veto it, saying it would undermine the nation's security.
Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging they violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.
The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program in order to decide whether the companies acted lawfully. If they did, the lawsuits would be dismissed.
The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they cannot use the documents to defend themselves in court.
It wasn't clear what information would be presented in the closed session. Just a fraction of Congress has been allowed to read secret documents underpinning the surveillance program, and those who have arrived at varying conclusions.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, after seeing classified material, said the companies acted on the good-faith belief that the wiretaps they allowed were lawful. Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees were unconvinced after being presented with the same material.
The surveillance law is intended to help in the pursuit of suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States. A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a tactic to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation. The Senate's bill provides retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications companies.
Bush said lawsuits against telecom companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said lawsuits would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the government in trying to track down terrorists.
Hoekstra said intelligence was already being lost.
"Each and every day our capabilities are eroding," he said.
Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."
Bush predicted the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and said even if it did, he would veto it.
At least one Senate Republican said the lawsuits should go forward to determine whether the wiretapping program was illegal. But Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter wants to substitute the government for the phone companies as the defendant in the court cases.
"The president can't have a blank check," Specter said in an interview. "If you close down the courts, there's no check and balance."
He added: "Wiretaps are important for national security. There's no doubt about that. Al-Qaida and terrorism continue to be a major threat to this country. It is my hope that the president will not find it necessary to veto the bill, that we'll be able to work it out."
---
Associated Press writers Kimberly Hefling and Terence Hunt contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Does anybody else have a problem with this? Clandestine government;it is dangerous in that it is responsible to no one. What was discussed in those closed chambers? Aren't the people part of the government? That is what is being sold in schools across the country but is it true? If not anymore than at one time did it? Is bin Laden as dangerous and as a "boogy man" as we are led to believe or is he blown out of proportion by the U.S. government in their effort to find a scapegoat/distraction? He seems to be Bush's obsession or that could be a persona for public consumption to keep the press at bay and on the subject you want to discuss. Not bad considering if you are right of center you are looking at an unfriendly press who will seek to vilify you every chance they can get and I'll bet the White House knows this too. The thing is if we really wanted Osama we would have had him by now so it very possible his infamous notoriety made be a smokescreen. This story featured "oaths to remain silent",were they required to sign these in the representative's own blood? I am a big time libertarian and I take the U.S. Constitution very seriously. If either house of congress can employ "secret sessions",just as the house as done and the senate earlier,to conceal their business what is to stop them from kicking C-SPAN out and declaring everything "secret session"? Especially if anything resulted in an arrestable offense but the public was unaware of it due to it being discussed in a "secret session". This is a slippery slope,America and one we better be careful of.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House held a closed session Thursday for the first time in 25 years to discuss a hotly contested surveillance bill.
Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping measure that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.
Lawmakers were forbidden to disclose what was said during the hour-long session. The extent to which minds were changed, if at all, should be more clear Friday, when the House was expected to openly debate and then vote on the bill.
Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas said she didn't believe anyone changed positions but that the session was useful because no one would be able to complain on Friday that their views had not been heard.
"We couldn't have gone more of an extra mile to make sure we're doing the best for national security," she told The Associated Press.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that he read aloud the titles - but not details - of intelligence reports "that shows the nature of the global threat and how dynamic the situation is, and how fluid."
Hoekstra said the House discussed the procedures intelligence agencies use to protect the identities of innocent Americans whose calls and e-mails are incidentally intercepted in wiretaps.
Hoekstra said three Democrats spoke as did eight or nine Republicans.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said "there was nothing new, nothing that wasn't public, nothing that can't and shouldn't be debated on the floor tomorrow in open session."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he heard nothing new that would change his mind about the bill.
"Tomorrow, I will urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation," Hoyer said.
The last such session in the House was in 1983 on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825.
Four members declined to sign the confidentiality oath required to participate in the closed session, House staff members said.
Many Democrats initially objected, calling it a political ploy by Republicans to delay a vote on the bill. House leaders did in fact push off the scheduled vote until Friday, just before taking a two-week recess. If it passes, the bill would need Senate approval before going to the president.
President Bush has vowed to veto it, saying it would undermine the nation's security.
Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging they violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.
The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program in order to decide whether the companies acted lawfully. If they did, the lawsuits would be dismissed.
The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they cannot use the documents to defend themselves in court.
It wasn't clear what information would be presented in the closed session. Just a fraction of Congress has been allowed to read secret documents underpinning the surveillance program, and those who have arrived at varying conclusions.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, after seeing classified material, said the companies acted on the good-faith belief that the wiretaps they allowed were lawful. Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees were unconvinced after being presented with the same material.
The surveillance law is intended to help in the pursuit of suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States. A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a tactic to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation. The Senate's bill provides retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications companies.
Bush said lawsuits against telecom companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said lawsuits would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the government in trying to track down terrorists.
Hoekstra said intelligence was already being lost.
"Each and every day our capabilities are eroding," he said.
Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."
Bush predicted the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and said even if it did, he would veto it.
At least one Senate Republican said the lawsuits should go forward to determine whether the wiretapping program was illegal. But Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter wants to substitute the government for the phone companies as the defendant in the court cases.
"The president can't have a blank check," Specter said in an interview. "If you close down the courts, there's no check and balance."
He added: "Wiretaps are important for national security. There's no doubt about that. Al-Qaida and terrorism continue to be a major threat to this country. It is my hope that the president will not find it necessary to veto the bill, that we'll be able to work it out."
---
Associated Press writers Kimberly Hefling and Terence Hunt contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Does anybody else have a problem with this? Clandestine government;it is dangerous in that it is responsible to no one. What was discussed in those closed chambers? Aren't the people part of the government? That is what is being sold in schools across the country but is it true? If not anymore than at one time did it? Is bin Laden as dangerous and as a "boogy man" as we are led to believe or is he blown out of proportion by the U.S. government in their effort to find a scapegoat/distraction? He seems to be Bush's obsession or that could be a persona for public consumption to keep the press at bay and on the subject you want to discuss. Not bad considering if you are right of center you are looking at an unfriendly press who will seek to vilify you every chance they can get and I'll bet the White House knows this too. The thing is if we really wanted Osama we would have had him by now so it very possible his infamous notoriety made be a smokescreen. This story featured "oaths to remain silent",were they required to sign these in the representative's own blood? I am a big time libertarian and I take the U.S. Constitution very seriously. If either house of congress can employ "secret sessions",just as the house as done and the senate earlier,to conceal their business what is to stop them from kicking C-SPAN out and declaring everything "secret session"? Especially if anything resulted in an arrestable offense but the public was unaware of it due to it being discussed in a "secret session". This is a slippery slope,America and one we better be careful of.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Black church opposes white shopkeeper
`Redneck Shop' Creates Dispute in S.C.
Monday, March 10, 2008
LAURENS, S.C. - A black civil rights activist is fighting to close a store that sells KKK robes and T-shirts emblazoned with racial slurs. David Kennedy is confident he can make it happen. After all, he says he owns the building.
Since 1996, the Redneck Shop has operated in an old movie theater that, according to court records, was transferred in 1997 to Kennedy and the Baptist church he leads.
"Our ownership puts an end to that history as far as violence and hatred, racism being practiced in that place and also the recruiting of the Klan," Kennedy said. "This is the same place that we had to go up into the balcony to go to the movies before the Klan took it. So there's a lot of history there."
But legal documents also indicate that the man who runs the store, 62-year-old John Howard, is entitled to operate his business in the building until he dies. Now the dispute may go to court.
Kennedy, 54, has led protests outside the store since it opened but said he's never been able to close it because of the agreement that Howard can run the shop for life.
The reverend envisions the building as a potential future home for his New Beginnings Missionary Baptist Church, which now meets in a double-wide trailer.
Kennedy claims he can't even visit his own property because Howard won't let him in when he appears in the door. But that didn't happen during a recent visit with an Associated Press reporter and photographer.
"Reverend Kennedy, where you been hiding?" Howard shouted when the door opened.
Inside the store, hooded Klan robes hang on the same rack as the racist T-shirts. Pictures of men, women and children in Klan clothing and pamphlets tell a partial history of the organization.
Howard used to own the whole building. When his store first opened, he said, people threw rocks at his windows, spit in his doorway and picketed. A month later, a man intentionally crashed his van through the front windows.
"If anything turns people off, they shouldn't come in here. It's not a thing in here that's against the law," Howard said, adding that he was once the KKK's grand dragon for South Carolina and North Carolina.
To blacks, Kennedy said, the store is a reminder of this region's painful past, which includes the lynching of his great, great uncle by a white mob.
The town of Laurens, about 30 miles southeast of Greenville, was named after 18th century slave trader Henry Laurens.
Some street addresses are still marked with the letter "C" that once designated black homes as "colored." Racial tension was heightened in recent years when two white female teachers were sentenced for having sex with male students - all of them black.
Kennedy has a long history of fighting racial injustice. He protested when a South Carolina county refused to observe the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and he helped lobby to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse dome.
When people in the region allege racism, he rallies attention to the cause. A walk through the neighborhood where he was born shows that he seems a stranger to no one.
"Hey Rev," one man says as he strolls by.
"Pump it up," Kennedy responds with the phrase he uses at his protests.
Mary Redd, who lives across from the house where Kennedy was born, said blacks know to contact the pastor with their problems.
"And he helps them out," added neighbor Deborah Cheeks.
Kennedy said progress has always been slow to come to Laurens.
"There are two powers in the world: the mind and the sword," he said. "In the long run, the sword is defeated by the mind. I want to destroy the concept of hatred."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Has the reverend ever taken on pro-black groups such as the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers? They mentioned that the property was transferred to the church but they don't go into how the church acquired the property. These people that drove their cars through the front of the shop,was it at the request of the reverend? It seems that the shop owner has a legal standing and the reverend and his group are trying to terrorize him and he is not budging. Do we have a new asshat along with the other two clowns that are reverends and get themselves into trouble.
Monday, March 10, 2008
LAURENS, S.C. - A black civil rights activist is fighting to close a store that sells KKK robes and T-shirts emblazoned with racial slurs. David Kennedy is confident he can make it happen. After all, he says he owns the building.
Since 1996, the Redneck Shop has operated in an old movie theater that, according to court records, was transferred in 1997 to Kennedy and the Baptist church he leads.
"Our ownership puts an end to that history as far as violence and hatred, racism being practiced in that place and also the recruiting of the Klan," Kennedy said. "This is the same place that we had to go up into the balcony to go to the movies before the Klan took it. So there's a lot of history there."
But legal documents also indicate that the man who runs the store, 62-year-old John Howard, is entitled to operate his business in the building until he dies. Now the dispute may go to court.
Kennedy, 54, has led protests outside the store since it opened but said he's never been able to close it because of the agreement that Howard can run the shop for life.
The reverend envisions the building as a potential future home for his New Beginnings Missionary Baptist Church, which now meets in a double-wide trailer.
Kennedy claims he can't even visit his own property because Howard won't let him in when he appears in the door. But that didn't happen during a recent visit with an Associated Press reporter and photographer.
"Reverend Kennedy, where you been hiding?" Howard shouted when the door opened.
Inside the store, hooded Klan robes hang on the same rack as the racist T-shirts. Pictures of men, women and children in Klan clothing and pamphlets tell a partial history of the organization.
Howard used to own the whole building. When his store first opened, he said, people threw rocks at his windows, spit in his doorway and picketed. A month later, a man intentionally crashed his van through the front windows.
"If anything turns people off, they shouldn't come in here. It's not a thing in here that's against the law," Howard said, adding that he was once the KKK's grand dragon for South Carolina and North Carolina.
To blacks, Kennedy said, the store is a reminder of this region's painful past, which includes the lynching of his great, great uncle by a white mob.
The town of Laurens, about 30 miles southeast of Greenville, was named after 18th century slave trader Henry Laurens.
Some street addresses are still marked with the letter "C" that once designated black homes as "colored." Racial tension was heightened in recent years when two white female teachers were sentenced for having sex with male students - all of them black.
Kennedy has a long history of fighting racial injustice. He protested when a South Carolina county refused to observe the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and he helped lobby to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse dome.
When people in the region allege racism, he rallies attention to the cause. A walk through the neighborhood where he was born shows that he seems a stranger to no one.
"Hey Rev," one man says as he strolls by.
"Pump it up," Kennedy responds with the phrase he uses at his protests.
Mary Redd, who lives across from the house where Kennedy was born, said blacks know to contact the pastor with their problems.
"And he helps them out," added neighbor Deborah Cheeks.
Kennedy said progress has always been slow to come to Laurens.
"There are two powers in the world: the mind and the sword," he said. "In the long run, the sword is defeated by the mind. I want to destroy the concept of hatred."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Has the reverend ever taken on pro-black groups such as the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers? They mentioned that the property was transferred to the church but they don't go into how the church acquired the property. These people that drove their cars through the front of the shop,was it at the request of the reverend? It seems that the shop owner has a legal standing and the reverend and his group are trying to terrorize him and he is not budging. Do we have a new asshat along with the other two clowns that are reverends and get themselves into trouble.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Excuses,excuses,excuses
Dean urges do-over voting in Fla., Mich. By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The former head of the Democratic National Committee said Thursday it was doubtful DNC Chairman Howard Dean would be able to get approval for a plan for do-over presidential nomination contests in Florida and Michigan. "It'll be a hellacious battle," said Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman who sits on the party's rule-making committee.
Before the primaries started, "Howard Dean had enough votes to get most everything he wanted. Now that this thing has gone as far as it has and the lines have formed according to candidates. I'm not sure how that vote would shake out now," said Fowler, who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Now, everything is being viewed in terms of how it benefits a particular candidate, not the party or the process, Fowler said.
Nonetheless, Fowler said, something has to be done, "the rules be damned" to seat delegates from states Democrats have to and can win in the general election. "We're going to forfeit those two big states? What kind of fools would we be."
Dean has urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.
"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.
"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said. The DNC offered to pay for an alternative contest in Florida last summer but was turned down, officials at the party say.
Officials in Michigan and Florida have expressed renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, and Florida's state party chair all are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from the previous insistence from officials in both states that the primaries they held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.
Clinton said she's waiting to see what proposal Democratic leaders in Florida and Michigan put forward. She won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.
"I think it would be a grave disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone," Clinton told reporters Thursday at a news conference in Washington. "Therefore I am still committed to seating their delegations, and I know they are working with the Democratic party to determine how best to proceed."
She said it would be especially unfair to punish the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in the Democratic primary since the contest's date was moved up by the Republican-controlled state Legislature and the state's Republican governor.
"They clearly believed that their votes would count, and I think that there has to be a way to make them count," Clinton said.
The DNC stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates — including Clinton and rival Barack Obama — agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.
But no one predicted the race would still be very close at this point in the year.
"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.
Source:here
I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night and he was saying this election is going to destroy the Democratic party and I think that is great. Not that I'm a Republican which I'm not but because the democrats are the most misandrist and anti-white racist of the two parties and the most heavily left wing feminist and the most radical of the feminists and multiculturalists. O'Reilly was saying if Hillary wins Jackson and Sharpton will be protesting the results. I was thinking if Obama wins NOW and other feminist groups will do the same. Was a rule violated? Are we being told the truth? Considering this is coming from the democrats it is hard to tell. The recent thing about Obama is that Hillary felt he was getting more favorable media coverage that she was. It didn't help Obama to have Louis Farrakan give him an endorsement,especially at the same time he is trying to court the white male voter. This is a reverse of the 2004 elections in which white males were solidly in the Bush camp,especially those most familiar with the ideals of John Kerry and females,white or not,were the swing voters. Today the feminists and other women are in the Hillary camp and it will be men,white or not,that are the swing voters.
WASHINGTON - The former head of the Democratic National Committee said Thursday it was doubtful DNC Chairman Howard Dean would be able to get approval for a plan for do-over presidential nomination contests in Florida and Michigan. "It'll be a hellacious battle," said Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman who sits on the party's rule-making committee.
Before the primaries started, "Howard Dean had enough votes to get most everything he wanted. Now that this thing has gone as far as it has and the lines have formed according to candidates. I'm not sure how that vote would shake out now," said Fowler, who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Now, everything is being viewed in terms of how it benefits a particular candidate, not the party or the process, Fowler said.
Nonetheless, Fowler said, something has to be done, "the rules be damned" to seat delegates from states Democrats have to and can win in the general election. "We're going to forfeit those two big states? What kind of fools would we be."
Dean has urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.
"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.
"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said. The DNC offered to pay for an alternative contest in Florida last summer but was turned down, officials at the party say.
Officials in Michigan and Florida have expressed renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, and Florida's state party chair all are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from the previous insistence from officials in both states that the primaries they held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.
Clinton said she's waiting to see what proposal Democratic leaders in Florida and Michigan put forward. She won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.
"I think it would be a grave disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone," Clinton told reporters Thursday at a news conference in Washington. "Therefore I am still committed to seating their delegations, and I know they are working with the Democratic party to determine how best to proceed."
She said it would be especially unfair to punish the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in the Democratic primary since the contest's date was moved up by the Republican-controlled state Legislature and the state's Republican governor.
"They clearly believed that their votes would count, and I think that there has to be a way to make them count," Clinton said.
The DNC stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates — including Clinton and rival Barack Obama — agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.
But no one predicted the race would still be very close at this point in the year.
"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.
Source:here
I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night and he was saying this election is going to destroy the Democratic party and I think that is great. Not that I'm a Republican which I'm not but because the democrats are the most misandrist and anti-white racist of the two parties and the most heavily left wing feminist and the most radical of the feminists and multiculturalists. O'Reilly was saying if Hillary wins Jackson and Sharpton will be protesting the results. I was thinking if Obama wins NOW and other feminist groups will do the same. Was a rule violated? Are we being told the truth? Considering this is coming from the democrats it is hard to tell. The recent thing about Obama is that Hillary felt he was getting more favorable media coverage that she was. It didn't help Obama to have Louis Farrakan give him an endorsement,especially at the same time he is trying to court the white male voter. This is a reverse of the 2004 elections in which white males were solidly in the Bush camp,especially those most familiar with the ideals of John Kerry and females,white or not,were the swing voters. Today the feminists and other women are in the Hillary camp and it will be men,white or not,that are the swing voters.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Congress may ease embargo against Cuba
Congress Re-Examines Cuba Embargo
Monday, March 3, 2008
WASHINGTON - Congressional opponents of the half-century-old attempt to isolate Cuba have been emboldened by Fidel Castro's resignation. But people who might be planning their vacation getaway to Havana should also be mindful that while President Fidel may be gone, President Bush, a staunch defender of the embargo, still has a year to go.
For years lawmakers of both parties have been trying to chip away at the Cold War trade, travel and home visit restrictions aimed at undermining a hostile government just 90 miles from U.S. shores. They argue that last month's change in leadership from the ailing Fidel to his brother Raul provides the opportunity to end a prolonged exercise in futility.
"Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment, and this serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans," more than 100 House members, including nine Republicans, wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "After 50 years, it is time for us to think and act anew." Twenty-four senators wrote a similar letter to Rice.
The embargo, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has been an enabler to decades of oppression. "We should not give Raul Castro the same benefits that we gave his brother, Fidel. We cannot continue to be the Goliath to their David."
The Bush administration, however, has been adamant that a new Castro in power doesn't mean a new Cuba, and that changes in U.S. policy hinge on Cuba first improving its human rights record and holding free elections.
"I can't imagine that happening any time soon," said Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
That won't stop Congress from making the attempt. The top two trade lawmakers, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., are both pushing legislation to ease trade and travel restrictions.
Acting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., has scheduled a hearing Wednesday with administration officials to review U.S. policy and discuss the opportunity "to inject creativity and fresh ideas into that policy."
Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas, one of many farm-state Republicans to oppose the embargo, said he will continue efforts to change Treasury Department rules imposed in 2005 that have been an impediment to agriculture sales. The House in recent years has tried several times to attach anti-embargo measures to annual spending bills, only to have those provisions stripped later under threat of a presidential veto.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he will try again this year, focusing on restrictions that bar most Americans from traveling to the island and removing those administration regulations that block sales of food and medicine.
"I think there are Republicans who now understand that this country's policy toward Cuba has no grounding in common sense," Dorgan said.
But Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-born lawmaker and a leader of the fiercely anti-Castro community of south Florida, insisted that power in Cuba has merely shifted to "hard-liners with the most blood on their hands." There may be rumblings in Congress this year to change course, but "there always are and we defeat them," he said.
Jake Colvin, director of USA Engage, a group that opposes economic sanctions as a political tool, predicted there will be some "stage-setting" this year for changes under a new administration next year. "This is a very political year and Cuba is a very political issue."
Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain's views are the closest to those of Bush. Easing the embargo should be linked to evidence of a transition to a free and open democracy, McCain says.
Of the Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama supports easing restrictions on family related travel and money that Cuban-Americans can send to their families in Cuba. He says he would meet with Raul Castro without preconditions. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to respond positively to actions that demonstrate a willingness to change in Cuba.
President Eisenhower imposed a partial embargo on the new Castro government in 1960, and President Kennedy expanded trade and travel restrictions. Barriers to travel were temporarily lifted during the Carter administration but later reimposed.
In 1996, shortly after Cuban fighter jets shot down two private planes operated by a Miami-based anti-Castro group, Congress passed the tough Helms-Burton Act that penalized foreign companies making use of property formerly owned by U.S. citizens but expropriated by the Cuban government.
But in 2000, President Clinton also signed a law allowing the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Since then, agricultural sales to Cuba have risen from almost nothing to more than $440 million last year.
Moran of Kansas said he got into the issue to help his state's farmers, but said it has become "something much broader to me." America, he said, "can bring about additional personal freedom in Cuba by these kinds of activities. Personal freedom follows economic freedom."
---
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
USA Engage: http://www.usaengage.org/
I've always found the Cuban situation very fascinating. We traded with the Soviets and Chinese yet never with the Cubans even though all were communists. We have gone to war with China and now we are trading with them. China has neither a decent human rights record nor free elections yet that never comes up when China is mentioned. There has even been talk of normalizing relations with Viet Nam,a country we also went to war with. No American soldiers have stormed the beaches of Cuba,in fact the closest was a group of Cuban expatriates who stormed the beaches in a fiasco known as the Bay of Pigs that resulted in the expatriates being captured by the Cuban military and held until Kennedy assured the Castro government that the U.S. would not invade Cuba and the expatriates were returned to the U.S. I've got to give Castro his due;he has managed to outlive his enemies. He foiled CIA attempts from trying to make his beard fall out to attempts on his life he does seem to foil his enemies. While other dictators have kept their dissidents within their own borders Castro has exported his,he has put an ocean between him and his enemies this way that can't stir up the people into a counterrevolution. There also could be a nostalgic,sentimental reason behind the embargo and that is to preserve the memory of the last president who made it permanent and that is John F. Kennedy.Kennedy was the one who placed the blockade of Cuba to prevent Russian ships from depositing missiles there and it worked the Russians backed down. There are those today are saying close Guantanamo Bay,which would be a big mistake at this time.I doubt the current situation will change with Raul in power considering Fidel still has friends in high places within the Cuban government and Raul could easily be said to be just a puppet. So we'll see.
Monday, March 3, 2008
WASHINGTON - Congressional opponents of the half-century-old attempt to isolate Cuba have been emboldened by Fidel Castro's resignation. But people who might be planning their vacation getaway to Havana should also be mindful that while President Fidel may be gone, President Bush, a staunch defender of the embargo, still has a year to go.
For years lawmakers of both parties have been trying to chip away at the Cold War trade, travel and home visit restrictions aimed at undermining a hostile government just 90 miles from U.S. shores. They argue that last month's change in leadership from the ailing Fidel to his brother Raul provides the opportunity to end a prolonged exercise in futility.
"Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment, and this serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans," more than 100 House members, including nine Republicans, wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "After 50 years, it is time for us to think and act anew." Twenty-four senators wrote a similar letter to Rice.
The embargo, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has been an enabler to decades of oppression. "We should not give Raul Castro the same benefits that we gave his brother, Fidel. We cannot continue to be the Goliath to their David."
The Bush administration, however, has been adamant that a new Castro in power doesn't mean a new Cuba, and that changes in U.S. policy hinge on Cuba first improving its human rights record and holding free elections.
"I can't imagine that happening any time soon," said Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
That won't stop Congress from making the attempt. The top two trade lawmakers, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., are both pushing legislation to ease trade and travel restrictions.
Acting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., has scheduled a hearing Wednesday with administration officials to review U.S. policy and discuss the opportunity "to inject creativity and fresh ideas into that policy."
Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas, one of many farm-state Republicans to oppose the embargo, said he will continue efforts to change Treasury Department rules imposed in 2005 that have been an impediment to agriculture sales. The House in recent years has tried several times to attach anti-embargo measures to annual spending bills, only to have those provisions stripped later under threat of a presidential veto.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he will try again this year, focusing on restrictions that bar most Americans from traveling to the island and removing those administration regulations that block sales of food and medicine.
"I think there are Republicans who now understand that this country's policy toward Cuba has no grounding in common sense," Dorgan said.
But Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-born lawmaker and a leader of the fiercely anti-Castro community of south Florida, insisted that power in Cuba has merely shifted to "hard-liners with the most blood on their hands." There may be rumblings in Congress this year to change course, but "there always are and we defeat them," he said.
Jake Colvin, director of USA Engage, a group that opposes economic sanctions as a political tool, predicted there will be some "stage-setting" this year for changes under a new administration next year. "This is a very political year and Cuba is a very political issue."
Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain's views are the closest to those of Bush. Easing the embargo should be linked to evidence of a transition to a free and open democracy, McCain says.
Of the Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama supports easing restrictions on family related travel and money that Cuban-Americans can send to their families in Cuba. He says he would meet with Raul Castro without preconditions. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to respond positively to actions that demonstrate a willingness to change in Cuba.
President Eisenhower imposed a partial embargo on the new Castro government in 1960, and President Kennedy expanded trade and travel restrictions. Barriers to travel were temporarily lifted during the Carter administration but later reimposed.
In 1996, shortly after Cuban fighter jets shot down two private planes operated by a Miami-based anti-Castro group, Congress passed the tough Helms-Burton Act that penalized foreign companies making use of property formerly owned by U.S. citizens but expropriated by the Cuban government.
But in 2000, President Clinton also signed a law allowing the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Since then, agricultural sales to Cuba have risen from almost nothing to more than $440 million last year.
Moran of Kansas said he got into the issue to help his state's farmers, but said it has become "something much broader to me." America, he said, "can bring about additional personal freedom in Cuba by these kinds of activities. Personal freedom follows economic freedom."
---
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
USA Engage: http://www.usaengage.org/
I've always found the Cuban situation very fascinating. We traded with the Soviets and Chinese yet never with the Cubans even though all were communists. We have gone to war with China and now we are trading with them. China has neither a decent human rights record nor free elections yet that never comes up when China is mentioned. There has even been talk of normalizing relations with Viet Nam,a country we also went to war with. No American soldiers have stormed the beaches of Cuba,in fact the closest was a group of Cuban expatriates who stormed the beaches in a fiasco known as the Bay of Pigs that resulted in the expatriates being captured by the Cuban military and held until Kennedy assured the Castro government that the U.S. would not invade Cuba and the expatriates were returned to the U.S. I've got to give Castro his due;he has managed to outlive his enemies. He foiled CIA attempts from trying to make his beard fall out to attempts on his life he does seem to foil his enemies. While other dictators have kept their dissidents within their own borders Castro has exported his,he has put an ocean between him and his enemies this way that can't stir up the people into a counterrevolution. There also could be a nostalgic,sentimental reason behind the embargo and that is to preserve the memory of the last president who made it permanent and that is John F. Kennedy.Kennedy was the one who placed the blockade of Cuba to prevent Russian ships from depositing missiles there and it worked the Russians backed down. There are those today are saying close Guantanamo Bay,which would be a big mistake at this time.I doubt the current situation will change with Raul in power considering Fidel still has friends in high places within the Cuban government and Raul could easily be said to be just a puppet. So we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
