the-peoples-patriot, a political Blog

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Cutbacks in Environmental Programs May Imperil Military Readiness

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

Military training exercises on U.S. Army bases around the country are in "potential jeopardy" because of deep cuts in environmental programs, according to a Pentagon memorandum obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Over the past three years, in the name of national defense, Congress has granted the military exemptions from complying with important environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Under the changes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot designate as critical habitat any lands controlled by the Department of Defense, provided the Pentagon has prepared a plan that "addresses special management consideration or protection." Moreover, Congress essentially granted the Pentagon a blanket exemption from protecting migratory birds or their nesting grounds during readiness training. [1]

But in the September 24 memo obtained by PEER, Major General Larry Gottardi notes that in fiscal year 2005 and beyond, funding for environmental projects on military bases will drop by more than a third, a consequence of the war in Iraq. Without the funds needed to prepare the required plans, Gottardi raises the concern that lawsuits could result in court-ordered injunctions that halt training exercises altogether.

PEER has taken note of the irony in the situation. "As both a matter of law and moral responsibility, the Army cannot shirk its duty to defend the lands and wildlife entrusted to its care," said PEER executive director Jeff Ruch. But, Ruch added, "The Pentagon is practicing bait and switch tactics by baiting Congress to exempt the military from environmental protection laws and then switching away the money that was used to justify the exemptions." [2]

Army bases cover some 11.8 million acres in the U.S., approximately the combined size of Vermont and New Hampshire, and contain some of the nation’s most critical wildlife habitat. Ft. Hood in Texas, for example, contains habitat for two endangered migratory songbirds, wintering bald eagles, peregrine falcon, whooping cranes, and a variety of other rare plant and animal species. [3]

###

SOURCES:
[1] U.S. Fish and Wildlife press office.
[2] PEER press release, Oct. 6, 2004.
[3] "The Birds of Fort Hood," Endangered Species Bulletin, Nov. 2000.

MY ADVICE endeavors at keen.com. The number is 1-800-275-5336 (800-ask-keen) + ext. 0329063 for tech stuff, 0329117 for running a small business, and 0329144 on investing. Want to CHAT, I use Yahoo's IM as the_web_ster. View me in the Friends & Family part of webcamnow.com, just click on "view cams", then in the Java window click on WebcamNow Communities drop down arrow & select Friends & Family. Under the live webcams look for & click on me "the_webster".

send comments via Email to me,

Friday, October 29, 2004

ADMINISTRATION MISLEADS ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

The Bush administration is pushing the theory that
the 380 tons of explosives were missing from the Al
Qaqaa storage facility before the March 2003
invasion of Iraq. Administration spokesman Dan Senor said
on CNN that "there's a very high probability that
those weapons weren't even there before the war."[1]

For days, this theory has been in direct conflict
with a Pentagon official, who told the Associate
Press on Monday, "US-led coalition troops had searched
Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March
2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives,
which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were
intact."[2]

Now, video shot in Iraq by a Minneapolis news team
provides further proof that the administration's
theory is bogus. After the invasion - on April 18,
2003 - the Minneapolis ABC news crew was stationed
just south of the Al Qaqaa facility.[]3 That day,
they drove 2 to 3 miles north with the 101st Airborne
Division. There, "members of the 101st Airborne
Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker
after bunker of material labeled 'explosives.'"[4]
Some of the boxes were marked "Al Qaqaa."[5] One
soldier told the crew: "we can stick [detonation
cords] in those and make some good bombs."[6] Watch the
video:
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65509.

Sources:

1. "Paula Zahn Now," CNN, 10/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65510.
2. "380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq,"
Associated Press, 10/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65511.
3. "5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to
missing explosives in Iraq," KSTP.com, 10/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65512.
4. Ibid,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65512.
5. Ibid,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65512.
6. Ibid,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=65512.

send comments via Email to me,

Some input on Props. in Ca

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

As you prepare to vote, we'd like to highlight a few key questions that will be on the ballot.

Your "YES" vote will be critical to passing these important progressive measures:

YES on Prop. 72: Keep Workplace Health Insurance
Proposition 72 simply re-affirms California's law requiring large and medium-sized businesses with 50 or more employees to pay for health insurance for working people. It does not affect "mom and pop" shops, neighborhood restaurants, or other such small businesses -- despite the scare tactics being used by big businesses who are trying to defeat it. With more and more Californians losing their insurance, Prop. 72 makes sure working families can see their own doctor, instead of having to depend on public services for health care.

Prop. 72 is supported by doctors and nurses associations including the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, American Cancer Society, and American Lung Association, and by small businesses and community, labor, church, consumer and seniors groups. Groups endorsing Prop. 72 include: Consumer's Union, ACLU of Southern California, League of Women Voters of California, AARP, California ACORN, Rock the Vote, and many more. It's opposed by big businesses like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who want taxpayers to pay for their workers' health care. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 72.

For more information on Proposition 72, see: http://www.YesOnProp72.com/

YES on Prop. 59: Sunshine, Not Secrecy, in Government
Known as the California Sunshine Amendment, Proposition 59 would re-affirm California's strong new law requiring full public disclosure of the workings of our government. Over the years, California's sunshine laws have been eroded by special interests and secretive judges and government officials. Prop. 59 would create a new civil right in California: a constitutional right to see what our government is doing. It would expand the disclosures required of all public agencies, officials, and courts, and narrow their ability to keep secrets from us, the public. It would require the government to prove a legitimate need for secrecy before it denies us any public information, and at the same time, it would protect our constitutional right to privacy for private information.

Prop. 59 passed unanimously in the Legislature. It's endorsed by the League of Women Voters, labor unions including AFSCME and the California Labor Federation, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, League of California Cities, AARP, Sierra Club, Progressive Jewish Alliance, and many other organizations. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 59.

For more information on Proposition 59, see: http://www.prop59.org/

YES on Prop. 66: Fix California's Three Strikes Law
Voters in 1994 didn't envision 25-years-to-life prison sentences for stealing a videotape or a loaf of bread, but that's what happens too often under California's "Three Strikes And You're Out" law. Locking up non-violent offenders for life has led to gross injustices, and it's costing California taxpayers millions. Proposition 66 would restore the "Three Strikes" law's original intent -- dangerous felons would automatically get 25-to-life in prison for a violent third strike, while non-violent criminals would get normal sentences. It also toughens penalties for child abusers. Prop. 66 has its flaws -- arson or burglary when no one's home wouldn't count as a violent "third strike" -- but these are outweighed by the necessity of restoring justice to California's criminal sentencing system.

Prop. 66 is opposed by prosecutors, but it's supported by the Democratic and Green parties, by civil liberties, human rights, labor, church, and community groups, and by the editorial boards of California's four biggest newspapers. Groups supporting Prop. 66 include ACLU of Southern California, Democratic Women's Forum, Instituto Laboral de la Raza, Progressive Democratic Club, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and the National Black Police Association. We encourage you to vote "YES" vote on Prop. 66.

For more information on Proposition 66, see: http://www.yes66.org/

YES on Prop. 71: Stem Cell Research in California
Proposition 71 would establish a legal right to conduct stem cell research in California, authorize $6 billion of state funding, and establish an institute to provide grants and loans to researchers. Scientists agree that stem cells hold the potential to cure agonizing diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and common killers like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Prop. 71 is a bold effort to make California a world leader in the field, and to fight back against President Bush and his friends in Washington who have tried to cut off federal funding for this important research. Although Prop. 71 directs a lot of public money toward private research firms, it could lead to tremendous health and economic benefits for all Californians, and ultimately the world.

Prop. 71 is endorsed by 28 Nobel Prize winners, and by California NOW (National Organization for Women), Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, California NAACP, California Medical Association, AIDS Research Alliance, Rock the Vote, and many more organizations. Brad Pitt and Governor Schwarzenegger support it too. We recommend a "YES" vote on Prop. 71.

For more information on Proposition 71, see: http://www.yeson71.com/

Finally, here are two bad measures that need your "NO" vote to stop them:

NO on Prop. 64: Keep Your Right to Sue Polluters and Crooked Companies
Big businesses are trying to gut California's Unfair Business Competition Law, the best corporate enforcement law in the nation. The law allows citizens to sue polluters and crooked companies that scam consumers; it's been used to bust companies that contaminated drinking water with chemicals, put up tobacco billboards near schools, and ripped off minorities with higher auto loan rates. Prop. 64 would take that right to sue away from citizens -- and that's why big business is bankrolling it. While it's true that a few greedy lawyers have abused the law by threatening unwarranted lawsuits, that's a small problem that's being wildly inflated in scare ads paid for by those big businesses.

Prop 64 is backed by $13 million from the likes of Phillip Morris, Exxon, and General Motors. It's opposed by environmental, labor, consumer, civil rights, and seniors groups, including the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Consumers Union, AARP, and California Nurses Association, and by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 64.

For more information on Proposition 64, see: http://www.noonprop64.org/

NO on Prop. 69: Don't Put Innocent People into a DNA Database
Prop. 69 wrongly equates arrest with guilt.

California law already requires a DNA database for convicted felons. But Proposition 69 would go overboard, by having the state collect DNA from anyone *arrested* for a felony -- not convicted, not proven guilty, just accused and arrested. Thousands of people mistakenly accused -- possibly including any of us -- would be tracked for life in a massive state criminal database, even if no crime was committed. DNA reveals intimate details about a person and his or her family -- including one's ethnic background, and any predisposition for diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, and cancer. Innocent people don't belong in such an invasive government database.

Prop. 69 is opposed by California's Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties, by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, Children's Defense Fund, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Black Police Association, and more than 30 newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union Tribune and Orange County Register. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 69.

For more information on Proposition 69, see: http://www.protectmydna.com/

We've attached links to editorials supporting these positions below.

Thanks for your commitment to ensuring a bright future for California and America.

- Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
October 28th, 2004

P.S.: Here are a few key editorials supporting these positions:

Yes on Prop. 72: Save Affordable Health Insurance San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 13, 2004
http://www.sfbg.com/39/02/news_endorsements.html

Super-Sized Deception From Fast-Food Giants Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2004 COMMENTARY By Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation"
http://www.yesonprop72.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=efIOISMEG&b=89752&ct=268832

Yes on Prop. 59: A More Open Government Serves the State Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2004
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/10757974p-11676183c.html

Yes on Prop 66: Vote for Three Strikes Reform Los Angeles Times, October 5, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-endthree5oct05,1,7646051.story

Yes on Prop. 71: Yes to Stem-Cell Research Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/editorials/la-ed-endstem3oct03,1,1131640.story

No on Proposition 64: It's a Shakedown of Public Protections Sacramento Bee, September 17, 2004
http://www.electionwatchdog.org/nw/nw000121.php

No on 69: A Risk-Filled Use of DNA Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-enddna11oct11,1,7419629.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

send comments via Email to me,

National Dietary Guidelines Rewritten to Favor Industry

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

The federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, appointed last year by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, has rewritten national dietary guidelines for the American public in a manner that is "so vague as to be meaningless," a group of national nutrition experts is charging. [1]

According to OMB Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog organization, one reason for the watering down of federal recommendations for the consumption of carbohydrates, sugars and fats appears to be that the committee is stacked with members who have strong ties to the food, drug and dietary supplement industries. [2]

The committee includes members with ties to the American Council on Science and Health (an industry-supported group that repeatedly downplays food-related concerns, including those about trans fats); the International Food Information Council; Campbell Soup Company; Procter & Gamble; American Egg Board; the Peanut Institute; the American Cocoa Research Institute; the Sugar Association: the Kellogg Company; Warner-Lambert; National Dairy Council; National Dairy Board; Kraft; and the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. [3]

However, the actual data in the committee report supporting the new, albeit vague, recommendations is solid, said Margo Wootan, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Now they just need to put it into language people can follow when they go to the grocery store or to a restaurant," she told BushGreenwatch.

At issue are such vaguely worded guidelines as, "Choose fats wisely for good health," and "Choose carbohydrates wisely for good health." These would replace previous statements that gave more specific advice, such as "Choose a diet that is low in saturated fat and cholesterol and moderate in total fat," and "Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugars."

The letter, signed by 25 nutrition experts from universities across the country, points out that most Americans "are not nutritionists" and need clearer direction on what constitutes a healthy diet. The nutritionists propose language that clearly lays out what people should and should not eat, such as "eat less cheese, beef, pork, whole and 2% milk, egg yolks, pastries and other foods that are high in saturated fat, trans fat or cholesterol."

"People do not eat nutrients, they eat food," the letter states. "Providing advice about which foods to eat more of or less of is easier to understand and more effective than focusing on nutrients."

The letter also suggests that a guideline be included telling people to "drink fewer soft drinks and limit cake, cookies, frozen desserts, and other foods rich in refined sugars." [4]

OMB Watch reports that Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) has been concerned about industry influence over federal dietary guidelines. Fitzgerald introduced a bill last year that would have given the responsibility of issuing guidelines to the Institute of Medicine. "Putting the USDA in charge of dietary advice is in some respects like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," he told Congress Daily. [5]

###

SOURCES:
[1] Letter to Kathryn McMurry, HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, from 25 nutrition experts, Sep. 21, 2004.
[2] "Industry Influence Weakens USDA Dietary Guidelines," OMB Watch, The OMB Watcher, Vol. 5, Oct. 4, 2004.
[3] OMBwatch, op. cit.
[4] Letter, op. cit.
[5] OMBwatch, op. cit.

send comments via Email to me,

National Parks in Crisis Under Current Leadership, New Report Concludes

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

Writer Wallace Stegner once called the National Parks "the best idea America ever had." But under the current national administration, the parks are imperiled as never before.

Late last month the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees -- a group that includes five former directors of the National Park Service and 95 former Park superintendents or assistant superintendents -- issued a report describing a national park system plagued by disrepair, deteriorating facilities, declining budgets, diminished staffing levels, and low morale.

The specifics provided by the report are deeply disturbing. According to the report, NPS Director Fran Mainella, a political appointee, has reinterpreted the 1866 Mining Law that would re-open long abandoned trails and roads in National Parks. In Mojave National Preserve and Death Valley National Park (CA) alone, Mainella's action could open 3,000 miles of roads and alleged routes to old mining claims.

Despite 10 years of studies and overwhelming public opposition, Interior Secretary Gale Norton bowed to pressure from snowmobile manufacturers and re-opened Yellowstone National Park to snowmobiles, endangering America's last wild buffalo herd. Likewise, rules against off-road vehicles have been loosened at Padre Island National Seashore (TX) and Assateague National Seashore (MD). At Cape Hatteras National Seashore (NC), the park superintendent has been ordered to reopen areas previously closed to protect nesting seabirds.

The administration's rollback of clean air protections has had grave consequences for the parks, making the unhealthy air in many parks even worse. Because of a nearby coal-fired power plant, Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN) had more ozone alerts last year than Atlanta.

More than two dozen parks, including Shenandoah National Park (VA) and Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park (CA) have degraded air quality and serious problems with haze.

In the meantime, Secretary Norton has withdrawn the Interior Department's opposition to a new power plant near Yellowstone and reversed federal opposition to coal-fired plants outside the boundaries of Denali National Park in Alaska.

In 2000, then-candidate George Bush told USA Today, "I will ensure that the federal government meets it responsibilities by devoting $5 billion to eliminate the backlog in maintenance and improvements at our national parks."

But under Norton, budgeting gimmicks are disguising severe shortages of funds and staff in the parks. In Everglades National Park (FL), of 210 permanent positions, 48 are vacant. At Gettysburg National Military Park (PA), requests by 25 percent of school groups are rejected for lack of funds.

According to the report, many senior NPS leaders say that the political appointees running Interior do not seek their professional expertise and advice. When advice is offered, it is largely ignored. Veteran NPS career leaders have told the Coalition that to an unprecedented degree, field park leaders are being pressured to "toe the line" and to regurgitate political rhetoric provided in "talking points." A culture of fear, they say, now rules the agency.

Not surprisingly, a recent opinion survey found morale in the Park Service at a new low. Three-quarters of the park professionals surveyed found special interest influence over the Park Service has gotten worse under Norton. Nearly 90 percent are concerned that decisions are more influenced by politics than science or professional expertise. According to the report, frustration and pressure have caused an exodus of senior career NPS leaders.

The feelings of many were summarized by one professional who wrote on the survey, "I have been in the NPS for 25 years. Sadly, over the past two years I have seen a once proud agency being driven into the ground by an administration that has contempt of our work, our ethic and our pride as Park Service staff."

###

SOURCES:
"A Call To Action: Saving Our National Park System," Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees.

send comments via Email to me,

Office of Management and Budget Blocked EPA Clean-Up of Air Pollution from Ships

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drafted new policies to reduce air pollution resulting from diesel fuel burned by large, oceangoing ships. EPA was preparing to crack down on U.S. ships, some of the least regulated sources of air pollution, and lead the way on regulating emissions from foreign ships.

But when EPA took its proposals to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, the new rules were gutted. Regulation of diesel exhaust from domestic ships has remained virtually unchanged--and attempts to regulate foreign ships was tabled until 2007.

While the Bush administration has made much of its rules to curb diesel pollution from "nonroad" engines--ranging from lawnmowers to forklifts--diesel exhaust from large marine vessels, such as container, tanker and cruise ships, is increasing at a greater rate than the clean-up of emissions from land sources.

Foreign-flagged ships make up 95 percent of the traffic in U.S. ports. International ocean shipping is likely to double or triple in the next 15 years. These ships emit significant levels of nitrous oxide, increasing the levels of climate-changing ozone worldwide, as well as huge quantities of sulfur, which contributes to acid rain.

A recent article in the Seattle Times noted that ships coming to ports in Los Angeles/Long Beach already produce as much smog as southern California's 350 largest industrial polluters combined. Emissions from ships on the Pacific Northwest's Columbia and Snake river system were found to be 2.6 times worse than expected, adding significantly to haze in the Columbia River Gorge.

Diesel exhaust contains known carcinogens. Small particles of residue in diesel exhaust, called fine particulate matter, can be breathed in and embedded in the lungs. They are linked to health problems including lung, kidney and bladder cancer, heart disease and asthma. In Washington's Puget Sound area, the levels of these particulates in the air is already so high that 500 people per every 1 million exposed to them over a lifetime are likely to get cancer. [1]

EPA's stricter regulations for domestic ships would have taken advantage of already available and proven cleanup technologies. The cost to industry would have been about $1.6 million annually. OMB was lobbied by the tanker industry to remove tighter pollution standards from EPA's draft rules. [2]

###

SOURCES:
[1] "Bush cut some diesel pollution but let big ships keep spewing," Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 2004.
[2] "OMB Guts Marine Diesel Rule," OMBwatch, Nov. 11, 2002.

send comments via Email to me,

BUSH MISLEADS ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

Speaking in the Rose Garden in May 2003, President
Bush said that he understands "justice depend[s] on
fair and impartial judges."[1] But a new study
shows that the judges President Bush has nominated to
the federal bench are biased against plaintiffs who
sue the government for violations of environmental
law.

According to analysis by the nonpartisan
Environmental Law Institute, Bush appointees ruled in favor
of environmental challenges just 17 percent of the
time.[2] In contrast, judges appointed by former
Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W.
Bush ruled for environmental plaintiffs 28 percent
of the time.[3] And judges appointed by recent
Democratic presidents ruled for environmental plaintiffs
60 percent of the time.[4]

These statistics do not reflect the fact that the
Senate blocked the most extreme anti-environmental
Bush nominees. For example, Texas Supreme Court
Justice Priscilla Owen - whose nomination didn't clear
the Senate - voted to uphold a section of the Texas
Water Code that allowed private landowners to
exempt themselves from municipal clean water
regulations.[5] The majority of the court found the section
violated the Texas constitution and described Owen's
opinion as consisting mostly of "inflammatory
rhetoric."[6]

Sources:
1. "President Calls for Judicial Reform ," The
White House, 05/09/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61640.
2. "Environmental Group Cites Partisanship in the
Judiciary ," Washington Post, 10/09/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61641.
3. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61641.
4. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61641.
5. "The Dissents Of Priscilla Owen: A Judicial
Nominee Who Would Make The Law, Not Interpret It ,"
People for the American Way,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61642.
6. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61642.

send comments via Email to me,

Thursday, October 28, 2004

OK, if your voting in California I've got a non-partisan website that can help ya. If your not voting in CA read it any way so you can tell...

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

what to look for in a site dealing with your state

About "California voter foundation" (cvf):

Section 508

The California Voter Foundation (CVF) is committed to creating accessible web sites for all web users. To ensure compliance, CVF has tested calvoter.org with the Bobby Section 508 test.

All CVF pages and project web sites created as of February 2004 are in compliance with Section 508 accessibility standards. On the other hand, due to the enormous amount of archived information on calvoter.org, any project web sites created prior to February 2004 will not be converted to comply with Section 508.

http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2004/index.html

More advice, expect alot of voters. Lines. Take something to read, you maybe awhile getting in.

I've got more input on our out going Pres. coming too.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

send comments via Email to me,

Former head of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul BREMER MISLEADS ABOUT HIS OWN COMMENTS

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

Some of the administration's strongest allies are
expressing their disappointment with the
administration's planning in Iraq. For example, former head of
the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul
Bremer, said on Monday that "We never had enough
troops on the ground" in Iraq.[1]

Today, in the New York Times, Bremer attempted to
limit the damage to the administration. Bremer - in
a piece entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq" -
claimed he only said it "would have been helpful to
have had more troops early on to stop the
looting."[2] Despite the title, that isn't what Bremer said.
Bremer said there weren't enough troops at any
time. He made similar comments in a 9/16/04 speech at
DePauw University, saying, "The single most
important change - the one thing that would have improved
the situation - would have been having more troops
in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."[3]

CNN reports a senior Defense Department
spokesperson said that "Bremer never asked for more
troops."[4] But on 7/1/03, Knight Ridder reported, "The top
American administrator in Iraq [L. Paul Bremer],
confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and
guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops."[5]

Sources:
1. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington
Post, 10/05/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61557.
2. "What I Really Said About Iraq," New York Times,
10/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61558.
3. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington
Post, 10/05/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61557.
4. "Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's
ouster," CNN, 10/05/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61559.
5. "Bremer requests more troops as violence,
tension escalate," Mercury News, 7/1/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=61560.

send comments via Email to me,

Study Finds Wide Democrat-Republican Chasm on Environmental Decisions by Federal Judges

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"One useless man is called a disgrace; two useless men are called a law firm; and three or more useless men are a congress" - John Adams

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain

A new study tabulating the environmental decisions issued by federal judges over the past four years has found a yawning gap between rulings handed down by jurists chosen by Republican Presidents and those of Democratic appointees.

The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation’s cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004.

Among the findings:

Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time.

District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time.

When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time.

At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases.

When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Environmental Law Institute study, Oct. 8, 2004.

send comments via Email to me,

the-peoples-patriot, a political Blog

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Cutbacks in Environmental Programs May Imperil Military Readiness

Friday, October 29, 2004

ADMINISTRATION MISLEADS ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES

Some input on Props. in Ca

National Dietary Guidelines Rewritten to Favor Industry

National Parks in Crisis Under Current Leadership, New Report Concludes

Office of Management and Budget Blocked EPA Clean-Up of Air Pollution from Ships

BUSH MISLEADS ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES

Thursday, October 28, 2004

OK, if your voting in California I've got a non-partisan website that can help ya. If your not voting in CA read it any way so you can tell...

Former head of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul BREMER MISLEADS ABOUT HIS OWN COMMENTS

Study Finds Wide Democrat-Republican Chasm on Environmental Decisions by Federal Judges

Agree or not, talking it over is better...

Saturday Night Live - Palin / Hillary Open

Live feed from my webcam via www.stickam.com

Blog Archive

Links

About Me

Other places you can find me or that I use.

Links

archives