Controversial activist group ACORN has fired the longtime companion of founder Wade Rathke over apparent concerns about a lack of "accountability" in her work leading the Louisiana chapter in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Beth Butler was the director of that chapter and close to Rathke, whose
Butler said she was fired because she refused to fire members of a land trust board whom national ACORN leaders wanted ousted. She said ACORN national is "going out of business" and wanted the board gone to seize control of its funds and assets. She called the ordeal "all completely inappropriate and unethical."
brother Dale was accused of embezzling about $1 million from the group a decade ago.
A statement by ACORN chief executive officer Bertha Lewis did not specify why she fired Butler. "I took over as ACORN's CEO last summer, and I vowed accountability at every level of the organization," Lewis said in her statement. "The work of ACORN members everywhere -- especially in Louisiana where the members have fought heroically to bring the city back post-Katrina -- is too important to not have full accountability."
Butler said she was fired because she refused to fire members of a land trust board whom national ACORN leaders wanted ousted. She said ACORN national is "going out of business" and wanted the board gone to seize control of its funds and assets. She called the ordeal "all completely inappropriate and unethical."
The missing $1 million is still an open case. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were brought, but Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has said his office is investigating the embezzlement allegations.
In a subpoena seeking ACORN financial records, Caldwell's office said $5 million was embezzled, but ACORN said he was mistaken and insisted the sum hadn't changed.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Watch this space for more revelations to come - revenge on ACORN by the fired party. I smell a book, maybe a movie and hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made by the fired party.
#3
As an aside, Congress voted to stop gov't funding of ACORN. BUT, that vote expires after 10/31/09. Come 11/01, the gov't spigot funding ACORN gets 'turned-on' again..
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
10/14/2009 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
Having been slapped down by the U. S. Supreme Court's two recent decisions that the words "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act limited federal agencies to regulation of navigable waters only. Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress are striking back.
They are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (No House Number - S 787 In Senate) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States."
Further, it defines "waters of the United States" with such breathtaking scope that federal agencies would be required to regulate use of every square inch of the U.S., both public and private.
The proposed definition states: "The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tides, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes [a flat dried up area, esp. a desert basin...] natural ponds and all impoundment of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution." But of course since the vast majority of US laws *and* the vast majority of the federal budget are not authorized under the Constitution, Congress accepts no such limitations any more.
#4
This definition is already included in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR PART 328) which reads in part:
For the purpose of this regulation these terms are defined as follows:
(a) The term waters of the United States means
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial seas;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section.
(8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
#5
What about the Great Lakes and other bodies of water that are shared with adjacent countries? Maybe we should all send a bottle of pee to Congress as a message from the electorate.
#7
Wehell, the OWG-NWO, USSA = USRoAmerika, that "officially" doesn't exist and no mainstream American = Amerikan formally voted for [andor against], must be funded,
E.G > IIRC NEW PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO TAX US CAR OWNERS EVERY MILE THEY DRIVE OVER THE SPEED LIMIT, FUEL EFFICIENCY LIMITS, ETC.
#8
OTOH DRUDGEREPORT > RUSSIA/PUTIN: "PREEMPTIVE NUKES"; + PRAVDA > RUSSIA OFFICIALLY DECLARES RIGHT TO NUKE POTENTIAL AGGRESSORS [includ to DEFEND ITS ALLIES].
ARTIC > HILLARY INTERVIEW > the US presently resort to a NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE [Unilateral = "Preeemptive"] under its own Mil Guidelines.
E.G. > IOW, even iff FDR knew beforehand that JAPAN was de facto sending its IJN planes to bomb PEARL HARBOR in surprise attack, UNDER CURR US LAW FDR + ADMIRAL KIMMEL, etc, had to allow FUCHIDA'S boyz to strike and sink the US Fleet anyways.
TO BE FOLLOWED AFTER BY A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER TO TOKYO OF YOU-BETCHA-BOY SHOCK, HORROR, DISGUST, REVENGE, ETC. thereby proving that FDR = USGovt-Pols knew nothing, D *** NG IT NOTHING THEY TELLZ YA, about the attack [ala SGT "I KNOW, ETC. NOTHIN" SCHULTZ]???
#9
Lest we fergit, WMF > VARIOUS > TO DEFEAT THE USN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, CHINA SHOULD CONTROL THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS [PACOAS/Pacific Ocean Areas > AMAP + ASAP + AFAP + ATAP].
Also lest we fergit, DITTO PLUS 1/2-OR-MORE OF CONUS-NORAM ["living space"].
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/14/2009 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"navigable waters" covers most of the waters anyway. And the wetlands laws and regs already cover them. Not sure what would be covered that isn't already.
#13
plenty. Detention on private property and inland counties with no connection to teh oceans, bays, tributaries, et al. This is a power grab that has been going on for the 25 yrs I've been working on the project mgmt or construction end. Bad idea. I've dealt with some good peeps at USF&WS, ArmyCorps, and RWQCB. They are the minority. This just hands an anti-development stick to rabid ecofools
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/14/2009 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
The President's SAVE Award enables Federal employees from across government to submit their ideas for efficiencies and savings as part of the annual Budget process. The SAVE Award is part of the President's commitment to a line-by-line review of the Federal budget.
This would be the same team that hasn't read the health care bills yet. Do they even have a formal federal budget to review, line by line?
#1
Budgets are easy, TW. It's appropriations that are difficult. Much of the fed gov is currently operating under a "continuing resolution" because Congress can't pass appropriations bills in a timely manner.
#5
"Budgets are easy, TW. It's appropriations that are difficult. Much of the fed gov is currently operating under a "continuing resolution" because Congress can't pass appropriations bills in a timely manner."
Back in the early 70s the feds moved the start of the fiscal year from 1 July to 1 October because they couldn't get the appropriations out in time. And these people want to run health care. Here's a hint, if you can't get appropriations out in time, you're trying to do too much and its time to cut back operations to what you can handle in the allotted amount of time.
The winner will..
BTW, I hear second place is one week in Detroit and third place is two weeks in Detroit.
Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.
Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong," is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore's thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to "An Inconvenient Truth" being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.
Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren't an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.
In fact, Mr. Gore didn't answer Mr. McAleer's question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth "is a political film" riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by "guidance" pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film "substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."
As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.
Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he's more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do -- avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, "There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think the majority of people believe this guy "went nuts" after he lost the election to Bush, Nine count them, 9 years ago.
#3
Wexler has resigned, which probably means Cap and Trade is dead in the water.
Gore will have to move in with his producer on the plastic waste scare to hustle more dollars.
With support from a lone Republican, a key Senate committee Tuesday approved a middle-of-the-road health care plan that moves President Barack Obama's goal of wider and affordable coverage a giant step closer to becoming law.
Maine Republican Olympia Snowe said she was laying aside misgivings for now and voting to advance the bill, a sweeping $829-billon, 10-year health care remake that would help most Americans get coverage without creating a new government insurance plan. "When history calls, history calls," said Snowe.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., called his bill "a commonsense, balanced solution." A distance runner, Baucus has endured months of marathon meetings to get this far. It's not the finish line.
Health care legislation is expected to be on the Senate floor the week after next, said a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. But it won't be the Baucus bill. Reid will combine the Finance version with a more liberal proposal from the health committee -- with unpredictable results.
The vote in the Finance Committee was 14-9, with Snowe joining all 13 Democrats in support. In a sign of long political battles ahead, every other Republican voted against it.
The ultimate fate of the legislation hinges on how lawmakers decide dozens of unresolved issues, from letting government sell insurance to abortion coverage. Even some senators who voted for the Baucus bill said they have concerns it will deliver on providing access to affordable coverage for all.
As Snowe made clear, "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't understand why the big push to get her vote. It wasn't needed to get out of committee. If it's so important and they have the votes, why not just do it?
An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.
Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn't succeed without the political
"If you don't like it, you can leave," he said. Some did.
coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress. "If you don't like it, you can leave," he said. Some did.
Very true. The system was designed to require compromise. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership doesn't want to, at the moment.
The 75-minute forum filled several sections of Furman University's Timmons Arena and attracted demonstrators, critics with handheld cameras, shouts of "traitor" and "Sotomayor" - and a smattering of supporters. Graham repeatedly told those who shouted to "chill out," and addressed most of the hot-button issues that have rankled some in the state's conservative epicenter, including an op-ed column he co-authored this week with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, which called for climate change legislation.
One man told Graham he had "betrayed" conservatism and made a "pact with the devil" by working with Democrats, and asked when Graham would switch parties. Graham said he's not going anywhere and instead would grow the party, defending his conservative credentials on such issues as abortion and guns, and calling the view of Libertarians who believe President Bush was a war criminal "nuts."
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.
A woman who had been carrying a sign that condemned "unconstitutional, anti-Christ, socialist, federal, deficit-spending programs" told Graham "God does not compromise" and that he had violated his oath of office by supporting federal ideas, including health care reform that overstep states' rights.
Graham rejected the idea that the federal government should stay out of health care, saying few people want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and he defended his Christianity. He drew some applause by saying he opposes Obama's government option for health care because he said it would drive private enterprise out of business and add hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. He said he's not afraid to ask people who can afford care, like himself, to pay more, and that more competition, deregulation and tort reform are all ways to lower costs. "If we do nothing, we all lose," he said.
He handled other questions:
On climate change, Graham said he is working with Kerry because he wants to expand off-shore drilling and increase nuclear power to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. He said some caps on greenhouse gases are a reasonable trade-off to get a bill through Congress.
On Afghanistan, he said it's crucial to increase American forces to allow the safe training of future Afghan police and soldiers. To make progress through congressional action, he said, it will take working with Democrats to form Afghanistan benchmarks.
On his vote for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Graham said he's trying to return to confirming judges based on their legal qualifications to avoid the "never-ending assault" faced by nominees. He said President Obama's Supreme Court pick is no worse than Justice David Souter, whom she replaces.
On hate-crimes legislation, Graham said he is "dead-set" against legislation he said would elevate crimes based on sexual orientation to special federal prosecution, which he said is a precursor to recognizing same-sex marriage. But without a coalition, the measure will pass because there aren't enough Republicans to stop it, he said.
On illegal immigration, Graham said he's all for a border wall, as well as tamper-proof Social Security cards to help crack down on employers who hire the immigrants. He said he also wants to identify the 12 million illegal immigrants here now, make them pay taxes, learn English and hold a job, then send them home to the immigration line if they want to become citizens.
In the end, Graham told a decidedly right-leaning crowd he wants to build coalitions that will keep the country's politics "center-right." "America is not only worth fighting for, it's worth getting criticized for," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Graham, so you think your are safe in your seat?
The voters don't want this bill and you are playing with fire.
I see a fight against you and your safe seat in the future.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"I can hear him on the phone with McCain afterwards: 'those crazy Republicans need to get out of our big-tent party'"
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/14/2009 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is the Senate. Always has been and always will be. Our founding fathers constructed our legislative system this way to calm extremism on either side.
Regarding the primary; who is going to run against him? Who has the big money to do the job that is required in a primary to beat a sitting senator? Mark Sanford? Hah!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/14/2009 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jack is Back!: In this case, no. The founding fathers intended that Senators be appointed by their individual States, to give the States leverage against the federal government and maintain the federalism and anti-federalism balance.
But this was stupidly overturned in 1913 with the creation of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators; which was needed to fully implement the also stupid 16th Amendment, the Income Tax, and gave the federal government its first direct control over the people.
#6
Compromise might be a good thing sometimes. But when the Democrats are leading the country into a disaster the smart thing to do would be to stand up and tell them to stop.
Graham rejected the idea that the federal government should stay out of health care, saying few people want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare
Oh, really? People I talk to generally understand that Social Security is little more than a Ponzi scheme. They resent the hell out of Big Brother not trusting us with our own money and giving us back pennies on the dollar.
#7
The people I talk to don't realize it's a Ponzi scheme, Ebbang Uluque6305, but we all trust that we post-Baby Boomers won't get a penny back, that it's all been a quiet way to support the retirements of those born earlier while we have to take care of ourselves.
As an aside, it is nice to see all the people who were away for the summer. Welcome back, y'all!
The National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president's desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.
What does a hate crimes bill have to do with money for U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Nothing, except that the National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president's desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.
The crime bill -- which would broaden the protected classes for hate crimes to include sexual orientation and "gender identity," which the bill defines as a victim's "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics" -- passed the House earlier this year as a stand-alone measure. But it's never had the votes to succeed by itself in the Senate. So over the summer Democrats, with the power of their 60-vote majority, attached it to the defense bill.
Republicans argued that the two measures had nothing to do with each other. Beyond that, GOP lawmakers feared the new bill could infringe on First Amendment rights in the name of preventing broadly defined hate crimes. The bill's critics, including many civil libertarians, argued that the hate crimes provision could chill freedom of speech by empowering federal authorities to accuse people of inciting hate crimes, even if the speech in question was not specifically related to a crime.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"actual or perceived gender-related characteristics"
Cute butt, he'd look good in a push up bra? check. Tumescent member? check. The house likey? Check.
What is wrong with that picture? Every damn thing I can think of.
Senior Democrats are taking shots at the House's new ethics watchdog, which has come back to bite some caucus members a year after Democratic leaders created it.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) acknowledged a growing number of concerns about the Office of Congressional Ethics's (OCE) record and predicted a coming public clash over its activities. "A lot of people have been raising concerns [about the OCE], and I support them," Clyburn said. "At some point in the not-so-distant future, these concerns will have to be addressed."
Its proponents argue that it is needed to fix a broken, self-policing, members-only ethics committee, which rarely initiated investigations unless compelled to do so by a formal complaint from another member or via intense public scrutiny.
Clyburn's terse comments are surprisingly strong from a member of the Democratic leadership. The OCE, an independent ethics board made up mostly of former members of Congress, was the brainchild of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who pushed for an added layer of ethics oversight after Democrats won the majority in 2006. She succeeded in ramming legislation creating the OCE through the House despite serious opposition within her party.
As a Democratic leader, Clyburn voted in favor of the OCE, but then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) appeared to buttonhole the most members. Resentment over Pelosi's drive to create the extra layer of ethics scrutiny has lingered ever since.
"It was a mistake," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said flatly. "Congress has a long and rich history of overreacting to a crisis." Cleaver, a Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) member who voted against creating the OCE, was referring to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Democrats used the controversy to impugn the GOP for creating a culture of corruption when it controlled Congress and the White House. "The truth of the matter is -- everything Jack Abramoff did was against the law and many people involved in that scandal have gone to jail," Cleaver continued.
Cleaver is most concerned about the ability of the OCE to launch an investigation based on media reports or an anonymous complaint. The ethics committee can initiate investigations from media reports as well, but a member must file a formal public complaint to require the ethics committee to launch a probe.
A significant number of members on both sides of the aisle were wary of handing any power to monitor members' activities over to a group of non-lawmakers, and the OCE's record so far has confirmed their worst fears, they argue.
The OCE is charged with reviewing suspected ethics rules violations and complaints and making recommendations to the full ethics committee for further investigation and action. Its proponents argue that it is needed to fix a broken, self-policing, members-only ethics committee, which rarely initiated investigations unless compelled to do so by a formal complaint from another member or via intense public scrutiny.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
"A lot of people have been raising concerns [about the OCE], and I support them," Clyburn said. "At some point in the not-so-distant future, these concerns will have to be addressed."
translation - the fools don't understand that there are one set of rules for us and a different set of rules for everyone else.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is having trouble selling his latest act to California voters. A Field Poll released Tuesday finds the Republican governor with his lowest approval rating ever. Just 27 percent of voters approve of his performance, while 65 percent disapprove. The governor's esteem has been slipping since December 2007, when he enjoyed an approval rating of 60 percent. His highest ratings came in 2004, his first full year in office.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I don't think it has as much to do with Ahnold's performance as it does with the voters who just don't seem to get the fact that they have overextended themselves with all their mea culpas to illegal immigrants in the form of welfare so they can feel better about the hideous idea that maybe their parents and grandparents worked hard to make the country strong.
#4
Arnold increased public spending to police services, even after it was disclosed that after 25 years of service, Cal cops receive a pension equalling 90% of their highest wage rate. Yet few residents feel protected. A recession is a good time to examine what tax-payers are really getting for their money.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the country's most powerful Mormon politician, criticized his own church during a meeting with gay-rights activists, reportedly scolding Mormon leaders for supporting the ban on same-sex marriage in California.
Reid said the decision by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to support the successful Proposition 8 ballot measure in California last year was a "waste of church resources and good will."
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Reid brought up the topic last week during a meeting in his office with organizers of the National Equality March, held over the weekend in Washington, D.C.
One participant told the newspaper that Reid said the decision by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to support the successful Proposition 8 ballot measure in California last year was a "waste of church resources and good will." Another said Reid made clear that he "felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue."
Though the church fought to support Proposition 8, with money and volunteers, just as it has fought other moves to legalize same-sex marriage, it is rare for the Nevada Democrat to comment on his own church's political activity. Reid supported the gay rights march over the weekend.
Getting desperate, is he?
Posted by: Fred ||
10/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reid's Waterloo - NV 2nd largest Mormon state outside of Utah. Hit the wrong people Harry. Kiss you seat GOODBYE.
#5
So it is all right for a politician to attack a religion - even his own. But let a religion attack a politician - especially a Democrat - and watch people start calling for it to lose its tax-exempt status.
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/14/2009 7:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No term limits, and no rubric for when he stopped "working for it."
On the lifelong public gravy train express followed by lucrative book deals followed by the mother of all phuckovahs--the public pension and bed and dinner reservations in an underground nuke fallout bunker in the Appalachians, IIRC, in the event of a nuclear war?
#11
Since most Americans are unlikely to get Medicare or Social Security when the time comes perhaps the voters could yank some of the House and Senate's retirement perks.
#5
Clealry its not for Wimin to stop talking on the phone while driving a car, its for men to invent GPS and smart cars, etc. so that the car can safely drive itself...
#6
Someone needs to set up the bluetooth link for her between her cell phone and the car. She's tall enough that the microphone placement shouldn't be the issue for her that is is for me... and wealthy enough that she can have a mechanic alter the placement if it is.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Controversial activist group ACORN has fired the longtime companion of founder Wade Rathke over apparent concerns about a lack of "accountability" in her work leading the Louisiana chapter in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Beth Butler was the director of that chapter and close to Rathke, whose 
Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
With support from a lone Republican, a key Senate committee Tuesday approved a middle-of-the-road health care plan that moves President Barack Obama's goal of wider and affordable coverage a giant step closer to becoming law.
An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.
Senior Democrats are taking shots at the House's new ethics watchdog, which has come back to bite some caucus members a year after Democratic leaders created it.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is having trouble selling his latest act to California voters. A Field Poll released Tuesday finds the Republican governor with his lowest approval rating ever. Just 27 percent of voters approve of his performance, while 65 percent disapprove. The governor's esteem has been slipping since December 2007, when he enjoyed an approval rating of 60 percent. His highest ratings came in 2004, his first full year in office.
