Click me

Stalking teenagers is billions of miles different from having consensual sex. The corporate media has been decent on this story, but some rabid meat eaters have brought up incidents when a 17 or 18 year old page was having an affair with a Congressman. One Democratic Congressmen, Gerry Stubbs, had a consentual homosexual affair with a 17 year old page in 1973, when Congressmen Stubbs was 27. This came to light in 1983 when Dan Crane, Republican from Indiana was busted having an affair with a 17 year old female since 1980 ( the affair came to light right after the 1982 elections.) In order to save their own ass, Republicans did then what they are trying to do now, they dug deep and found that in 1973 Gerry Studds, Congressmen from Massachusetts had a homo-sexual affair with a 17 year old male page. This is why Studds was added to the 1983 censure motion for an act that occurred in 1973.

Another incident occurred in 1990 when gay Congressman Barney Frank had an affair with a man named Steven Gobie. According to the Boston Globe,

Back in 1985, Frank had engaged the services of a male escort named Stephen Gobie, who had advertised his "hot bottom" in a personal ad. Over the next two years, while Frank was trying to decide whether to come out, he and Gobie carried on a clandestine affair, during which time Frank hired Gobie as a driver despite knowing Gobie was on probation for drug possession and for possession of child pornography. Frank used his House privileges to fix Gobie's parking tickets. He wrote a memo trying to clear Gobie from probation that was disingenuous at best and an outright deception at worst. Gobie repaid Frank by running a prostitution service out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment. When Frank discovered this, he fired Gobie and ended their relationship. Then, in 1989, just two years after Frank's announcement that he was gay, Gobie told his story to the conservative Washington Times.

1. Gerry Studds

2. Dan Crane

3. Barney Frank (scroll about 60% down for the 1990 incident)

Irregardless of the propriety of these human errors, having consensual sex is different than allowing a sexual predator to have free reign by the Republican leadership from 2004 - 2006. Stalking many young boys over eight years is vastly different than having a consentual affair, or being taken advantage of by one's lover.

"Do I make you a little horny?"
-- email from Senator Mark Foley (R-Florida) to a 16 year old page.

Keep in mind that he was text-messaging this kind of stuff while on the very floor of the Senate.

Inform yourself at salon.com .

From Forbes magazine

The House page scandal engulfing former Rep. Mark Foley and House Republican leaders enters its sixth day with Speaker Dennis Hastert working to hold onto his job and the GOP rank and file worried that the pre-election drip, drip of damaging political news isn't over yet.

The daily disclosures about Foley's salacious Internet exchanges with former teenage congressional pages have GOP lawmakers and conservative activists fearing the foibles of other politicians may be exposed.

"People are very, very concerned," Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said Tuesday night. "I think there are going to be more disclosures."

"We have heard rumors that other, similar activity has occurred involving additional congressmen and will be released prior to the November elections," said the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 pro-family conservative groups.

Whoa-ho-ho-hoe. You mean there was more than one Congressman stalking the teenage boys?

Wait, now what was Clinton impeached for?

A statement released by Kirk Fordham, former senior aide to ex-Rep. Mark Foley and Rep. Tom Reynolds

from CNN

"I've learned within the last few hours that unnamed sources have purported that I intervened on behalf of Congressman Foley to prevent a page board investigation. This is categorically false. At no point--ever--did I ask anyone to block any inquiries into Foley's actions or behavior.

These sources know this allegation is false.

Having stepped down as Mr. Reynolds chief of staff, I have no reason to state anything other than the facts. I have no Congressman and no office to protect.

I intend to fully cooperate with any and every investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct. At the same time, I will fully disclose to the FBI and the House Ethics Committee any and all meetings and phone calls I had with senior staffers in the House Leadership about any of Foley's inappropriate activities.

The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley email exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior.

One of these staffers is still employed by a Senior House Republican Leader.

Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House Leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005."

Watch closely. The jackals will fall over themselves accusing one another of what they all have done.

Question: How many Republicans does it take to help a teenager across the street?

Answer: All of them, but that doesn't mean the kid ever gets to the other side in one piece.

Sick, hypocritical, lying bastards.

Meet Mr. Larry Elder

From Mr. Elder's published words, where he actually tries to defend the ABC docu-drama that was caught flagrantly rewriting history for political reasons :

click here

In one scene, for example, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice demotes counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, clearly showing the Bush administration's failure to give bin Laden top priority. But did anyone in the Bush administration send letters to ABC demanding revisions – or else?

No, Mr. Elder, they didn't write letters, because Condi did demote Richard Clarke. That was true. It actually happened. Whereas, the letters written by Clinton and Madeline Albright to ABC involved multiple matters that not only did NOT happened, but were ALSO dishonest.

Uh, like, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

And how come you forgot to mention that ABC was paid to air the docu-drama via some clearinghouse Christian far-right non-profit organization -- which got donations from who....? How come Mr. Elder forgets to mention that the director of the film is part of a naisient organization that wants to produce docu-dramas that spin history in favor of their partisan constituency? These matters are certainly more relevant than any of Mr. Elder's faux line of questioning posing as matters of real signifigance.

But you see, Mr. Elder specializes in the art of selective memory. This is what he does. Here he also "neglects" to remind his reader's of a very key point about Condolezza Rice. She did not want to testify before the commission. However she had no problem going on various television shows where she made false statements without having to go under oath. This obvious hypocrisy forced her to have to give in and testify under oath in front of the commission, where she blatantly tried to filibuster and side track the questioning process until she was asked point blank what the name of the August 6 PDB was : "Osama determined to attack in the United States."

And this when she was mouthing publically that the administration "had no idea that bin Laden intended to attack the United States."

Bush may not have written letters to ABC, but he certainly has distorted the written law and has used back handed tactics to get the same deeds done. Appointed government hacks interpret and rewrite the laws into federal codes, as happened when "waste" was redefined by an ex-lobbyist for the coal mining industry so they could illegally dump waste from mountain tops down streams.

Or government agencies who put together fake news reports with administration hacks posing as reporters. These get disbursed to friendly (aka Fox News) news media, who add the videos to their news feed WITHOUT MAKING A DISCLAIMER THAT THE VIDEOS ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

What, are we in Russia?

When the Swift-boat group was proven to be linked to the Bush administration by a lawyer who had been on the Bush legal team since Florida 2000, where was the media on this story? Instead, we had to worry about Janet Jackson's breasts or Michael Jackson or a missing white girl in Aruba? If this had been Kerry instead, the TV news media would have been on the story like a rabid dog.

If you read Mr. Elder, you have to remember that he is only selecting some of the history, and he also distorts what he reveals as the historical record all the time. This is what he is hired to do.

Most of the piece from the link is spent trying to find some way to accuse Clinton of something. Mr. Elder even tactfully admits this when says "OK, the Clintonistas criticize conversations or actions that never took place" Then he negates the substance of the letters to ABC by going back to the WTC bombing attempt of 1993. Then he condenses the next 8 years into 3 specious paragraphs, the latter two are crafty edits from the 9-11 commission report. Especially paragraph 3, which reads as follows:

Also (page 358): "Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton administration the relationship between the FBI director and the president was nearly nonexistent. The FBI director would not communicate directly with the president. His key personnel shared very little information with the National Security Council and the rest of the national security community. As a consequence, one of the critical working relationships in the counterterrorism effort was broken."

Bottom line, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter. And neither he nor former members of his administration want Americans to understand or remember this. In his Saturday radio address after the first World Trade Center attack, Clinton barely mentioned the attack before beginning a much lengthier discussion about his economic program.

In addition to being hotly debated by officials at CIA and FBI, isn't it funny how Mr. Elder neglects to mention that the Bush Administration appointees to the FBI ignored the very intelligence operations that were getting reports on terrorists at flight schools? Keep in mind also that George W. Bush issued an executive order to the FBI to stop their investigation into the WAMI charity operations of the bin Laden family. And on September 12th, when all air traffic was grounded in the United States one plane went around the country and picked up various bin Laden or Saudi persons and quietly escorted them out of the country without any questioning or interoggation whatsoever.

And yea, Clinton treated the problem effectively as a law enforcement matter. How many American lives and civilian lives were lost? The African embassies, Somalia, and the USS Cole were events half-way around the world. The Cole was also within 10 miles from the coast of Iran. If spirited pirates-vagabonds- terrorists want to attack our naval ship, what is the point of raising the patriotic ire when perhaps it is our foreign policy that gives rise to these attacks in the first place? How many Iranian naval (or Chinese Naval or Russian Naval) ships do we allow to do military surveillance operations at less than 10 miles off the coast? What do you think the Cole was really doing? Yep, the Cole was most likely attacked because it was coordinating spy surveillance operations in Iran.

The terrorist networks are stateless. They are like mafia. Bombing and invading nations involves wrecking havoc on societies and people that create willing soldiers for terrorist networks, in addition to creating a bureaucracy of corruption.

But it was never about "terrorism" anyway. It was always about oil and winning elections.

The real bottom line is that Mr. Elders does as he is hired to do. He has the belief system of a sewing machine, that is he sews in the direction the seamstress decides.

These lips are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do, and one of these days these lips are gonna slobber all over you ....

eee-- yuk !!

"It's vile, it's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

--- Former Republican Congressman Mark Foley's comments made on 9/12/98 in regards to Kenneth Starr's report on President Bill Clinton.

If you haven't been awake over the last week, Florida Congress critter Mark Foley, was busted writing explicit emails to several teenage male pages asking to see their underwear, mentioning desires to see them without clothes.

Here and also here are the fair and accurate summaries of the story -- if you haven't been paying attention.

Now this is also the same Congressman who was known as a vehement organizer to protect children from child molesters (read the links above.) But since poor ole Mark Foley is a drunk going to rehab, surely we can forgive him for being a closeted homosexual child molester. Surely it must be that bad ole alcohol problem that is responsible, not Mark Foley.

The whole god damn Republican leadership knew about this for how long? Seven to Eight months! Were they going to do anything? This is the same Republican party that organized to foist Jeffrey Gannon as a reporter from a fake internet news service, when he was just a gay pimp double-timing at white house press conferences tossing out loaded questions.

Oh and why did ex-CIA (some would say interim) head Porter Goss and the 2nd in command -- Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo -- suddenly resign when it was revealed that a limosine company was bringing legislators to hotel rooms where there were poker games and prostitutes?

click me baby, pull-ease AND click me too.

This thing has legs. Will the press dig? I hear a sudden celebrity court case looming in the not too distant future.

The television media is all top down. That is the entire televised experience is controlled or overseen by a small group of managers and producers. The opposite of top down management is bottom up management; that is, all information comes from a multiplicity of sources, and decisions by the group are based upon the free awareness of these multiple sources. A top down management system would inherently filter the sources and would also "dress up" the presentation because the information which becomes televised always pass through the oversight by the small group of managers and producers.

So when newspapers and television stations become owned by the same company, whose interest is served? Currently media companies can control 40 percent of any local market. Why should they control that much? How come there isn't a law that mandates every media company must be independent and not conglomerated into hundreds and thousands under the management system of a larger corporation? The television station in San Francisco should not be under the same management system of the one in Oakland, or Los Angeles or Sacramento --- or New York or Seattle or Boston or .... Media companies do not have to conglomerate to become profitable, they only do so because the profits can become astronomical at the same time that the content can be micro-managed.

This micro-management is however not beneficial for a democracy, which only flourishes under a bottom-up type of management system. In my opinion, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be enacted upon all these media conglomerates. They should all be broken apart and sold, just like what was done to Standard Oil in the early 1900's and AT&T in the latter 1970's and early 80's.

This is actually a conservative -- not a liberal or radical -- position. The point is to conserve our democracy, and the only way to do so is to break apart the anti-democratic forces in our society. Don't let the talking heads hi-jack the true meaning of the word conservative. Conserve means to preserve, or to believe that changes to the original principle are not always beneficial to the principle at all.

And in this case, in order to preserve our democracy, we must ensure that everyone has a way to express their viewpoint, and that all news is presented equally. With the top down management system, this is an inherently impossible result. So we are forced to conclude that in order to preserve our democracy, we must therefore take the action of breaking up and selling the media conglomerates.