frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.



Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1093 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 19h 19m 57s

When the shoe fits, throw it at someone else

Thinking hurts too much these days. The nazi's are crawling everywhere, inhabiting and destroying everything.

Remember all the hubub made about Al Gore meeting a Chinese buddhist in a temple in 1996, that turned out to be nothing at all? Well now we have George Bush pioneer fund raiser Jack Abramoff involved in the largest web of corruption since the Credit Mobilier of the 1870's, involving fake charity funds that accepted $100,000 checks from a law firm in England that got the money from Russian lobbyists.

Oh but will the corporate nazi media pound on this story like they pounded on the Buddhist temple?

Of course not.

Today's f***ing Chronicle headline blasts out that Abramoff is a "rogue lobbyist" as if Abramoff was all alone and independent in bad guy land. Hey hack Chronicle reporter : would you care to mention his already convicted or being prosecutied cohorts in crime over the last year : namely, public relations executive --and former aide to House Majority Leader DeLay-- Michael Scanlon; chief of staff at the General Services Administration David Safavian, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Ohio Bush Pioneer Tom Noe? ALL ARE CONNECTED dumb asses.

And David Safavian was appointed by George Bush in 2003. [Read on ...]

So what the hell then does Bush mean when he says that Abramoff was "equal opportunity" corruption? Oh, Byron Dorgan(North Dakota) and Harry Reid(Nevada) both accepted small donations by local indian tribes ($18,000 and $5,000 respectively) in their districts that also happened to be clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- but that is and was not illegal.

Bush himself got more than $100,000 from Abramoff and his other connected pioneers, in addition to appointing officials helpful to the purposes of Mr. Abramoff. There's more here from Lou Dubose at the Texas Observer:


"In May 2001, Jack Abramoff’s lobbying client book was worth $4.1 million in annual billing for the Greenberg Traurig law firm. He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush “Pioneer,” delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay. Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. "

Some "roque" operator.

And from the Bloomberg News: [SOURCE]

"Now you have two people instead of one," said Stan Brand, a former counsel to the House of Representatives when it was controlled by the Democrats. "What you're building is a ladder. You have Abramoff at the intermediate step, elected officials above him, and Scanlon and Safavian underneath."

In other words, this vast network of corruption was orchetrated and abetted by the Republican party.

Liars and heinous hypocrites. They speak of themselves when they pilory the perceived opposition.

Bush even gets to recess appoint the prosecutor Alice Fisher -- during the weekend of the Hurricane Katrina debacle -- to oversea the Abramoff investigation. Alice Fisher has no prosecution experience but used to work with the law firm of now Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff and has done work with Tom Delay's legal action network. At law.com she is lauded a bit maniacally for her "great" work investigating Enron. Oh you mean that lame investigation where all but a few scapegoats (including the two big boys Ken Lay, and ex- Secretary of the Army Thomas White) walked away scott free.

Yeah, she's great at investigating.

But even from law.com , you can still get a glimpse of why Bush had to sneak her appointment over the Katrina weekend ...

"I suck up to and wash the dirty laundry of powerful Republicans and gain legal experience from shamefully farcical investigations."


Fisher first worked with Chertoff in 1995, when he hired her as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater investigation. She had graduated from the Catholic University of America School of Law in 1993, and worked as a litigation associate in the Washington office of New York-based Sullivan & Cromwell.

Then Chertoff brought her into the Senate investigation of investments that President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton made in the troubled Whitewater Development Corp.

Following her work in Whitewater, Fisher moved into the Washington office of Latham & Watkins in 1996.


So I'm sure she'll be spiking the investigation. Why else would Bush so secretively appoint her over that particular weekend? Was her services in such dire need that Bush had to rush her through without following the Constitutional requirement of Senatorial "advice and consent."

I really, really hope I am wrong.


Friday, 30 December 2005 at 20h 31m 32s

Too much computer time

I thought this was hilarious


Tuesday, 27 December 2005 at 7h 22m 22s

Larry Johnson blog

Larry Johnson is an ex-CIA career professional who has been an excellent source of realistic an relevant information about anything related to the CIA and government operations.

Go here to read Larry Johnson's blog.

Larry recently posted a lot of good points about why fighting "terrorism" with conventional military is wasteful and stupid, since it is more effectively attacked with law enforcement covert operations. Killing civilians and destroying cities (aka, Falluja) only create more terrorists.

But don't just listen to me. Go read Larry Johnson.


Monday, 26 December 2005 at 7h 25m 32s

President spoiled rotten

Steve Chapman over at the Chicago Tribune, has this to say: [ SOURCE]

Steve Chapman

Beyond the imperial presidency


Published December 25, 2005

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once- cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.


Herr Bush is an alcoholic degenerate spoiled-rotten brat. He is also mean and vindictive. And he is also the President.

Oh shit.


Monday, 26 December 2005 at 17h 25m 1s

Ho ho ho ...



Yea, I know ... it's one day late.


Monday, 12 December 2005 at 19h 28m 13s

An appointed mobster

More on the Randy Cunningham defense contractor scandal. You can read about it  here.

According to the LA Times, Schwasti-boy seems to be involved ( that's Schwartzeneger for those of you for whom my belligerent sarcasm is not immediately recognized .) According to Dan Morain, LA Times Staff Writer,[SOURCE ]

A businessman tied to the bribery scandal involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham donated more than $70,000 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign committees and received two gubernatorial appointments.

At Schwarzenegger's behest, Brent Wilkes, founder of the government contractor ADCS Inc., resigned Nov. 29 from the Del Mar Fair Board and from another panel that oversees the leasing of state land for racetracks, said Margita Thompson, the governor's press secretary.

Schwarzenegger appointed Wilkes to the Del Mar board in April 2004 and to the State Race Track Leasing Commission last April. A seat on the Del Mar board is a sought-after post given the panel's association with the Del Mar racetrack, among the most successful tracks in the nation.

...Wilkes' company, ADCS, which is based in Poway, has received millions in federal contracts.


Keep your eye on the ball folks. The news will be pounding on the $80,000 donations. What is important here are the appointed positions, not the money. Look what this manipulator of federal contract laws gets appointed to,the Del Mar Fair Board and a panel that oversees the leasing of state land for racetracks.

Can you say, money laundering?

Why do you think the mob was always heavily involved in the development of gambling institutions, because you could shuffle a lot of cash and make them appear as winnings. I recall reading about how a certain mob racket out of Miami operated by hiring professional gamblers to sit around and "win" while they were really shuffling the money through. They would get a "cut" of the winnings but those "winnings" would be re-deposited elsewhere.

Of course you do realize that this is all uninformed speculation on my part, but I still hear an implosion.


Monday, 5 December 2005 at 22h 4m 14s

More Corruption from San Diego

Thanks to Kevin Drum [SOURCE]

...Last week Duke Cunningham pled guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes and evading more than $1 million in taxes. Government documents in the case also referred to a "co-conspirator No. 1," later identified as a military contractor named Brent Wilkes. But acording to the San Diego Union- Tribune, Cunningham wasn't the only guy Wilkes was associated with:

"Wilkes befriended other legislators, too. He ran a hospitality suite, with several bedrooms, in Washington — first in the Watergate Hotel and then in the Westin Grand near Capitol Hill."


When will the Chronicle discuss or investigate this?

Instead, here are today's front-page stories.


ON THE BORDER
Civilian border patrols across the country have helped polarize political debate over immigration reform. As part of an occasional series, The Chronicle spends an evening on patrol with small group in California.
- Tyche Hendricks

-- This is the next distraction from the real issues of health care, corruption, and movement of capital to low cost labor regions of the world (ie, China!!!). Blame everything on the Mexicans.

Quake survivors in a race with time
As winter arrives, many ill-prepared for harsh conditions
- Declan Walsh

-- Reminder to San Fran : be afraid, man-made disaster looms

THE LINE OF FIRE
Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.'s voter-approved ban on handguns
- Cecilia M. Vega

-- the voters approve and "some" citizens get to have a story on the front page. Hey, can "some" of us other citizens get to have special stories like this too. Was it another slow news day today?


How about Cunningham scandal may link other legislators ?

-or-

DeLay's money laundering charges upheld

See what I mean. Note that it's not whether the 3 chosen stories were valid stories, but whether they were so important as to be on the front page. Why does the Pakistani earthquake victim story trump the Tom Delay money laundering charges?

At least the quake story is more valid than a day two discussion on whether or not Schwastikaniger can attract moderates with an appointment of Governor Davis's ex-cabinet member -- as if merely his appointment of a stereotype is worth more than the substance of his policy proposals.

But instead, what we read is the 2nd hand version of the real conversation. It's all about the show and the costumes, or the chosen morality drama, NOT about honesty, integrity, and the truth.


Monday, 5 December 2005 at 20h 50m 49s

Fair and balanced my ass

Mendacious and Biased

A manufactured "War" on Christmas has a "Victory" ?

If Liberals do ... What?

Look at the pompous, over-blown kinship of those who call themselves news analysts and news anchors on the Fox news network. Hired propaganda agents? Zealots for the cause of 6 to 7 figure salaries? You be the judge, but "mendacious and biased" to the extreme is certainly what the Fox network is really all about. History has already deposited the relics of truth.


Thursday, 1 December 2005 at 20h 22m 1s

Watch this very carefully

Another installment in an ongoing investigation : San Francisco Chronicle headlines today.

This was on page one, for the second day in a row.

Governor's hire riles GOP conservatives
ANALYSIS: A move to attract moderates
- - Carla Marinucci

We get the reaction to yesterday's story and the "analysis" on the front page? Was it a slow news day?

Notice how the "ANALYSIS" is just the cliff notes for the dupes called "moderates." With these two loaded sentences probably not even chosen by writer Carla Marinucci (the executive editors usually create headlines) we learn that Schwastikaniger is trying to re-package his "image." The "fact" that he's "riling" conservatives would certainly make him "attractive" to those on the fence "moderates" that really do want to vote for Scwasti-baby but are just too worried that the Gubernator is lock step with his "conservative" advisors.

Analysis is another word for "spin." They are dressing this proto-fascist up in "moderates" clothes so that they can re-install those "buggy" computer voting machines and make-believe that it was moderates to "attracted" the new Schwastikaniger who voted for him in 2006. These people don't play. Do. Not. Underestimate.

So I go read the article. It is filled with ambiguous words that are apparently the norm of political "analysis" and is chock-a-block with quotes from politicos and policy analysts. After a more fleshy 2 paragraphs which beef out the headlines, The first quote comes from Steve Frank, longtime political activist and publisher of the California Political News and Views, an influential conservative blog, who says "He can't run as a Republican, because his administration has hired some of the key people we recalled with Gray Davis in the first place."

Then we get Michael Spence, who heads the California Republican Assembly, a conservative grassroots organization, (astro-turf??) who "said that within hours of the news of Kennedy's appointment, the buzz from the right included talk of finding alternatives to the GOP governor who has "betrayed the loyalty of people who worked for him in the special election."

Next up, unnamed "political insiders in California -- still a year from the 2006 election for governor -- said no one should be writing Schwarzenegger's political obituary, despite the devastating defeat of all his measures in the Nov. 8 special election. "

Yet when Mrs. Marinucci makes her point that "Many Democrats agree," she chooses to quote one person alone in support of her plural form : Phil Trounstine (who??), the head of the San Jose State Survey and Policy Research Institute and former communications director for Davis who worked closely with Kennedy in the Democratic governor's inner circle. In other words, she asks ex-governor Davis's press manager who now works as top gun at an institute that "surveys" opinions and produces white papers rationalizing policy based on the surveys.

Okay, yea, and he's the only "Democrat" she quotes. Couldn't she try to get a quote from State Senate Majority leader Peralta, or oft-quoted Burton, or someone higher up in the Democratic food chain. Or at least someone else, I mean if Democrats agree, than certainly she could have found any number who could have been quoted. But hey, since he "worked closely" with the woman, I suppose that makes his quotes worth twice as much.

I'm onto you Madame Marinucci. You are the hand-maiden of Judith Miller, aren't you?

The piece ends with the establishment Republican voice, ex-Governor Pete Wilson. In fact, ex-Governor Wilson's quoting takes a full 33% of this "front page article." But hey, since "Democrats agree," why give 10% from Pete to get more than one source from the labeled Democratic side?

So what is this piece anyway, an outsourcing of 3 politicos and some unknown "Democrat" on the front page, calling itself "analysis" ?

This is what the Chronicle does? It puts this kind of speculative, inconsequetial political gossip borderline persuasion on the front page in lieu of actual factual based news. The story should not be on the front page, because there is not one smidgeon of analysis, just a bunch of presumptions and opinions by a few selected persons. There were no numbers to support the contentions of "the analysis," only hearsay and voices from people who have a very good reason to be biased.

It's political gossip, not analysis.


Wednesday, 30 November 2005 at 19h 54m 18s

Paul Waldman is cool

Paul Waldman writes a regular blog at the online blog-a-zine gadflyer.


President Bush gave the umpteenth version of his Iraq speech today, and as always we were told that this speech would really turn things around because Bush would define the issue and explain to people why IraqiscentraltothewaronterrorandtheterroristsareontherunandastheIraqisstandupwew ill standdownandwewillnotcutandrunandvictoryisaroundthecornerblahblahblah.

In fact, the speech included no fewer than fifteen repetitions of the word "victory." So this is my question:

Just what, exactly, is "victory" in Iraq?

After all, we won't have the insurgents signing an armistice. There are no generals to surrender. Zarqawi could be captured tomorrow and the insurgency would continue unabated. So how will we know when we've won? Bush keeps telling us that in order to honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have died there, we have to keep our soldiers there to keep dying, to finish the job, to achieve that glorious victory. So what is this victory supposed to consist of? And just as important, is there a single person in the administration who has a clue what the answer to that question is?

Copyright © Paul Waldman.





GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS