USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 6:32 pm

You last visited
June 5, 2026, 12:00 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › konane's Blog

konane's Blog

Page 560 of 587

'Zombie Debt' Comes Back to Haunt Consumers

Clark Howard talks about this problem frequently on his radio show.  Very informative article.


'Zombie Debt' Comes Back to Haunt Consumers




June 25, 2006
by Harriet Johnson Brackey
Sun-Sentinel

"Latoya Gibson thought debt collectors were never again going to bother her, after she went through bankruptcy several years ago.

But the 30-year-old Fort Lauderdale public housing counselor had the kind of debt that never dies. It just keeps popping back up on your credit report.

Zombie debt, some call it. It happens when your credit-card company sells off its bad debts. The buyer pays pennies for every dollar you owe and tries to turn that investment into a few nickels. They track you down and demand payment.

Often, bad debt buyers or their collection agencies will do one more thing that is especially harmful to your credit rating. It often happens in secret. And it's illegal.

They re-age the debt, as they did with Gibson. That is, they report the old debt to the credit bureau as a new obligation.

South Florida consumer advocates, attorneys and debt counselors say re-aging happens all the time. And it happens to people who are late with their accounts, not just those who are delinquent or in bankruptcy.

But the credit reporting system is supposed to offer consumers, even those who left their bills unpaid, better protection than that.

Negative marks such as bad debts must be dropped from your credit report after seven years. If the debt is re-aged, the seven-year clock starts again.

"I was so upset I was shaking," Gibson said. She became aware of the re-aging only when the debt collector filed a lawsuit against her. The old debt was back on her credit report, even though it had been discharged through bankruptcy. Gibson went to a lawyer who quickly told the debt collector to erase it and to leave Gibson alone.

Re-aging hurts any consumer trying to buy a house or a car or get a new credit card. As long as a negative mark is on your credit report, it will lower your credit score. This can add hundreds of dollars a month to your mortgage interest bill or force you to pay a higher interest rate than you should for a credit card.

A zombie debt can even prevent you from buying a house until the creditor is satisfied.

Marilyn Gallington, a title company marketing representative in Fort Lauderdale who has experienced re-aging on her own credit record, says the practice has blindsided her low-income customers who are first-time homebuyers.

"It's usually a week or so before closing. These people have been going through the qualifying process for three or four months. Then my company will run a final check," she said. "That's when a debt will turn up and the client will say that he paid it off five or six years ago. But they put it back on to the credit report with a new date."

That buyer's closing won't happen in a week. First, the debt has to be cleared.

Re-aging was prohibited in 2003 through amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The practice "is illegal," says Clarke Brinckerhoff, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.

"That's the law. It doesn't make any difference when the credit or debt collection agency reports the account," he said.

But that doesn't keep it from happening.

"Re-aging is widespread in the debt collection industry. Some companies do it as part of their business model," said Robert W. Murphy, a consumer lawyer in Fort Lauderdale. "They may or may not ever even communicate with the consumer."

He says a lot of families are getting hurt, because debt buyers aren't getting caught. They only back off if the consumer threatens to sue. "These bottom-feeders often really have no clue about a debt, when it's from. They're not really worried about the specifics," said Jon Sheldon, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Boston.

To be sure, some are worried about the accuracy of the information on a debt that they buy. When a debt moves from the creditor to a third party, there's a big possibility for errors or problems, said Robert Sherman, vice president at Vengroff, Williams & Associates, a Sarasota third-party collector that is one of the nation's largest. His firm rarely reports to credit bureaus, because of that margin of error.

But as Americans pile on credit-card debt, credit-card companies are pushing bad debt out the door at a rapid pace. Cell-phone bills and medical bills are being sold in bulk, too.

That includes bills the consumer just didn't pay as well as ones that he may have disputed, such as whether it's covered by health insurance.

"It's a huge, huge issue," said Geri Detweiler, a Sarasota consumer debt expert and author. "I hear the complaints. But even if you know your rights, it's very difficult dealing with debt collectors."

Q: What is the debt buying industry?

A: The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter that tracks the credit industry, says credit-card companies increasingly are not even trying to collect old debts. Instead they sell them -- as soon as when the debt is only 90 days past due and before it's been charged off as a loss, which usually happens after six months.

By selling the bad debt, credit-card companies recoup more than they would after paying a collector. And they get their payoff quickly.

The volume of all bad debts sold grew more than sixfold in the last decade to more than $77 billion last year. That includes utility, medical and cell-phone bills as well as credit cards.

Q: What is re-aging?

A: When a debt becomes delinquent, that date is usually reported to a credit bureau. That date cannot change, under federal law. Consumers are saying, however, that debt buyers and collectors are taking the old debt and reporting it to the credit bureau with a new date.

Q: Why does it matter?

A: Federal law says a bad debt can only stay on your credit report for seven years. Bad debts on your report lower your credit score. Lenders will charge you more interest on loans and credit cards if you have a low score.

Q: Isn't anyone telling the government about this?

A: The Federal Trade Commission doesn't keep statistics on re-aging by itself, but the FTC was swamped last year with a 70 percent increase in complaints about third-party debt collectors. They harassed debtors, failed to check to see if the debt was valid, kept calling when told not to do so, told neighbors and employers about the bad debt and other violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A total of 58,687 complaints were filed.

Q: How long can a debt be collected?

A: Under Florida law, up to five years from the date of delinquency for anything covered by a written contract, such as a credit card.

Q: How do you know re-aging has happened to you?

A: Check your credit report. If an old debt doesn't seem to have the right date on it, that may be it.

Q: What should you do if you notice it?

Write a letter disputing the debt to the credit bureau that provided you with the report. Also write to the creditor and ask for verification of the debt. Both must investigate your dispute and the credit bureau has to notify you of the results. If the creditor -- whoever gave you credit or now owns your debt -- has reported incorrect information to the credit bureau, then the creditor can correct it. You will find the creditor's contact information on your credit report.

To learn how to dispute errors in your credit report, go to www.ftc.gov and enter "How to Dispute Credit Report Errors" into the search box. "

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-sbharriet25jun25,0,6419398.story

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Money/060630.zombie.debt.html

Entry #419

"Another Arab State Edges Towards Full Democracy

"Another Arab State Edges Towards Full Democracy
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 30, 2006

"(CNSNews.com) - Women in Kuwait voted and ran for office for the first time on Thursday, a development seen as pushing the Middle East another step closer to full participatory democracy.

Kuwaiti men and women voted for some 250 candidates -- including 28 women -- to fill 50 seats in the small Gulf state's 65-seat National Assembly (the remaining 15 are appointed by the country's emir.)

Full gender equality remains a way off, however: Women were forced to use separate polling stations, due to demands by Islamists who oppose women voting.

Results available by early Friday also showed that the women candidates appeared to be faring badly, despite the fact women comprise 57 percent of the electorate.

On the eve of the election, a non-governmental organization called the Women Cultural Social Society conducted a survey showing that although for most respondents a candidate's political platform was more important than gender, many would vote according to gender -- and most voters of both sexes would support men.

In the poll, about 44 percent of female respondents said they'd vote for candidate based on platform, not gender. But another 40 percent of women said they would vote for a man, compared to just around 15 percent who said they'd vote for a woman.

Kuwait's Arab Times daily quoted one woman candidate, Khalida Al-Kheder, as decrying the conduct of "conservative tribal women" whom she said had been bussed in in large numbers to vocally support male candidates.

Some analysts argued that female candidates had not had sufficient time to lay the groundwork for their campaigns.

Women were given the vote in May 2005, they did not expect to be able to use it for the first time until scheduled elections in 2007. But last month, Kuwaiti emir Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah dissolved parliament and called an early election following a dispute between the government and opposition over electoral reforms.

Despite the historic suffrage decision, the campaign was dominated not by that but by calls for political reform and an end to official corruption.

Nonetheless, Women Cultural Social Society president Shaikha Al Nusf viewed the campaign positively on both counts.

"Clearly, women have come a long way in a short time," she said in a statement released through the NGO's U.S. partner, Freedom House.

"In the one month since the emir called for elections, women candidates and voters have made this election about issues rather than traditional affiliations."

Speaking during a visit to a polling station, Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammad al-Sabah said "the participation of women has added a new spirit to the march of democracy in Kuwait." Turnout was around 66 percent.

Suffrage for women in Kuwait leaves Saudi Arabia as the only country in the world that holds elections but does not allow women to vote. Women in Lebanon may only vote if they hold a stipulated educational qualification, not required for men.

(The United Arab Emirates and Brunei do not hold elections at all, and a number of countries that do fail to meet standards for free and fair democratic elections.)

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. congratulated Kuwait on the election, where participation by male and female voters was robust.

"The turnout demonstrates the universal value of democracy across cultures and
regions."

Mideast political commentator and Iranian author Amir Taheri says that despite Kuwait's small size, its election is important because of the effect it will have on politics in the broader Arab world.

"The exercise will help consolidate the idea of holding elections as a means of securing access to power, something new and still fragile in most Arab states," he said in a recent column.

Taheri also saw the Iraq situation as having played an important role in what he called the region's new interest in holding elections.

Arab elites saw how quickly Saddam Hussein's regime, the region's most powerful, had toppled, and observed that "an Arab regime without some mandate from the people is never more than a house of cards."

Arabs had also watched as millions of Iraqis lined up to vote, repeatedly, all within a couple of years, he said.  "
 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200606/INT20060630b.html
Entry #418

"Buffeting the Death Tax

Private property rights have been under assault from the left for years ... eminent domain, wealth redistribution through forced taxation, estate tax, capital gains tax. 

Excellent article pointing out what's real about humans, that we like to enjoy what we've worked for, accumulated, paid taxes on while doing so .... and should have the right to dispose of it as we see fit WITHOUT further social engineering taxation.

Emphasis added mine.

"Buffeting the Death Tax
By James R. Harrigan
Source TechCentralStationDaily

"While no political thinker worth his salt underestimates the importance of private property, Machiavelli cut to the heart of the matter most succinctly. A prince, he wrote, "must not touch the property of others, because men sooner forget the killing of a father than the loss of their patrimony."

 

James Madison's analysis, while a bit more high-minded, amounts to nearly the same thing. He asserted in Federalist 10 that "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate" will always lead to divergent interests within society. Men will, he held, invariably exhibit different abilities and inclinations. Some will be smarter, more industrious, even luckier than others, and in a condition of general equality these differences will lead inexorably to economic inequality. Government must be up to the task of protecting the gains of the few against the many if need be. Indeed, he said, "The protection of these faculties is the first object of government."

 

And few have been more protected than Warren Buffett. He is without question the most successful investor of the second half of the 20th century, and he is poised to become one of the greatest philanthropists of all time with his pledge of more than $37 billion to various charities, most notably the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

While the gift makes Buffett look like the capitalist with a heart of gold, the timing of his announcement might have more to do with recent legislative machinations over the estate tax, not to mention his apparent faith in social engineering. The House, after all, sent an estate tax reduction bill to the Senate on Friday. By Monday Buffett was monopolizing the air waves with his divestiture. The terms of the legislative debate, if there was even to be a debate in the Senate, have been indelibly redefined by the so-called "Oracle of Omaha."

 

Coincidence? Not likely.

 

The estate tax, or death tax as it is more commonly known, was targeted for extinction in the first round of President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and has long been an object of Republican scorn. Continued resistance in the Senate has made repeal impossible, but an impending election cycle has put the issue back into play. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked for and received a watered-down bill, a bill which passed the House in a 269-156 vote and has a fighting chance at getting the 60 votes needed to conduct business in the Senate. If the bill becomes law, estates worth up to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples would escape taxation entirely beginning in 2010. After the exemptions, estates worth up to $25 million would be subject to rates equal to those on capital gains, rates which are now 15% but are scheduled to increase to 20% in 2011. The remainder of estates which exceed the $25 million limit would be taxed at 30% until the capital gains rate hike in 2011, at which point they would be taxed at 40%. Some estimates hold that the number of estates subject to the tax will decrease from 30,000, which was the number for 2004, the last year for which data is available, to only 5,100 when the law takes full effect in 2011.

 

In the press conference announcing his gift to the Gates Foundation, Buffett addressed the tax explicitly. "It's a very equitable tax," he said, urging Congress to maintain the status quo. "It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged."

 

Like all good nanny-state proponents, Buffett would use tax policy as a blunt-force tool to achieve his social preferences while simultaneously closing the door on dissenting views. The real problem, after all, isn't that Buffett is disposing of his assets according to his own wishes, it is that he would deny others the same level of self-determination given half a chance.

 

When asked how his children took the news of his impending liquidation, Buffett said, "My kids were elated when I told them. They knew my views on inherited wealth and shared them. I believe in equality of opportunity...They should not inherit my position in society..." Warren Buffett's position in society is not up for grabs though, and he knows as much. The only thing that his children could have inherited was the accumulated result of a lifetime of impressive work. And why shouldn't this be an option? How is wealth given to a foundation qualitatively different from wealth given to sons and daughters? In a 2001 New York Times interview Buffett offered his answer, saying, "We have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world. You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

 

But the "resources of the nation" are not at issue; and this was no slip of the tongue. Private resources are at issue, and they have been taxed already -- multiple times in many cases. Also on display is his raw paternalism. Someone might inform Mr. Buffett that "people with talents" are not "put to the best use" in a free society. They choose their own paths, just as he has always done. And in a free society the purpose of taxes is to raise revenue, not remake society in the image of an enlightened investor.

 

Buffett often claims that he believes in equality of opportunity. Without the ability to enjoy the spoils of success, though, equality of opportunity is a meaningless term. The means by which one can enjoy the fruits of his own labors is a decidedly personal matter, and the "pursuit of happiness," to borrow a phrase, is invariably a self-defined endeavor. Neither Warren Buffett nor the United States Congress can change this by fiat, no matter how well-intentioned.

 

Warren Buffett can dispose of his own property any way that he wants, but nothing gives him the right to interfere with others as they do the same. He should be lauded for his gift, and if others choose to follow his lead, that is their prerogative. If they choose to follow their own path, he should respectfully withhold comment.

 

Madison would have said as much. He also would have advised the Senate to ignore Buffett's grandstanding and follow the House's lead. In a perfect world the death tax would be eliminated entirely and immediately, but in a perfect world 41 Senators, aided, abetted, and goaded by Warren Buffett would not have the ability to stifle the popular will. Passing the compromise tax cut now will make eliminating the tax easier later, and it will strike a blow against would-be social engineers, both public and private. It's hard to say which of these two eventualities would have a more salutary effect over the long term.

 

James R. Harrigan is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062806E 

Entry #417

"Illegal Alien Employers Will Face Lawsuits

Wow, looks like we the people are taking action on the problem ourselves via our legal system, instead of waiting for our nanny government to take care of our every need. 

Guess we're beginning to grow up.

 

"Illegal Alien Employers Will Face Lawsuits for Unfair Business Practices
June 27, 2006
Vox Populi, Jim Kouri
by Jim Kouri, CPP

With the federal government's failure to curtail the onslaught of illegal aliens into the United States, coupled with the inaction of lawmakers in Washington, DC to pass real immigration reform, some Americans are looking at legal alternatives to thwart illegal immigration and those who facilitate it.

In addition, more and more Americans are recognizing that state governments aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and, in fact, several states even aid illegal aliens or provide incentives. Also employers who hire illegal aliens create the driving force for illegals to enter the US in order to secure gainful employment.

For years, employers in California have known that they could hire illegal aliens without having to worry very much about as far as being prosecuted for breaking the law. Soon, however, they may have something serious to worry about: their competitors taking legal action against them.

According to legal experts, a Californian civil law includes a provision for a company that knowingly employs illegal aliens to be sued by competitors who have suffered economic damages as a result of such an illegal practice. When a construction company, for instance, uses minimum wage workers who are illegal aliens to underbid competitors in order to secure work contracts, those companies who hire Americans and legal "green card" immigrants and pay fair wages will be able to sue the illegal aliens' employer in a court of law.

As a result, dozens of scofflaw employers may soon find themselves in court as defendants. David Klehm, an Orange County attorney and founder of the IllegalEmployers.org website, together with the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), a Washington, DC-based public interest law center affiliated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), are planning to file lawsuits against companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens. The lawsuits will be brought against businesses that hire illegals by a battery of lawyers who can best be described as Minutemen of the courts.

The suits - some to be filed as early as this summer - will seek restitution, damages and market protections on behalf of law-abiding small and medium-sized business owners who obey the law and use due diligence to identify illegal aliens who submit phony identification documents. Also, while the plaintiffs may be small to medium-sized companies, the defendents in these suits may be large corporations.

"Honest business owners and hardworking Americans are the forgotten victims of unenforced laws against illegal immigration," said Klehm.

"Since setting up IllegalEmployers.org I have received numerous requests for assistance from law-abiding employers who are struggling to stay in business because they face unfair competition from other companies who hire illegal aliens at lower wages, without benefits, and who often get away without contributing to the worker's compensation fund. The employers we represent are not asking for any special breaks; they just want to be able to compete for business on a level playing field," the experienced attorney wrote in a statement.

The Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement (FIRE) group, creator of the WeHireAliens.com website, has also played a crucial role in identifying scofflaw employers.

"Our alliance seeks companies that have lost business as the result of the illegal hiring practices of their competitors," explained Mike Hethmon, an attorney for IRLI.

"We are working with David Klehm because we believe that removing the economic incentives to hire illegal aliens is a key to solving this national crisis. We see this alliance as a model for cooperation between citizens concerned about illegal immigration and the
majority of American businesses that are concerned about the effects of illegal immigration on the US economy," he said.

IRLI, which was founded as a legal advocacy group dedicated to representing the interests of American citizens in immigration law, has helped employers and legal workers recover damages using federal RICO statutes (Racketeering Influence and Criminal Organization Act).

"Even though the federal government is refusing to protect honest employers by enforcing laws against hiring illegal aliens, California law provides those employers a mechanism to defend themselves. This is the first time these state laws have been used to fight the effects of illegal immigration, but it won't be the last," noted Hethmon.

There are other states that have laws that may provide remedies to unfair business practices such as hiring illegal aliens at lower wages. Attorneys working for nonprofit, public interest organizations will be closely watching and studying the upcoming California cases

According to Klehm, honest businesses in the Golden State have lost billions of dollars over the years as a result of being undercut by competitors who employ illegal aliens. Under the law, they are entitled to compensation.

"For some of our clients, their only choice is to file a lawsuit or file bankruptcy papers," said Klehm.

"It is a choice that unfortunately been forced on them by the government's failure to enforce explicit laws against hiring illegal aliens. People who obey the law should not be forced into bankruptcy by those who don't."

The idea is simple: make hiring illegal aliens so costly that companies will find it in their best interest to avoid hiring illegal aliens. If there are no jobs for illegals, then the number of people sneaking into the US will dwindle, making US borders easier to protect against criminal aliens, drug and human traffickers, and terrorists.  "

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. "

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/06/27/illegal-alien-employers-will-face-lawsuits-for-unfair-business-practices/

Entry #416

Putin orders special forces to Iraq

Lurking  Believe it was Putin who said to the effect "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we crush them." 

Don't believe they tolerate all the PC we have to slog through in the US.

"Putin orders probe into hostages' deaths
7 minutes ago

MOSCOW - President

Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian special services to try to find and eliminate the killers of four Russian hostages in

Iraq, news agencies reported Wednesday.


"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," news agencies cited the Kremlin press service as saying."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iraq;_ylt=AkZf5A9uvcnpc3KH2HbB3WSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY

Entry #415

"McKinney Campaign Website Uses Racial Slurs, Critic Says

Unless voting laws have changed in Georgia a person can vote in whatever primary they CHOOSE to vote in regardless of party affiliation. 
Politacal strategies have been for years to vote in the opposing party's primary for the weakest candidate. 
The calim of illegality of crossing over, voting in the other party's primary or for the other party in the general election below is incorrect unless a law has been passed recently to prevent doing so for which I am not aware. 
"McKinney Campaign Website Uses Racial Slurs, Critic Says
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 27, 2006

"(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who charged last March that the Capitol Police harassed her because she is "a female black Congresswoman," allows posters on her re-election website to use racial slurs, a conservative black leader says.

Prominently featured on McKinney's campaign site are messages from people supporting the Georgia Democrat who refer to Republicans as "good ol' boy cracker-crats" and call a former Democratic opponent "an Oreo black candidate."

On the front page of the site, Greg Palast, an investigative reporter with the BBC, says: "The good ol' boy cracker-crats of the Republican Party are having themselves a regular hootenanny over allegations that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney landed a punch on a security guard at the Capitol."

Click these links to visit the original page or to view a screen capture.

She later apologized for hitting the officer with her cell phone, saying: "I know that the Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred."

McKinney, who represented the mostly African-American Fourth District of Georgia from 1992 to 2002 and regained her seat in 2004, also links to an article entitled "The Beloved Cynthia McKinney" from Michael Ruppert, a former police detective from Los Angeles who says he is a friend of McKinney's.

In the article, Ruppert attacks former Rep. Denise Majette (D-Ga.) with a racial epithet. Majette defeated McKinney in the Democratic primary in 2002 after the district had been redrawn. She served one term in the House before running for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

"An Oreo black candidate named Denise Majette emerged as lots of money poured from the coffers of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) funded not only a hate campaign against McKinney, but in support of her opponent as well," Ruppert wrote.

Click the links to visit the original page or to view a screen capture.

"Illegally, thousands of Republican voters crossed over to vote for the Oreo in the primary while the seat stayed safely Democratic, and all were quietly relieved when Cynthia didn't even make it to the general election," he continued.

Mychal Massie, chairman of the conservative group Project 21, said McKinney is responsible for the comments made by her "loyal fledglings."

"This is on her website; she is responsible for what is on her website," he said.

Massie told Cybercast News Service the comments are "morally opprobrious. They are disgusting, they are not worthy of any person, much less persons who occupy public office, and are sworn to act in the best interests of all people regardless of color, race or ethnicity."

"They are just wrong, but they are obviously not out of character for Cynthia McKinney or her fledglings," he said.

"Cynthia McKinney has time and time again risen to the lowest common denominator to show forth her lack of character, her lack of professionalism, her lack of decorum and her lack of respect for rule of law or for the provisions that govern others," Massie stated.

"She is not worthy, she is not fit to grace the halls of Congress," he added. "She brings with her a hatred, an animus and a racism that should have left America at the end of Jim Crow."

Calls made to Cynthia McKinney's campaign office seeking comment for this article were not returned by press time. "
Entry #414

"Americans With No Abilities Act

This is a SATIRE so requires a sense of humor.  Green laugh  Green laugh  Green laugh 

However, since there are so many new categories being created to buy votes it may be nearer than we might care to believe. 

If unions have their way it will become law. 

"AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT
email from Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing."

The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.

Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%),and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%)

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?? or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

"It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation," said Senator Ted Kennedy.  " 

Entry #413

UN challenging our Second Amendment

Typical socialist strategy .... confiscate guns from law abiding so that they can not protect themselves from criminals who DO possess firearms and YES have a solid history of using them.

One of the strategies used by Mao in the genocidal communist conquest of China.  Read if you don't believe it.

http://ninecommentaries.com/ 

 

"The UN Challenge to the Second Amendment
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 26, 2006

As our Independence Day celebration approaches, the United Nations is holding a global conference in New York, starting on June 26th and lasting through July 7th, whose real agenda is to begin a backdoor process of interference with our constitutionally protected right to individually bear arms.  The UN denies this, of course.  It says that the only purpose of the conference is to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects that was adopted in 2001.  Faced with over 100,000 letters of protest about the review conference from American citizens concerned about holding on to their freedoms, the conference chairman - Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador – said that this year’s review conference will deal only with illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession."   The review conference’s website says that “it is not the wish of nations attending the Conference to discuss outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal ownership.” (emphasis in the original).  

 

The review conference’s backers blame the National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, came out recently with a book entitled "The Global War on Your Guns", for inflaming passions by distorting what the review conference is intended to accomplish.  Unfortunately for American citizens, however, the NRA is right.  The United Nations and its well-heeled backers are playing word games to cover their true intentions, as they always do.  This is the typical ‘stealth’ strategy that I discuss at length in my book, “Global Deception.”  Here we find Chairman Kariyawasam, and the gun prohibitionist crowd who are pulling the strings for the review conference from behind the scenes, caught in a web of deception of their own making.

 

In his so-called “non-paper for informal consultation purposes” dated  May 18, 2006 (yes folks, only the United Nations can call a document of 10 pages of recommendations a ‘non-paper’), Chairman Kariyawasam recommended as one concrete measure that “States that have not already done so” should “adopt adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to regulate the possession of small arms and light weapons.” This ‘non-paper’ is intended to serve as the basis for an eventual ‘Outcome Document’ approved by the review committee.   The Outcome Document, in turn, will no doubt be characterized as the UN’s official implementing interpretation of the Programme of Action.  Note that the reference to the regulation of the possession of small arms had been proposed and rejected when the Programme of Action itself was adopted in 2001, but its backers are seeking to restore the idea through the back door of the review conference’s Outcome Document. 

 

Predictably, the anti-gun possession fanatic Rebecca Peters, who is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) - a network of more than 700 non-governmental organizations working in 100 countries against the individual’s right to bear arms – has seized on this opening.   IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process.  Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.  IANSA is already guaranteed to have a seat at the table, but it is pressing for a fuller partnership with the member state delegations in the review conference’s deliberations. 

 

In her response to Chairman Kariyawasam’s ‘non-paper’, Peters wrote that IANSA welcomed “the reference to regulating the possession of small arms and light weapons” but urged that it be expanded.   She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.” 

 

Peters knows that the United States will block any legally binding treaty that contains a reference to regulation of possession of small arms.  However, she is doing all that she can to get a UN-sponsored international norm against individual gun possession on the record somehow – what IANSA in the past has referred to as “norms of non-possession.”  She claims that many member states are calling for the review conference's Outcome Document to recognize the critical importance of national gun laws and to suggest guidelines or standards for such laws.  Indeed, IANSA has the backing of an inter-governmental organization known as The Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons which, according to its website, was created to serve as an international platform for parliamentarians interested in small arms related work, to contribute to the advancement of the small arms agenda, and “to provide space for parliamentarians and civil society to meet and join forces”.   The Parliamentary Forum is in complete synch with Rebecca Peters’ IANSA agenda.  It proposed a ‘Model Parliamentary Resolution on Small Arms and Light Weapons’ that resolved to “strongly recommend that governments prohibit the civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.”

 

Peters’ strategy, with the help of the chairman of the UN review conference and the Parliamentary Forum, is to enshrine international norms against civilian gun possession in an interpretive document that gun prohibitionists can label ‘customary international law.’  Such a document would legitimize Peters’ dogma that “gun ownership is not a right but a privilege.”  IANSA can then use the international norms in our own courts to attack the notion that an individual right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.  They are counting on sympathetic federal judges, right up to the Supreme Court, to interpret the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections by deferring to ‘international norms’ against individual gun possession.   In short, the stealth strategy here is for IANSA to drive the UN review conference’s agenda, obtain the wording they seek on curtailing private gun possession in the review conference’s official Outcome Document that they can point to as an ‘international norm’, and then argue that this ‘interna­tional norm’ should be incorporated into our courts’ interpretation of the Second Amend­ment -- converting a constitutionally protected individual right into a government-bestowed privilege.

 

Ironically, IANSA is headquartered in London.  One of its UK-based member organizations called International Alert showed no compunction at all in boldly declaring that “the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to possess or carry guns.”   Apparently some British folks have forgotten from whom we won our freedom -and why we sought it in the first place.  We should as a nation celebrate our Declaration of Independence by telling the gun prohibitionists who are assembling in New York from all over the world during our Independence Day holiday to either stay out of our business or stay out of our country.

Entry #412

"Routine Evil

"Routine Evil


By Ralph Kinney Bennett

Source TechCentralStation


"There was an awful inevitability to what happened to those two American soldiers.


Did anyone believe for one moment that they would be treated with respect according to the Geneva Convention?


Only the fact that these fanatics have been on the run prevented a more spectacular staging of their deaths.


This brutal murder brings revulsion but not surprise.


This is the routine evil of those worse than beasts.


This is the routine evil that beheaded Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg; that left Van Gogh dead on a street in Holland.


This is the routine evil that still wraps itself in the garb of a religion while leaving young students bound and shot beside their bus and innocent women and children blown to bits in the market place.


The routine evil that draws comfort from the ignorant maunderings of a Murtha or a Sheehan; that somehow escapes the diligent moral radar of Human Rights Watch.


The routine evil that finds shelter in partisan "talking points" about the war and the shameless babble of armchair thumbsuckers about "reciprocity" with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.


The routine evil of men with a vision of a world of subjugated women and mindless children, ignorant of all but blood and suicide and revenge.


This is the routine evil that dreams of cyanide gas in subways and thirsts for a nuclear weapon.


This is the routine evil that some still think can be embraced into civility, "brought into government," tamed away from its loathsome imperatives.


This is the routine evil that will not be ignored and must be exterminated. "


http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062106D

Ralph Kinney Bennett is a TCS contributing editor.  "

Entry #411

Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

At heart of socialist agenda is asset re-distribution (yes forcibly taking what you have through taxation out the waz ... and giving it to someone else), plus NO private property rights via the same process, I find his a relief given recent Supreme Court rulings about eminent domain. 

"Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

 

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
Entry #410

Northern Hemisphere rose 1 degree 20th century

Earlier in this century there were more trees shading, cooling the earth because development had not encroached on forested areas, clear-cutting many. 

Ever felt a breeze flow out from a shaded area on a hot day???? 

Much cooler than one blowing across an exposed lawn or bare land. 

Obviously global warming Chicken-Littles want to leave their imprint on history through engineering fear ....... when simple logic works much better.  It's far easier to manipulate the media for a humanitarian-environmental gold star than it is to stay behind a national tree planting project applicable to area climates.  Looks like another way for the MSM to award itself and science to support itself on government grants which furnish crumbs of validity so small they wouldn't feed an ant.

Trees, maybe not the whole answer but IMHO a very big part of helping alleviate "heat-island effect" many areas are experiencing where it's simply not cool enough to condense rain from water rich clouds.  

"EARTH HOTTEST IT'S BEEN IN 2,000 YEARS

"The headlines are screaming today that thanks to global warming, the Earth is now hotter than it's been in 2,000 years!  Boy, we've really screwed up the planet, haven't we?  It's now supposedly warmer than it was when Jesus was hanging around.  According to something called "The National Academy of Sciences," using climate data for the last 200 years they have decided that humans are responsible for making the Earth hotter than it's been in the last 2,000 years.

That's right...the temperature data barely goes back 200 years...and now they know how hot the Earth was 2,000 years ago?  That's strike one. Supposedly they used data gathered from tree rings, lake sediments and so forth to determine how hot it was all that time ago.  But that is an educated guess and not fact.  And by the way, buried at the end of the news story is a fact the global warming fanatics don't want you to know.

The overall temperature of the Northern Hemisphere only rose 1 degree in the 20th century.  1 degree! That's some global warming. "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200606/06232006.html#hothothot

Entry #409

"He was a spy for China." .....

Hmmmmm, no wonder China is becoming so technically advanced so quickly. 

Clinton tied our intellingence into hard knots to prevent it from discovering he was filling his pockets with illegal campaign contributions from China in exchange for declassifying top secret dual use technonogy which was sold to China by Loral Corp and others. 

At least intelligence was keeping an eye on him during Bush 41 before it was totally decimated.   

"Ex-DIA analyst admits passing secrets to China

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 23, 2006

<excerpt>

A former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst has pleaded guilty to illegally holding classified documents and admitted in a plea agreement to passing "top secret" information to Chinese intelligence officials.
    Ronald N. Montaperto, the former analyst who held a security clearance as a China specialist at a U.S. Pacific Command research center until 2004, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful retention of national defense information, according to court papers and law officials familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
    "Montaperto admitted to verbally providing [Chinese military] attaches a considerable amount of information that was useful to them, including classified information," according to a statement of facts submitted in the case.
    Montaperto told investigators he could not recall specific information he gave Chinese attaches Col. Yang Qiming, Col. Yu Zhenghe and other Chinese officers during his 22-year career in government. But the statement said it included both "secret" and "top secret" data. It also said he had close unauthorized relationships with the two officers.
    The guilty plea was part of an agreement reached Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. The conviction can carry fines of up to $250,000 and a prison term of up to 10 years. Sentencing is set for Sept. 8.
    A Pentagon official said Montaperto's value to China included both the secrets he shared and his role facilitating Chinese deception of U.S. intelligence by providing feedback on how those efforts were working.
    A senior U.S. intelligence official bluntly stated, "He was a spy for China." .....

......"Montaperto, 66, joined the DIA in 1981 and eight years later sought a post at the CIA that eventually led to suspicions he was a spy for China. An investigation of his links to Chinese intelligence in 1991 was dropped for lack of evidence."....

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060623-120347-7268r.htm

Entry #408

"Sarin

Picked this link up from another site.  Same site also provides information about the following chemical agents:

Cyanide
Tabun
VX
Mustard Gas

"Sarin
"The chemical formula for Sarin gas was forwarded to the Chemical warfare division of the German army at a Berlin-Spandau office during June 1939.Handling of the nerve agent at that time required the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF).Pilot plants were built at Spandau, Münster Lager, on Lüneberg heath, and pilot manufacture of Sarin was carried out in Building 144 in Dyernfurth.

Sarin gas was on full-scale production during that period time when Adolf Hitler was in power in Nazi Germany.Up to 10 tons of the gas was produced by the end of WWII.Latest use of Sarin was in the nerve gas attack of a Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in 1995.

Obviously, its roots can be traced back to fact that Nazi Germany and Japan were in the Axis alliance during world war two, yet Japan never seemed to go ahead with the industrial synthesis of Sarin.

The infamous Sarin gas possesses a variety of names but it was entitled after its four pioneers namely Schrader,Ambros,Rudriger and van der LINde.Being classified as a toxic organophosphorus compound, Sarin like most other nerve agents,is colorless,odorless,tasteless and diffuses very rapidly into the human skin due to its high volatility.

Moreover, due to its high density, Sarin gas tends to drift above the ground for weeks if not months, depending on how much is used.Just for the record, Sarin is known to vapourise 36 times more rapidly than Tabun, is 26 times more deadly than cyanide, 21 times more lethal than potassium cyanide and all it takes is 0.01 mg for every 1kg of body mass for it to be fatal for a human." ............

Note: article continues for 2 more pages

http://library.thinkquest.org/27393/dreamwvr/agents/sarin1.htm 

 
Entry #407

"Liars

"The antiwar Left’s claim that “Bush lied” about Saddam Hussein possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction has itself been proven a lie.

 

Last night Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, released the declassified overview of a report produced by the National Ground Intelligence Center, the group that has searched Iraq for Saddam Hussein’s WMDs since 2004. Its stunning revelation: there were WMDs, after all.

 

Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist. That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

 

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, noted this is significant, since “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.”

 

The report further justified President Bush’s rationale for toppling Saddam: he had WMDs that he may have transferred to terrorists.

 
Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are Sarin- and mustard [gas]-filled projectiles.
 
For emphasis, Sen. Santorum added, “And I underscore ‘filled.’” Ready-to-use WMDs apparently dot the Iraqi map. As evidence continues to pour in about Saddam’s connections to al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, and other terrorist networks prior to the invasion, the nightmare scenario writes itself.
 

All of which makes the anti-Bush, antiwar Left’s rhetoric sound more shrill and opportunistic than it did at the time:

 
  • President Bush “engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate the facts in service to a totalistic ideology.” – Vice President Al Gore in a 2003 speech before MoveOn.org.
  • “As in Vietnam, truth was the first casualty of this war.” – Ted Kennedy in a speech at Johns Hopkins University early last year.
  • “What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate. It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.” – Howard Dean, in the same interview in which he said “the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”
  • “We know now that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction over there. But Coretta [Scott King] knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.” – Rev. Joseph Lowery, at Coretta Scott King’s funeral.
  • “He misled every one of us.” – John Kerry in 2003.
  • “He lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and he lied about the war.” – Maxine Waters, D-CA.
  • “We cannot lead if our leaders mislead.” – Former President Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

These rhetorical assaults made against a sitting president during a time of war would be somewhat less vicious, egregious, or gratuitous were they born of heartfelt conviction. However, yesterday’s disclosure was not exactly news. For one thing, many of the “Bush lied”/”Saddam never had WMDs” brigade had thundered that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons before, during, and after the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only after the Soros-funded "base" of their party made a pro-war stance political suicide did most of today's critics turn against the president, the war, and the mission they had sent more than 100,000 American troops to die achieving.

 

Then the president’s harshest detractors turned a blind eye to proof of Saddam’s verboten cache.

 
President Clinton, James Woolsey, David Kay, and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski indicated years ago they believed Saddam still had WMDs. Then the weapons themselves started turning up.
 
  • In early 2004, Dutch officials discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore in scrap metal imported from Iraq.
  • In subsequent months, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found parts of banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles shipped around the world as “scrap.”
  • In April 2004, Jordanian officials seize 20 tons of WMDs from al-Qaeda containing 70 different chemical agents, including Sarin and VX gas. King Abdullah announced on April 17 the stockpiles originated in Iraq. If detonated as planned, they would have killed at least 80,000 people.
  • The following month, Saddam loyalists fired a “chemical binary projectile” filled with Sarin gas at U.S. troops in Iraq.
  • In early 2006, Gen. Georges Sada, the number two man in the Iraqi air force, told American media outlets that Saddam Hussein buried some WMDs in concrete underground bunkers in Iraq; others he shipped or airlifted to Syria with Russian assistance.
Yesterday’s announcement by Santorum and Hoekstra is but the most specific documentation of “An Inconvenient Truth”: Saddam did not destroy his weapons stockpiles, the UN inspectors were indeed inept, and the weapons may yet fall into the hands of terrorists if American troops are prematurely withdrawn from Iraq, as Messrs. Murtha and Kerry long to do.


 

How has the Left greeted this news? For the most part, they have focused on more “pressing” stories, such as the Marines being charged with murder, Republicans not increasing the minimum wage, anal sex (which is apparently Arianna Hufftington’s beat), and Making the Case for Impeachment (naturally).

 

A few have responded. The Daily Kos featured the headline “PA-Sen: Santorum Makes Up.” To justify its profane assertion, it cites all the inspectors who didn’t find WMDs – which is rather like the defense calling witnesses who had not see the accused commit the murder.

 

Even as incontrovertible proof exonerated the president, Gucci Marxist and ignoramus Robert Scheer told MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson last night, “We’re talking about whether it’s right to lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction…so I want a candidate that will tell the truth about the lies of this administration.”

 

As the weeks unfold, the Democratic Party’s base will likely adopt Scheer’s m.o. as their own: after all, the Big Lie tactic has proven successful elsewhere. The Left’s hardcore activists, invested in American defeat in Iraq and Republican defeat in ’06 and ’08, will not refrain from calling President Bush a lying Nazi even if Saddam, in a fit of hunger-induced insanity, admitted every sin and dark machination lurking in his evil heart.


But their continuing to do so should underscore their idiocy and mendacity."

 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=23059

Entry #406

"Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Live embedded links.

"Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Source FoxNews.com

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

<excerpt>

"WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document. ..............

.......Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction." ........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Entry #405
Page 560 of 587
Guest