Illinois isn't the only state with political fraud

The U.S. Attorney brought a case against former Sen. Vince Fumo of PA. He was found guilty today of 137 counts of corruption! They are holding the bail hearing now to see if he should go straight to jail. Even the governor was supoened to testify.

Sure wish they would start an investigation against him, too, as he probably did the same things, especially with the way he takes care of only certain groups. Hope this link works.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20090316_Fumo_judge_allows_Twittering_juror_to_stay_on_panel_.html

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.

CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL

In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.

Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.

It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.

In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.

Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.

Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.

So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.

Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.

The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.

they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.

I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.

Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.

just one of many many many and the sheep who won't open their eyes to the mess the repubs have made will never learn

Please don't think I am accusing everyone who gets public assistance of this. Many people who get the assistance really need it, and I have a friend who is an example.

But there is also a subculture involved here. People can qualify for food stamps who have undocumented income, under-the-table earnings, and even money from criminal activity. They don't actually need the food stamps to eat, but they get them.

Back when food stamps were actual coupons, there used to be a thriving black market in buying and selling food stamps for a percentage of their cash value. Then the money could be used for tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other things. Maybe the new debit card system put a stop to this, maybe not. The money goes into your account every month. All it would take is lending your card and sharing your PIN number with someone. My friend has never been asked for ID.

And if the object of this assistance is to feed (and I think by that we mean nourish) people, is it right for parents to stuff their kids full of twinkies, chips and Pepsi with the food stamp money? What the kids need is nourishment, not junk. What we end up with is another poorly nourished, hyperactive generation that cannot concentrate and learn in school, then cannot hold down an adequate job, and the cycle repeats itself.

In the county where I live, if you are on public health assistance and get pregnant you have to comply with a whole host of requirements. Parenting classes, classes on prenatal nutrition, classes on how to take care of an infant, regular checkups, drug tests, classes on contraception, etc. You should consider this a job. We are paying you to have a healthy baby, and these are your duties. Women scream about this being degrading, and an invasion of their privacy.

But honestly, if you accept the assistance, why would you assume there should be no strings? Why would you assume you don't have to jump through some hoops to get it? Do you expect to be left alone until the day of delivery, get a free stay in the hospital, and go your merry way? Can't we assume that since this is your second illegetimate pregnancy, you don't really know what's causing it? Or you forgot and need to repeat the class?

These types of assistance are supposed to be an investment society makes in improving the situation. Used properly, they can be. But often they are considered just another entitlement. *Just gimme the money and get outta my face.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-l...-c_b_11483.html

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as conspiracy theories adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received more than 57,000 complaints following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines. The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected. In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate. Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level. 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a widespread conspiracy but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-campaign-launches-voter-fraud-web.html

Keep a close eye on your credit card bills this election season lest you end up paying for a contribution you didn�t approve to a political candidate you don�t support

A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month ? a $2300 donation to Barack Obama?s presidential campaign. The Larman?s say they don?t want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they?re not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook

They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud

?(They) said that they had seen-they were familiar with this,? said Steve Larman. ?It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were going to be doing some more investigations.?
The Larman?s don?t want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds insult to injury for the registered Republicans

?They (Chase) kept on asking me ?are you sure you wouldnt have gone to a site in support of Obama?,? said Rachel Larman. ?And I repeatedly said ?Im voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site?.?

Chase dropped the charge from the Larman?s card. The couple is thankful thay they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it?s too late.

This wasn�t just some random prankster. $2,300 is the exact amount of the maximum any individual can give to a federal candidate for office