Please email Governor Perry to protest the execution of David Martinez scheduled for Thursday July 28.
You can read more about this case in the two newspaper articles below.
To make sure Perry receives your message, in addition to emailing him, please call him and leave a phone message at (512) 463-2000 or you can fax him at (512) 463-1849.
A petition to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles seeking to commute Matinez's sentence to life or grant a 120-day reprieve was rejected Tuesday by a 7-0 vote.
Thank you to the hundreds of people who took action last month to urge Gov. Perry to sign the Life Without Parole bill, which he signed on June 17.
Thank you for taking action,Texas Moratorium Network!

Please attend a protest or vigil in your city on Thursday, July 28.
In Austin, Campaign to End the Death Penalty is sponsoring a protest at the Governor's Mansion at 5:30 PM on July 28.
Statewide Execution Vigils
Huntsville - Corner of 12th Street and Avenue I (in front of the Walls Unit) at 5:00 p.m.
Austin - At the Governor's Mansion on the Lavaca St. side between 10th and 11th St. from 5:30 to 6:30 PM.
Beaumont - Diocese of Beaumont, Diocesan Pastoral Office, 703 Archie St. @ 4:00 p.m. on the day of an execution.
College Station - 5:30 to 6 PM, east of Texas A &M campus at the corner of Walton and Texas Ave. across the street from the main entrance.
Dallas - 5:30 pm, at the SMU Women's Center, 3116 Fondren Drive
Houston - St. Anne's Church at Westheimer and Shepherd, 5:30 to 6:20 PM.
McKinney - St. Gabriel the Archangel Catholic Community located at 110 St. Gabriel Way @ 5:30 p.m. on the day of an execution.
San Antonio - Main Plaza across from Bexar County Courthouse and San Fernando Cathedral - Noon
Martinez appeal turned downJuly 27, 2005
Execution set for Thursday; U.S. Supreme Court next for man who killed woman along Barton Creek greenbelt.
By Chuck Lindell AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Texas' highest criminal appeals court refused Wednesday to throw out the death sentence of David Martinez, 29, convicted in 1998 of killing Kiersa Paul on the Barton Creek greenbelt.
Martinez is scheduled to die by chemical injection just after 6 p.m. Thursday for the 1997 murder of Paul, a 24-year-old Minnesota resident who had spent several months living in Austin.
His next appeal will be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Paul was strangled, raped and stabbed on the Barton Creek greenbelt eight years ago this month.
Martinez, who was arrested a short time later, alleged in his appeal that District Attorney Ronnie Earle's office did not adequately investigate claims that as a teenager Martinez was sexually assaulted by his father, Ray Martinez, and his father's companion, Evan Mullen.
Evidence of sexual abuse has prompted juries to opt for a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
Wednesday afternoon, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a two-page order dismissing Martinez's request for a new trial and denying the Austin man's motion for a stay of execution.
Take Action to Protest the Execution
Martinez's last-minute appeal says DA failed to investigate abuse claimsDavid Martinez requests new trial just days ahead of scheduled execution.By Chuck LindellAUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFWednesday, July 27, 2005
David Martinez, set to be executed Thursday for the 1997 rape and murder of Kiersa Paul on the Barton Creek greenbelt, is seeking a new trial by arguing that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's office shirked its duty.
The last-gasp appeal accuses prosecutors of failing to adequately investigate allegations that Martinez, now 29, was sexually abused as a teenager by his father and his father's boyfriend, practitioners of a sadomasochistic lifestyle who — until recently — eluded defense investigators while "living a kind of underground life," the appeal states.
Martinez's guilt is not in dispute. But had the jury known about the abuse, it might have sentenced Martinez to life in prison rather than death, said Gary Taylor, Martinez's lawyer.
"The body responsible for conducting a criminal investigation of those (abuse) allegations is basically the district attorney's office, which is same office seeking a conviction in this case. If they substantiate and further our claims, then they hurt their case," Taylor said. "It creates a conflict."
Earle's office rejects the conclusions in Martinez's appeal, which was distributed Tuesday to the nine-member Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
"We were never presented with what seemed to be credible evidence that a sexual assault occurred, as is insinuated," said Bryan Case, director of the district attorney's appellate division. "Especially in light of the fact that the most likely contributor of that kind of credible evidence, if it existed, was sitting in jail and had every opportunity and motivation to let us know."
Paul, a cashier at a central Austin bakery who was taking a break from the University of Minnesota, was found eight years ago this week — strangled and raped with her throat slashed eight times and an "X" carved on her chest. The brutality sparked fears that a predator was stalking one of Austin's most beautiful and prized locations. But within a day, police narrowed their search to Martinez, a troubled acquaintance of the 24-year-old woman.
Instead of relief, however, the arrest confronted Austin with a powerfully wrenching story of loss.
It began in the mid-1990s, when Julie Anderson — adopted as a child and living in Austin — tracked her biological family to Minnesota. Suddenly, Paul had a big sister to go with her two younger siblings, and the two women formed an immediate friendship. And so it was natural that a few years later Anderson invited her sister to Austin when Paul needed a break from school and the northern winters.
Paul flourished in Austin, where she made friends and satisfied her love of the outdoors with bike rides along the Barton Creek greenbelt. That's where she rode her bike on a July evening to meet a friend nicknamed "Wolf" because she felt sorry for him. A jogger found her body the next morning. A day later, police arrested Martinez, also known as Wolf. Martinez had Paul's bike, and her blood was found on his pocketknife.
The jury needed only 15 minutes to find Martinez guilty, then three hours to sentence him to death.
Paul's close-knit family watched all of the trial, filling three benches in the courtroom. This week, a woman who answered the phone at the Bloomington home of Paul's uncle said the family would not discuss the case.
"It's just so hard. It's a difficult time right now," she said.
Martinez, who declined a request to be interviewed, lived on the streets for a time before Paul's death. He left home after a dispute with his father, Ray Martinez, and his father's partner, Evan Muller, who had launched a business selling sadomasochistic paraphernalia when David Martinez was 16, his appeal states.
Trial testimony listed conflicting accounts of abuse from Martinez, who said in a presentence report that he was physically and emotionally abused by both his parents, but told a psychiatrist that no sexual abuse occurred.
The sexual abuse allegations became clearer in Martinez's first appeal, which listed three people who were prepared to testify that he was abused by his father and Muller. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in denying the appeal last year, noted that defense attorneys could not substantiate abuse allegations and that witnesses gave differing accounts of what occurred in Martinez's home.
In fact, both the defense and the prosecution tried, and failed, to subpoena Ray Martinez for the 1998 trial. Nor could he be found during Martinez's first appeal.
With time running out, Taylor recently launched another search for Martinez's father, using almost $10,000 from a private source that Taylor refused to divulge. After a four-state search, an investigator found Ray Martinez in the back yard of his Michigan home, wearing only a thong and nipple rings, the appeal points out.
Ray Martinez denied knowledge of abuse but refused to directly answer questions, according to a statement by investigator David Watson that was included in the appeal. And although a second investigator thought he found Muller's St. Louis home, he was never found or interviewed.
Taylor said finding Ray Martinez adds a crucial piece of potential evidence to his client's case, and he asked the appeals court to grant a new trial with limited discovery — with assistance from prosecutors — to compel testimony by Martinez's father and Muller.
"I can't make someone talk to me. My investigators don't carry badges and wear guns and put you in jail," Taylor said.
Martinez's appeal notes that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that unless allegations of childhood sexual abuse are thoroughly investigated and presented to a jury, there can be no confidence in a death sentence.
But that investigation was thwarted, Taylor claims, by Ray Martinez's and Muller's refusal to testify and by prosecutors' refusal "to investigate or pursue them," the appeal states.
Case, an assistant district attorney, said allegations contained in a defendant's appeal are not enough to launch an investigation of sexual assault. "Both at time of trial and at the time the (first appeal), it would have been in David Martinez's interest to provide us with that evidence," Case said.
Nor could prosecutors approach Martinez, he said. "We could all be disbarred for trying to talk to the defendant."
In addition, Case said, the prosecution's attempt to subpoena Ray Martinez and Muller shows that an attempt was made to investigate the allegations.
In the meantime, all sides await a decision from the appeals court. If the appeal is rejected, Taylor said his next step would be the U.S. Supreme Court.
"At some point, whether they choose this case or not, (appellate courts) are going to have to address this issue where the district attorney is the caretaker of justice — where if the DA takes one action, he may be prosecuting a wrong but may be hurting his case in another area," Taylor said.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 28.7.05 0 comments

Bomb Iraq?
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,Pakistan is looking shifty,North Korea is too risky,Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,Let's look tough for the elections,Close your mind and take directions,Bomb Iraq.
It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,And that's all the proof we need,If they're not there,they must be there,Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,With the weapons that he had,And he tried to kill your dad,Bomb Iraq.
If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,And hiding that ain't easy,And your manhood's getting queasy,Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,Let's make war not love this season,Even if we have no reason,Bomb Iraq.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 27.7.05 0 comments

Congressional Democrats hearing on Plame leak
Two days ago Democrats from the House and Senate came together to hear testimony from former U.S. intelligence agents outraged by the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame by Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, top aide to Cheney. The hearing was chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman. Read the report below for more details. What stands out in the reports about this subject is what Waxman emphasized in his comments - that the importance of the case is its connection to the lies that led us into war in Iraq. Waxman said it was a personal issue for him because he voted for the war based on Cheney's and others' lies about Iraq developing nuclear weapons. I completely agree with him. This is not merely an issue of outing a CIA agentor perjury. This deals with the unnecessary death of over 1,700 Americans in Iraq and untold numbers of Iraqis. For more on the stories referenced below, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/22leak.html?oref=loginhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201830.html?sub=AR
and for a good overview of the case, read the latestarticle in EIR on this at:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3229plumbers_plame.html

JPA..............

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 24.7.05 0 comments

These things work. Look what we did with Fox News.
Notice they don't call their propaganda "Fair andBalanced" anymore.
Now we are going to flank those who would hide the facts about the Downing Street Memo.
Find out how to participate here:http://johnconyers.com/Get the Book! http://www.JustSayNOtoFascism.comFree Bumper - Sticker. http://www.JustSayNOtoFascism.comThe story continues at http://americanwisdom.blogspot.com/

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 22.7.05 0 comments

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative. Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing."If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later disputed the suggestion that the president had shifted his position.The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, disputing administration arguments that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The following day, President Bush and top cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One.The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various levels of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm national security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr. Novak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms. Wilson's maiden name, saying that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Ms. Wilson suggested sending her husband to Niger.Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn't respond to Mr. Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury.In an October 2003 article on the memo, The Wall Street Journal reported that it details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms. Wilson, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to investigate the matter.White House officials had been warning reporters off the notion that the trip to Niger was ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, as Mr. Wilson had suggested. Emails and a first-person account published this week of his grand-jury testimony by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper support this notion. The grand jury is set to expire in October in this case, though its tenure could be extended for six months.It is possible that reporters learned Ms. Wilson's identity from government officials who hadn't seen the memo. Mr. Cooper has testified and written that he was first told of Mr. Wilson's wife by Mr. Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff. Mr. Rove didn't identify Ms. Wilson by name. Similarly, one of Mr. Cooper's other sources, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, said he had heard Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but he didn't identify her any further, according to Mr. Cooper.The fact that two top White House officials discussed a CIA agent with reporters has prompted a furor in Washington, with Democrats calling for the firing of Mr. Rove.A new ABC News poll signaled how the matter has damaged the administration's credibility -- and the political peril Mr. Rove still faces. Just 25% of Americans say the White House is fully cooperating with the federal investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity, down from about half when the investigation began nearly two years ago. Moreover, 75% said Mr. Rove should lose his job if he leaked classified information. The poll of 1,008 adults, conducted July 13-17, has a margin of error of three percentage points.
John Harwood contributed to this article.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 20.7.05 0 comments

In the past weeks,
Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court—someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.
We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
Join our urgent petition to let our senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-3091207-.31Z.NjQr0A_zLY4g7ARTg&t=3
This is one of the most important domestic fights of President Bush's career. We can win—Americans overwhelmingly want a moderate judge. But to win, we need to get the word out early that Roberts is out of the mainstream.
After you've signed, please send this message on to your friends and colleagues. We need to fight back against the misinformation that the Bush administration is putting out.
John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.
Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:
Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.
Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.
Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.
Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.
President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country.
Tell your senators they need to stop John Roberts now, at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-3091207-.31Z.NjQr0A_zLY4g7ARTg&t=4
We'll be in touch soon about next steps. For now, please help us gather as many voices as possible to keep the Supreme Court fair. And thanks for everything you're doing.
Sincerely,
–Ben, Tanya, Justin, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 20.7.05 0 comments

July 23rd House Parties
with Ambassador Joe Wilson, Randi Rhodes
Dear Friend,
July 23rd is the 3-year anniversary of the drafting of the Downing Street Minutes. I am organizing a series of house parties on this date throughout the country in order to broaden public understanding of how Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have manipulated intelligence, deceived the American people, and misled our nation into war.
Given that we learned in the past few days that Karl Rove served as a source for Robert Novak in his column outing Ms. Plame, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to learn not only what and why Rove told the press, but what the president knew and when he knew it. If Rove is willing to spin this issue with the press, as today's New York Times story appears to show, he ought to be willing to come clean with the American people.
Today, 91 of my Democratic colleagues joined me in a letter to the President , demanding that Rove either explain his role in the outing of Valerie Plame or that he resign. I was also joined by 12 Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee asking Chairman Sensenbrenner for hearings on the growing scandal. I believe these hearings will help illustrate how Rovegate is a part of the puzzle of the ongoing Iraq War deception.
Our country is slowing beginning to confront the truth about the about the Bush Administration's deceitful rush to war in Iraq. This has only happened because of people like you are determined to make a difference by getting personally involved. Over 560,000 people to date have signed our Downing Street Minutes letter to the president . Through this effort, and because of the June 16 th hearing I held in the basement of the Capitol, the mainstream media has been forced to recognize that the American public does care about how we ended up in Iraq.
The house parties I have organized for next weekend provide a platform for people to come together and express their strong opposition to the Bush Administration's conduct of war. Please join us at a house party near you. If you can host a party, click here to sign up. We will provide media kits and other materials to assist with the event. If you would rather attend an event, click here.
I will be conducting a special conference call for house party hosts featuring Ambassador Joe Wilson and Randi Rhodes as my special guests.
Additionally, I would to keep in touch with you through news updates and additional action items. If you would like for me to keep you updated on events here in Washington, sign up for my email updates .
Thank you again for your help and support.
Sincerely,
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 16.7.05 0 comments

What does the radical right mean by "judicial activism?"
The most "activist" thing a court can do is to strike down a law passed by Congress. Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, it has determined the constitutionality of 64 congressional provisions - involving Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html
The Justices vary widely in striking down Congressional laws. Justice Thomas, appointed by President Bush, Sr., was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those 64 laws; Justice Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent.
The tally for all Justices is:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
The only conclusion is that those Justices often considered "liberal" -- Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens -- vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. By this measure, the so-called "conservative" group is the most "activist." So - it's obvious the radical right calls it "judicial activism" when a judge makes a decision they don't like. There's no principled consistency - the radical right called the judges who heard the Terri Schiavo case "arrogant," since "activist" didn't fit judges who refused to "act" the way the radical right wanted them to. We need an independent judiciary, free of such pressures.
Dave Haigler, Abilene
http://demlog.blogspot.com

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 11.7.05 0 comments

House Republican broke pledge to sit out school finance vote
Vote might face challenge after Pitts, who agreed to 'pairing' with Dukes, voted in favor of bill
AUSTIN, July -- A House Republican who told Rep. Dawnna Dukes before she left for France that he would not vote on a major piece of tax legislation changed his mind and cast ...- more -

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 10.7.05 0 comments

Subject: New Element - Governmentium
A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of what is believed to be the heaviest chemical element yet known to science.The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of governmentium caused one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.You will know it when you see it.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 5.7.05 0 comments

Another liberal column. Right?
George McClure
Fort Collins
DenverPost.com
The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals. I was informed of this fact by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell. And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly. And William Safire. And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley, Jr. And George Will. And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow. And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow. And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt. And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin. And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson. And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer. And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke. And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto. And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara. The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals. For instance, did you know there is an ultra-leftist professor at the University of Colorado named Ward Churchill who wrote an essay three years ago in which he called victims of Sept. 11 "little Eichmanns"? Bet you never heard of him, as the liberal media elite likes to put the kibosh on embarrassing stories like this. The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals. Look at how they all gave Bill Clinton a pass on the whole Monica Lewsinsky affair. Remember? It was never in the news. We never heard any of the salacious details. The work of his presidency never came to a virtual halt while he defended himself. The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals. They have so poisoned the electorate that no Republicans can get elected. Republicans don't control the presidency. Republicans don't control both houses of Congress. Republicans don't control 28 of 50 governorships. Last year, a lot was made of a report released by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The report found that 34 percent of national journalists identified themselves as liberal, 54 percent identified themselves as moderate and 7 percent identified themselves as conservative. Twenty-three percent of local journalists identified themselves as liberal, 61 percent identified themselves as moderate and 12 percent identified themselves as conservative. These figures can be interpreted in a number of ways. First of all, if you actually read the whole report, you'd come across commentary that specifically warned against drawing any easy, across-the-board conclusions: "We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes just four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism." But pretend you're doing a story on the Pew report, and the nuanced comments above are not sufficiently dramatic for your medium. You need to reduce things into some digestible sound bites. If you wanted to sound the alarm bells on the right, you could say that national journalists were nearly five times as likely to identify themselves as liberal than as conservative. This would be literally true but perhaps a little misleading, as the same poll results tell us that 61 percent of national journalists identified themselves as moderate or conservative. If you're John Gibson of Fox News, you just make up your own statistics and claim that "80-some percent of reporters are self-described liberals." If you're Rush Limbaugh, you offer up the same lie a day later and specifically cite the poll that proves you wrong: "most of them (journalists) are liberals. Eighty percent of them will admit it in the latest press poll ... ." Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the media in America really are predominantly recalcitrant leftists. Say you're a conservative media mogul named Rupert and you have the wherewithal to do something about it. Here are three paths you might take: 1. You could announce your belief that the reporting of news is always subjective and therefore biased, so you are going to start a news network that comes at things from your own perspective in order to balance out what you perceive to be the bias of the left. 2. You could set up your own news network that actually is fair and balanced. 3. You could set up your own news network that's consistently and demonstrably partisan, but call yourself fair and balanced. Guess which one he chose. This just in at Fox News ... the mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals.

George McClure is a former stand-up comic who now works as general manager of a Denver marketing firm

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 5.7.05 0 comments

RUMORS OF POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUSH AND CHENEY are becoming more widespread in recent days.
On June 30, a column by Bob Herbert in the {New YorkTimes} opinion and editorial section, excoriated the Bush Administration for its "dangerous incompetence,"not to mention arrogance, in the war against Iraq. Cited are Bush's call to "bring 'em on" and Cheney'slie that the United States could be "greeted asliberators." In the course of the discussion, Herbertsays:"The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who havefought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. {If aDemocratic adminstration had conducted a war thisincompetently, the Republicans in Congress would bedusting off their impeachment manuals.}"On the same day, the Zogby polling group decided to add to its repertoire of questions, the question ofwhether the respondent endorsed impeachment. The response (within a 3% margin of error) was that 42% said that if Bush had lied about his reasons to go to war, he should be impeached . It should be noted that the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon included"making false and misleading statements to thegovernment and the people" (although they were talkingabout Watergate). Nixon chose to resign, rather thanface the charges. From LaRouche's address to June 28 Second EIR Strategic Seminar in Berlin, Germany: "Fortunately, the present Bush Administration is already a ruined, lame-duck administration, a Presidency whose deep psychological problems and brutish bunglings, have already brought it into theliability of possibly early impeachment, or retirement to avoid that impeachment. For example, one story that was told to us, is, there might be a plane ride. And on the plane ride, somebody might be sitting next to George W. Bush—or, Cheney, rather. And when they got off the plane, Cheney would go someplace nearby and submit his resignation from office.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 3.7.05 0 comments