He's Called Bush "An Embarrassment"
Go to www.aol.com to see it...
He's Called Bush "An Embarrassment"
So Newsweek is reporting that Mary McCarthy denies being the leaker. This
despite stories in the press saying that she failed a polygraph and admitted to
it. McCarthy's not the the one who told Newsweek. Do you know who did? Her
"close friend" Rand Beers. Who's Rand Beers? The National Security Council
staffer who quit in 2003 and went to work as John Kerry's senior national
security campaign adviser. You know who else is Rand Beers's old friend from the
National Security Council staff? Joseph C. Wilson IV.
J.J. Abrams is becoming the next Gene Roddenberry.
Paramount is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting "Mission: Impossible III" helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release.
Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from "Lost," also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.
Project, to be penned by Abrams and "MI3" scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.
WASHINGTON Apr 19, 2006 (AP)— White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday he is resigning, continuing a shakeup in President Bush's administration that has already yielded a new chief of staff and could lead to a change in the Cabinet.
Appearing with Bush on the White House South Lawn just before the president boarded a helicopter at the start a trip to Alabama, McClellan, who has parried especially fiercefully with reporters on Iraq and on intelligence issues, told Bush: "I have given it my all sir and I have given you my all sir, and I will continue to do so as we transition to a new press secretary."
Seligmann's argument is simple: He is innocent and he has an alibi. He attended the party that night, but documents, photos and witness testimony show that he wasn't there long enough or at the right time to attack the alleged victim.
Around midnight the night of March 13, Seligmann was already at the party when two women hired from a local escort agency arrived to dance for the boys — $400 each for a two-hour performance. A series of time-stamped photographs viewed by ABC News show the girls dancing at midnight and at 12:02 a.m.
By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank.
What did Seligmann do after leaving the bank? The taxi driver remembers taking him to a drive-thru fast-food restaurant and then dropping him off at his dorm. Duke University records show that Seligmann's card was used to gain entry at 12:46 a.m.
In addition to bolstering Seligmann's alibi, the taxi driver's written testimony provided a rare glimpse of color in an otherwise darkened night.
"I remember those two guys starting enjoying their food inside my car, but I'm glad I end up with a nice tip and fare $25," the taxi driver said in his testimony.
11:02 p.m.: The first picture shows at least 10 students hanging out in a living room, apparently waiting for the dancers to arrive. Most of the students appear to be drinking. By the number of people in this photo, it appears only a fraction of the 47 lacrosse team members are there.
12 a.m.: This is the first picture of the strippers. Students are watching the show, but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the alleged victim.
12:00:40 a.m.: Another picture taken 40 seconds later shows bruises on the accuser's knees. Her right knee appears to have an open cut.
12:03:57 p.m.: About four minutes after arriving, a picture shows the strippers leaving the room. The photo clearly shows that the alleged victim left behind one of her shoes.
Between 12:10 a.m. and 12:30 a.m.: No photos were taken between this time.
12:30:12 a.m.: The next photo shows the alleged victim on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.
12:30:47 a.m.: A photo taken 30 seconds later shows the alleged victim on the porch and she appears to smile.
12:31:26 a.m.: But 30 seconds after that, a photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.
12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.
The cuts may be from falling. The cuts on her buttocks line up with the edge of a screen door she may have hit on the way down.
12:41 a.m.: The final photo shows the accuser and the second dancer in a black car. The accuser is in the passengers seat.
Many of the photos taken on the back porch show pink splotches, which the defense says is undried nail polish. They claim the accuser was polishing her nails in the bathroom between 12:10 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. - - not being raped
If you're planning to vote in the May 2 primary, you'll have to show a state or federally issued photo ID.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld Indiana's stringent voter-identification law. Barker said plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party, failed to back up their contention that the ID law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots.
Barker wrote in her 126-page opinion that the opponents' arguments would require "the invalidation" not only of the photo ID statute, "but of significant portions of Indiana's election code which have previously passed Constitutional muster."
A number of states require photo identification for voters, but Indiana's law is considered among the most stringent because it offers few exceptions to the requirement.
The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, a co-plaintiff, had argued that the law -- passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2005 to prevent voter fraud -- would particularly affect the elderly, minorities and people with disabilities.
April 12, 2006 - For Immediate Release
Contact: William Perry Pendley
DENVER, CO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should withhold federal funds from a California college given the failure of the college to ensure the safe presence of military recruiters on campus, the Secretary was advised by a public interest law firm in a letter released today. According to news reports, military recruiters were forced to flee yesterday from a University of California Santa Cruz job fair because of a raucous mob. Mountain States Legal Foundation advised Rumsfeld that the college’s actions violate the Solomon Amendment, which requires that colleges permit military recruiters on campus or lose all federal funds. UC Santa Cruz received $80 million in federal funds during 2005. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled the Solomon Amendment constitutional early last month.
“It is outrageous that members of the Armed Forces, who are asked to serve in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq, are driven from a campus by a mob in America,” said William Perry Pendley, president and chief legal officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation. “Unless Secretary Rumsfeld responds to this craven violation of federal law, radicals on other campuses will be emboldened, will endanger the lives of men and women in uniform, and will deny students the right to learn how they may serve their country.”
The Solomon Amendment, named after the late Congressman Jerry Solomon (R-NY), requires colleges and universities to allow military recruiters on campuses “at least equal in quality and scope to the [degree of] access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” The law was enacted in 1996 but was not enforced by the Clinton Administration.
On September 19, 2003, Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), a group of 24 law schools and faculties that oppose military recruiters on college campuses, and its allies filed a lawsuit against Secretary Rumsfeld and five other cabinet officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 5, 2003, the District Court ruled against FAIR.
On November 29, 2004, the Third Circuit, by a 2-1 ruling, held the Solomon Amendment violates the freedoms of speech and association of the law schools and their professors because it suppresses their free speech and forces them to associate with a message they “abhor,” that is, the military’s policy as to homosexual activity. The dissent, noting the sophistication of law school faculties and students, wrote that they were able to disassociate themselves from the military’s “message.” The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on May 2, 2005, after considering a brief filed by Mountain States Legal Foundation. The case was argued on December 6, 2005. On March 6, 2006, the Court upheld the law by a vote of 8-0.
Mountain States Legal Foundation is a nonprofit, public interest law firm dedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system. Its offices are in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area.
The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, claimed in a court filing last week that a former White House aide facing criminal charges for obstructing the probe, I. Lewis Libby, said he was told by Mr. Cheney to inform a New York Times reporter that one of the key judgments of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was that the country was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
While the intelligence report indeed alleged that Iraq was aggressively seeking nuclear materials, that finding was not among the key judgments contained in the document's early pages. The allegation that Mr. Cheney told Mr. Libby to misstate that fact to the Times journalist, Judith Miller, was noted prominently in some news accounts and contributed to an uproar that threw the White House into a tailspin last week.
However, in a letter yesterday, Mr. Fitzgerald advised the judge overseeing the case, Reggie Walton, that the government's April 5 filing was inaccurate. "We are writing to correct a sentence," Mr. Fitzgerald's letter begins. He told the judge an error occurred in the following statement: "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
The prosecutor said the government brief should have said, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
In a letter to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, Fitzgerald wrote yesterday that he wanted to "correct" the sentence that dealt with the issue in a filing he submitted last Wednesday. That sentence said Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE "and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Contrary to scenes of hundreds of thousands of united Latinos marching across the country in support of immigration reform, a sizable number of the ethnic group opposes the marches and strongly objects to illegal immigration.
But their voices have largely been muffled by the massive protests, which will continue Monday as tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to take to the streets of Tucson, Phoenix and other cities nationwide.
They are voicing their support of a Senate bill that would give an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country a chance for U.S. citizenship.
"That's the objective of the marches -- to give the impression that all Latinos are for allowing the illegals to become citizens," said Phoenix resident Lionel De La Rosa. "Well, I'm not."
The 71-year-old Texas native and Vietnam veteran said he favors punitive measures more in line with the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House in December that would have made it a felony to be in the United States illegally.
"I'm for that 100 percent," he said. "As far as my Latino friends are concerned, they all agree on this."
A 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that Latinos in general have favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.
But when it comes to illegal immigration, significant numbers have negative views of illegal immigrants.
The survey found those feelings are strongest among middle-class and middle-age U.S.-born Latinos.
And though 68 percent of Latinos said they believe illegal immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor, nearly a quarter felt illegal immigrants hurt the economy by driving down wages.
Cruise and Holmes, together dubbed "Tomkat" by the popular press, are preparing to welcome their first baby into the world any day now using the church's "quiet birth" method, which has been the object of media derision.
But as Cruise and Holmes completed their last-minute baby shopping, a constellation of celebrity Scientologists has came out in support of the birth method in which the mother, father and medical staff in the delivery room are strongly discouraged from speaking.
The church's founding father, science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, believed that babies, like other people, can subliminally soak up words shouted around them at birth that could come back to negatively influence him later in life.
According to a DHS spokesperson, Doyle — who previously worked as an administrative assistant at Time magazine — is a civil employee and not a government appointee and he underwent the department's required background check.
A federal judge has dismissed a gay rights group's challenge to the military's "don't ask, don't tell'' policy because the group wouldn't tell the judge the names of the people it was representing.
WASHINGTON, MARCH 31 — The Senate Judiciary Committee opened a bitter if lopsided debate on Friday over whether Congress should censure President Bush for his domestic eavesdropping program.
Although few Senate Democrats have embraced the censure proposal and almost no one expects the Senate to adopt it, the notion that Democrats may seek to punish Mr. Bush has become a rallying cause to partisans on both sides of the political divide. Republicans called the hearing to give the proposal a full airing as their party sought to use the threat of Democratic punishment of the president to rally their conservative base.
Five Republicans at the hearing took turns attacking the idea as a reckless stunt that could embolden terrorists. Just two Democrats showed up to defend it, arguing that Congress needed to rein in the White House's expansive view of presidential power. The Democrats' star witness was John W. Dean, the former counsel to President Richard M. Nixon who divulged many of the details in the Watergate scandal.
Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who proposed the censure motion and is considering a 2008 presidential run, argued that the Bush administration's insistence that it needed no Congressional approval for its wiretapping program implied that "we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government; we have a monarchy."
Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students and in one case a Mexican flag was thrown into the face of another student.
"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."