Young Republicans's topics - tribe.net

Join national Meetup group to support Mitt Romney

2012-09-15T04:42:27Z

I urge that all of those who support Mitt Romney to join Mitt Romney National Meetup ( http://www.meetup.com/Mitt-Romney-National/ ). This has a sister group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/speakup2012/ . The preceding links will assist you in actively engaging in this extremely important election, through "real-world" activities in your local communities. If you submit a request to join, please mention whether you were in this Tribe group. I also have other groups on Facebook which focus on campaign tactics, but in lieu of overwhelming you here, I direct you to the links to them in my profile: https://www.facebook.com/robertxxmitchell .
Let's be realistic here. We all do a good job in speaking to one another, primarily on the internet, about the importance of electing Mitt Romney. Yes, that's good for morale, but it does NOTHING to impact upon the decisions of the independents and the undecided; the ones who we really need to reach. It is only through public, face-to face activities, as promoted in Meetup that we can make that outreach.

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Proof that Protectionism works - Chinese workers getting 24% raises!

2010-06-07T13:47:46Z

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-01/china-jobs-gain-signals-honda-offer-tip-of-iceberg-update1-.html

China Jobs Gain Signals Honda Offer ‘Tip’ of Iceberg (Update1)
June 01, 2010, 9:05 PM EDT

(Updates with Foxconn, Honda statements in eighth and ninth paragraphs.)

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- China’s manufacturing job growth accelerated to the fastest pace in at least five years in the past three months, signaling more employers may be forced to follow Honda Motor Co. in offering higher wages.

The Federation of Logistics and Purchasing said yesterday in Beijing its average factory employment index for the past three months reached 52.7 even as its measure for manufacturing growth slid. The release came a day after Tokyo-based Honda offered a 24 percent pay increase to workers at a factory in the aftermath of a strike that shut down its Chinese production.

Faster job growth and higher wages will help Premier Wen Jiabao’s government rebalance the world’s third-largest economy away from export dependence. The shift may also stoke inflation, making it more important that officials contain prices in part by ending China’s currency peg to the dollar, said Peng Wensheng, head of China research at Barclays Capital.

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

I need ...

2010-01-29T11:00:25Z

a bath

posted in Young Republicans - 13 replies

Reno Republican Women Luncheon

2007-11-10T03:38:52Z

Come and hear John Tyson speak

You are cordially invited to attend the luncheon meeting of the Republican Women of Reno (Men are also welcome). Reservations are highly recommended due to limited seating.

Date: Thursday, November 8, 2007

Time: Registration starts at 11:00 a.m.
Luncheon service begins at 11:45 a.m.

Location: Best Western Airport Plaza & Convention Center
Second floor (look for the elephant)
1981 Terminal Way
Reno, Nevada 89502

Keynote Speaker: The Distinguished Nevada Legend, Mr. John Tyson of KOLO TV news and the Tyson Journal

Registration Fee: The registration fee is $16.00 per person and includes the catered lunch

Reservations: Reservations are required do to limited seating. To make reservations please call 1-866-806-5501

Dress: Dressy casual would be appropriate

Membership: Membership in the Reno Republican Women is NOT required to attend this meeting. For those interested in joining, membership applications will be available.

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

out of touch?

2007-06-01T02:06:45Z

seems to me most self described Republicans oppose the propossed immagration legislation. And the Busch white house and flunkies etc. seem to ignore the sentiment of many Republicans?
agriculture is a major force in USA.
when did we cross the point of no return in using poor mexicans to harvest etc.?
are we completley trapped in using such labor?
are we unwilling to deal with issue?

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

bagpuss

2007-05-24T23:12:09Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70kUVZWokm4

posted in Young Republicans - 10 replies

and then, of course, there's

2007-05-24T23:09:55Z

chocolate.

http://www.syslog.com/~jwilson/pics-i-like/candy-bar-jackpot.jpg

posted in Young Republicans - 9 replies

what would you make?

2007-05-24T22:33:14Z

if you had to break in you brand-spankin new fire engine red mixer? what would your first thing be???

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

Where did I put that?

2007-05-24T22:32:13Z

Has anyone seen my microphone?

posted in Young Republicans - 22 replies

Bananas....

2007-05-24T22:29:19Z

...and Blow?

discuss.

posted in Young Republicans - 21 replies

Pooh!

2007-05-24T22:12:09Z

Deep in the hundred acre wood where christopher robin stays, you'll see the enchanted neighborhood where christopher robin plays........

Winnie ther pooh
winnie ther pooh

.............

posted in Young Republicans - 7 replies

I just bought a mixer!

2007-05-24T21:25:35Z

it's fire engine red

posted in Young Republicans - 33 replies

Corn!

2007-05-24T20:57:52Z

Whaddya feel about corn?

Creamed corn, canned corn, corn on the cob, candy corn, grilled corn, corn chowder, or corny jokes...

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

Olives!

2007-05-24T20:54:23Z

Green, black, kalamata.....

posted in Young Republicans - 11 replies

Pele Juju

2007-05-24T20:10:40Z

My sister and I went to see them when I lived in SF, about 7-8 years ago. They're back: http://www.pelejuju.com/

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Off to work!

2007-05-24T19:16:23Z

Be back here I estimate in a couple of hours!

Somebody get the coffee on, please?

posted in Young Republicans - 7 replies

Collins Mix

2007-05-24T19:14:00Z

Which do you like better?

Joan Collins
Jackie Collins
Judy Collins
Tom Collins
Phil Collins
Or the Collins family from Collinsport in Dark Shadows.

I used to love Judy Collins but I would forget and call her Joan Collins and my friends would laugh at me and offer me a Tom Collins. But I really liked rushing home from school to watch the Collins Family.

posted in Young Republicans - 8 replies

Weather

2007-05-24T18:56:14Z

It's about 60 degrees and sunny here. SHould get up to about 75 or so. Nice day.

What about everyone else?

posted in Young Republicans - 14 replies

Passport Pictures

2007-05-24T18:12:54Z

I went to get my passport picture taken yesterday after work. My passport expires this month and needs to be renewed. So I went to Fedex Kinkos. Put on make-up. Combed my hair, wore what I thought was a kicky headband. Smiled sweetly into the camera.

I still look like a criminal.

If the nice man behind the hand held camera asks if you'd like to use a mirror first, listen. I had a huge fly away and my smile looks like a grimace.

Oh well.

posted in Young Republicans - 11 replies

Donuts

2007-05-24T18:06:06Z

Anybody else get the donut message this morning? I hate it when Tribe offers donuts but I don't get any.

Personally, I prefer cake donuts, sometimes with chocolate. Though those split crunchy glazed ones are good, too.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

Can't believe it

2007-03-24T23:59:04Z

I really can't believe this. Can you believe that Dumbass and his buddies are claiming to have "Hazy Recollections" about trying to set up more of their puppets in the US Attorneys office? (Hmmmm........."I don't recall" worked well for Ronnie so they figure that it will work for them too.) Yes the truth will come out. But of course you dipshit neocons will never listen. You don't use the brain or imagination that God gave you. Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country in over a 100 years.

posted in Young Republicans - 3 replies

liberalism is a mental disorder

2007-03-18T15:16:12Z

conservative talk radio is the cure.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

Liberals

2007-03-08T03:46:37Z

Liberals don't deserve the very freedoms they spit upon!

posted in Young Republicans - 12 replies

What happened to unity? (Open to all who really give a damn)

2007-02-26T06:53:01Z

The world wars. America worked together to accomplish the mission and bring peace to the wrold. Citizens purchased war bonds, rationed gasoline, food, and metals, all to support our war effort.
We were better then. United, Determined, and Courageous. We now face division, hate, and cowardice.
For those who say Iraq didn't attack us... Neither did Germany. Look at the atrocities that occured there. Atrocities we promised the world would never happen again.
Look at Americans starting to spit on the troops. Wannabe hippys who are so opposed to war they root against our victory and call them rapist and barbarians.
What comes next? Civil War? Revolution? We seem to be getting no where by talking. Would Americans rather fight Americans than terror or facism? Something needs to be done and soon.

posted in Young Republicans - 23 replies

Hi, Republicans

2007-02-13T18:38:32Z

How's it going?

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

A test of loyalty

2007-01-06T02:22:03Z

what do republicans realy think of George W. Bush?

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

The Ford era was better than now.

2007-01-03T04:06:00Z

I was there, it was nicer, and people were kind, and the Bicentenial was just cranking up.
we had block partites with us flags everywhere, the spy who loved my was in the bond pipeline.
The six milllion dollar man kicked ass !!!.
The Gong show!!!
there was no aids, yet?
Logans run was comming to a theatre near you.....
and we still had WINTER BACK THEN.........
its been really warm on the East coast for the last 15 years in my opinion... during Winter.......

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Fair weather republicans?

2006-11-22T03:49:59Z

Or soccer moms who were security moms who now wory about their kids geting drafted? There are so many wish washy moderates on the Democratic side, and the Republican side. I think I am going to barf. somebody like superman or jack webb needs to give everybody a serious talking too.
Am I the last Republican left to post anymore? Anywhere? heresabouts?

posted in Young Republicans - 3 replies

gitmo

2006-11-14T23:06:16Z

New allegations of abuse

BY LETTA TAYLER
STAFF WRITER

October 27, 2005

The Pentagon has engaged in a new form of medical abuse at Guantanamo Bay by force-feeding detainees on a hunger strike in ways that are deliberately painful and cause life-threatening vomiting and weight loss, defense lawyers say.

The gruesome allegations include complaints that doctors and guards intentionally thrust feeding tubes covered in blood and bile from one detainee's nose into another inmate's nose and denied prisoners anesthesia.

The complaints, filed in federal court, prompted a judge yesterday to order the Pentagon to give defense lawyers medical records of force-fed hunger strikers, who attorneys fear are near death.

"The allegations are deeply troubling," U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler said in her ruling from Washington, D.C. "If true ... they describe conduct of which the United States can hardly be proud."

Kessler based her decision partly on statements from hunger strikers that lawyers obtained during a visit to Guantanamo, a U.S. naval base in Cuba, the weekend of Oct. 1.

"Doctor came, he tortured us, he inserted tube the wrong way. He knew it was the wrong way ... I started throwing up blood," read one statement from Saudi hunger striker Abdul-Rahman Shalabi. "Pain unbelievable. No anesthesia, no painkillers... can't walk."

"I didn't do anything wrong to America. No reason to do this to me," said another fasting Saudi, Yousef Al Shehri.

Pentagon officials did not immediately comment. During a hearing before Kessler last week, Pentagon lawyer Terry Henry dismissed the allegations as "outrageous" and said sending medical files to lawyers would waste doctors' time and encourage prisoners to fast by granting them special privileges.

In an affidavit, Dr. John Edmondson, the Navy captain who runs Guantanamo's hospitals, said only qualified medical personnel insert the feeding tubes and "offer" inmates anesthetics. Treatment "equals or exceeds the standard of care" at U.S. hospitals, he said.

Kessler ordered the Pentagon to release the medical files weekly and to alert lawyers within 24 hours if they start force-feeding clients.

Prisoners' attorneys called her ruling an important but partial victory in an array of legal battles over the 500-plus Guantanamo detainees, all but four of whom are being held without charges. Most lack outside counsel.

"My sense is that the Defense Department is going to appeal this, endangering the lives of Guantanamo inmates as long as it can," said Bill Goodman of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, a group defending detainees.

Kessler denied other parts of the motion, including lawyers' quest for immediate and frequent access to strikers. Lawyers must schedule visits weeks in advance and can't e-mail or telephone detainees.

Prisoners launched this hunger strike, the latest of several, on Aug. 8 to protest alleged physical abuse and detention without charges. Of 26 striking detainees, down from more than 100 last month, 23 are being force-fed, a Guantanamo spokesman said. Defense attorneys believe more than 200 inmates have participated in the strike.

Medical groups including the American Medical Association consider force-feeding of hunger strikers unethical.

As allegations mount of Pentagon abuse of terror suspects, Congress is weighing a ban on mistreatment. The White House reportedly is seeking to exempt the CIA from the legislation.

During recent visits to Guantanamo, lawyers said, ghoulish-looking detainees had lost weight from vomiting and diarrhea since being force-fed and could barely walk or speak. One was carried in on a stretcher.

During force-feedings, prisoners were "vomiting up substantial amounts of blood ... soldiers taunted them with statements like 'Look what your religion has brought you,'" Manhattan attorney Julia Tarver, who filed the motion before Kessler, said in newly declassified papers. "No anesthesia or sedative was provided."

In front of doctors including the prison hospital chief, "guards took [nasal feeding] tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted them into the nose of a different detainee. ... The detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other detainees remaining on the tubes," Tarver said.

David August, a chief surgeon at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, warned in an affidavit in a similar motion that inmates who lose weight during force-feeding "may die unless there is some alteration" in treatment.

After visiting Guantanamo this month, the International Committee of the Red Cross called the strike "serious." An AMA team visited last week, but the Pentagon wouldn't let it see the hunger strikers.

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Kerry

2006-11-14T05:44:05Z

Wow, Kerry actually won something and didn't F it up. Good boy!

John Kerry elected ... jury foreman

BOSTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry's public profile and prosecutorial past didn't spare him from performing that most mundane of civic responsibilities - jury duty.

Kerry was not only chosen this week to sit on a jury in Suffolk Superior Court, but also was elected foreman.

The case involved two men who sued the city for injuries suffered in a 2000 car accident involving a school principal. The Kerry-led jury rejected their claim Tuesday, and his fellow jurors said the state's junior senator was a natural leader.

"I just found him to be a knowledgeable, normal person," said Cynthia Lovell, a nurse and registered Republican who says she now regrets voting for President Bush in last year's election. "He kept us focused. He wanted us all to have our own say."

Advertisement

The former Democratic presidential candidate reported for duty Monday and none of the lawyers in the case objected to putting him on the jury.

"I was a little surprised," Kerry said of being selected for jury duty.

"I enjoyed it," he said. "It was very, very interesting and very instructive."

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

the troops don't defend our freedoms

2006-11-14T05:39:17Z

The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms
by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 21, 2005
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0510g.asp
How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It’s even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.

Unfortunately, it just isn’t so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.

Let’s examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:

1. Foreign regimes

Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.

After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as the United States.

I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.

2. Terrorists

Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.

Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us from “the terrorists,” it is the troops themselves — or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out — that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.

Think back to 1989 and the years following — when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn’t know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official enemy” was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America’s “ally” that had “liberated” Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence?

The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. “We can be a big help in the war on drugs,” the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican border. “We’ll help American businesses compete in the world.” “We’ll readjust NATO’s mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.” “We’ll protect us from an unsafe world.”

Then along came the Pentagon’s old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave America’s standing army a new raison d’être. Invading Kuwait over an an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.

Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated — spreading deadly infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were “worth it.” Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis — that is, people whose worst “crime” was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.

All that death and destruction — both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 — have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces today.

Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president — that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for its “freedom and values.”

If the American people had dismantled the nation’s standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.

Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target — the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then again in 2001.

3. The federal government

As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government. That’s in fact why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to protect us and our freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in America — they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.

Consider the words of James Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Here’s how Patrick Henry put it:

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?

There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.

As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution,”in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.

What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president’s orders, especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.

Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?

Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president’s orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?

If the troops didn’t protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?

I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”

And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.

Now it’s true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?

Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”

Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?

The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”

Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.

The solution

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war against another nation — and that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power. President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn’t need its approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief’s position was that he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees — and that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power.

Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.

There is one — and only one — solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.

“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be protected?”

Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation — anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.

What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading Switzerland — like swallowing a porcupine. Don’t forget that the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn’t disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.

We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America’s enormous standing army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people’s earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.

What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at least one nation that would accept them — the United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.

Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.

We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal government’s military empire and overseas interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

One vision — the vision of militarism and empire — will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision — the vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers — would put our nation back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

READ MY BLOG!

2006-10-11T19:33:36Z

America unite!

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Flash Education /w love

2006-05-20T03:35:05Z

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Urgent!!! Please help

2006-04-11T05:58:49Z

I am posting this everywhere I can, Please help us.
There are thousands of good people who could potentially lose their lives very soon.

Since the release of the information on the Sujiatun concentration camp in China, which is reported to do live organ harvesting on Falun Gong practicioners. More people have been stepping forward to reveal information. Recently, a veteran military doctor in the region of Shenyang said that the Sujiatun Concentration camp is just one of 36 such camps. Another camp in Jilin Province referred to as 672-S is said to hold over 120,000 people.

According to the Integrated Committee's announcement, transplant hospitals in China are now telling patients to "come in quickly" to get transplants. Patients are told that matching organs can be found at this time in as short as one or two days. The hospitals are also reported to say that, "it will be difficult after this batch of organs is used up."

We fear that there is going to be a mass execution to “hide the evidence” and get rid of witnesses. PLEASE HELP us, Falun Gong practitioners around the world are requesting an international investigation while there is still time.

This is the US petition, please sign it. It can save someone’s life.
http://www.fofg.org/act/act_petition.php?pid=1

you can also help by going here:
http://publicpetition.unvcc.com/UN/index.php
this is an easy, fill in the blank letter that with a click is automatically
sent to the senators and representatives of your choice
And it would also greatly help us if you would please pass this information on.

Thank you,
Joshua

You can learn more about this at:
The Epoch Times
http://www.theepochtimes.com/211,111,,1.html
Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng
Falun Dafa Information Center
http://www.faluninfo.net/why/index.asp
or, you can ask me any questions you have by sending me a message.

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

What are your thoughts on the WTO?

2005-12-29T20:18:42Z

What is the WTO and what is it's function?

Has it worked, and who is benefiting?

Does it support or undermine democracy?

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Draft Young Republicans!

2005-11-15T14:23:21Z

How many young supporters of George W. Bush do you know who have been willing to put their life on the line and serve in Iraq? How many Young Republicans? How many College Republicans? How many Young Americans for Freedom? Not too many, I think. Young neo-cons and fundies are, for the most part, spitting images of their heroes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Limbaugh. They are chickenhawks. Willing to sacrifice the underclass on the altar of their murderous ideology. But not willing to pick up an M-16 and put their asses at risk. A lot of the right wing trolls who lurk on Tribe are like this.

It would serve them right if Congress could pass a law conscripting every young person who supported Bush, starting with his daughters. That would shore up the military personnel problem. The problem, of course, would be that the armed forces would then be filled with wingnuts.

posted in Young Republicans - 45 replies

Republicans, prove you support the troops

2005-10-21T23:44:30Z

At least tell us you're mad about military insurance being rejected by doctors.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jun/13/mn/mn03p.html

Tell us you're mad at the Republicans making more cuts in veterans' benefits.
http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/news/motion_to_instruct.htm

Tell us you're mad at your own inability to help the Army fill its recruiting shortages.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46654

Where is the love???

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Jokes that conservatives laugh at?

2005-09-18T03:22:52Z

I have conservative friends who I would like to reach out to by telling jokes that will make them chuckle. You know, political jokes about people conservatives love to hate. Like Hillary. Or Howard Dean. Or Michael Moore. Or George Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Streisand, or Kanye West. (Kerry is a bit dated and moot.)

Got any? I would really be grateful.

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Where's the National Guard?

2005-08-31T16:31:08Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083002162.html

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Bush cut levee funding - for Iraq

2005-08-31T16:30:46Z

Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen?
'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues

By Will Bunch

PHILADELPHIA - Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans late on Tuesday. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.
New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

Will Bunch (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News. Much of this article also appears on his blog at that newspaper, Attytood.

© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. / Editor and Publisher

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

What good has come?

2005-08-10T06:23:35Z

Can i ask for one reson...one good thing president bush has done in the last 5 years... and assuming u can find one, i can retort back more reasons than could fit on one window... now i dont want to come over as too rude, i actually mean to have an intelligent discussion with u guys, my fear though is that those who voted for him did not know the full extent of what his laws meant or how he really managed to get elected in the first place. So before you delete me, just respond so we can all better ourselves....
~peace~ build ramps not bombs

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Bush is my Older Brother!!!

2005-07-19T08:45:04Z

Oooohhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehh!
Except I got the vocabulary and the concern for peoples well being!

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

judiciary bashing...

2005-04-13T06:34:31Z

here's my question; after Delay and Cornyn's dangerous and inflamatory statements about the "unaccountable, unelected, activist judges", which where a result of the fact that these (mostly republican-appointed) judges did not ruleaccording to conservative dogma, but rather, according to a silly and cumbersome document called the CONSTITUTION..., i have come to wondering:
before becoming house majority leader, did Tommy-boy take a poli-sci 101 class?? was he too busy hunting bugs??

DO THESE IDIOTS NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUDICIARY IS supposed TO BE UNACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND CONGRESS..... THATS THE WAY IT WAS SET UP....

I can handle disagreement, but the outright stupidty of these people is so scary....

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

The self-destruction of the GOP

2005-03-30T09:27:52Z

I think it's great King George II and his court where again selected to implement their disastrous policies for another four years;
giving the GOP power will prove all of the Goldwater-era policies they have been trying to implement swince the sixties to be what they are; attempts to starve the beast and end all new-deal programs and radically redistribute wealth upward... Just like Reagan did...That prick...Of course he had the excuse of being half brain-dead, george is fully conscious while robbing the poor to make the rich richer....
Luckily for the sane and non-selfish, many of Bush his theocraitc leanings are so profoundly at odds with the libertarian rooots of the GOP, that they will likely schism between the process conservatives and the religous conservatives.
Furthermore, giving the republicans control over the entire federal government is day-by-day exposing them as the liars and hypocrits they are:
pro states rights when they are out of power, but all about having the government interfere in the live of some florida woman to score political points with the religious right when in power...
furthermore.. who the hell are the republicans gonna nominate in 2008?
The gop primary electorate is so far to the right of the general election electorate that it will be hard for them to nominate a candidate who can win
Possible candidates:
Mitch Romney; won't get the nomination; pro-choice and from much hated Massachussets..
George Pataki; pro-choice, pro gay rights
Rudy Giuliani, pro choice, pro gay rights....
Condoleezza.. yeah right, like republicans would nominate a black woman...
John McCain; repulbican party establishment will ruin him before they nominate him; thye will never allow a por-election-reform candidate to win the nomination...
That leaves Bill Frist.. who is so boring and so right wing i doubt he will win the GE...

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

the decline of liberalism

2005-02-18T21:27:26Z

from the Wall St Journal

The Decline in Civility In Our Liberal Community
November 2, 2004; Page A23

In regard to your Oct. 19 editorial "It's Baaaack!": As a longtime Palo Alto resident I accept that I live in a liberal stronghold. This diversity of opinion and free thinking has always been a part of Palo Alto's charms. In recent months, however, I have witnessed a frightening decline in civility on the part of the liberal community here. Bumper stickers stopped being funny years ago; lately they have turned ugly, violent and hateful. Members of my own church are openly disrespectful of our sitting president. A Palo Alto High School teacher says to his class, "Everybody who hates George Bush, raise your hand." Lawn signs supporting Republican candidates are routinely stolen overnight. It is troubling to see Democrats define themselves solely by their opposition to President George W. Bush. When did hate and intolerance become the defining characteristics of the American left wing?

John C. Crouch
Palo Alto, Calif.

posted in Young Republicans - 24 replies

k street project

2005-02-16T07:08:52Z

anyone want to tell me that this smacks of partisanship in the face of bush's preaching that he wants bipartisanship?

http://www.atr.org/kstreet/
http://www.atr.org/pdffiles/kst112502.pdf
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21972-2004Jul1.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000362.html

posted in Young Republicans - 3 replies

Your voice needed...

2005-02-12T18:17:28Z

... to write content for www.battlecry-ca.com. Check out our staff list and apply today.

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Is it okay for capitalists to buy from Communist countries?

2005-02-01T07:21:13Z

If you're a Laissez-faire capitalist isn't it self-contradictory to buy products made from totalitarian (pseudo-)Communist countries like China?

Why do American conservatives talk so much about patriotism and yet they characterize American workers as lazy and overpaid? The consistently hateful broadbrushing of American workers and the cheering on of foreign sweatshops couldn't possibly be anything but a direct contradiction to any sensible definition, or even re-definition, of (American-centric) patriotism.

Perhaps patriotism and capitalism, to say nothing of the fear of God, have all given way to an all-out amoral quest for convenience?

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Inaguration speech

2005-01-21T18:23:41Z

Freedom for the whole world?
Sounds good on paper, but in reality?
I used to think, judge a man by his deeds, then for some time judge a man by his dreams, and now , a little of both.
I think he's doing pretty damn good considering the circumstances. At least he's trying, The iraq thing is a major move, a Dem would have probabaly just passed the problem on to the future.

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

I like this.....

2005-01-21T02:13:33Z

Cows, The Constitution, & The 10 Commandments

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track
a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps
in the state of Washington. They also tracked her calves to their stalls. But
they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our
country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.

CONSTITUTION They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's
worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse. You
cannot post "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and "Thou
shalt not bear false witness" in a building full of lawyers, judges, and
politicians. It creates a hostile work environment!!!

posted in Young Republicans - 17 replies

The Hydrogen Economy

2005-01-05T04:10:42Z

This is a really long read. I don't expect most of you have the interest to go through the whole article. I'll summarize by saying you need to be pushing your elected officials to fund hydrogen energy and fuel cell research. Don't be afraid to vote with your dollar in the market, the hydrogen energy sector is going to heat up in an attempt to move away from volitile oil markets. It is in the best interest of our national security and economy to push for the wide commercial and industrial adoption of hydrogen energy. We've got to stop funding terrorists with our trillions of oil dollars, and we need to stop spending money on wars in an attempt to sustain our oil demand.

Full text with figures:
www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/...12/p39.html

The Hydrogen Economy

If the fuel cell is to become the modern steam engine, basic research must provide breakthroughs in understanding, materials, and design to make a hydrogen−based energy system a vibrant and competitive force.

George W. Crabtree, Mildred S. Dresselhaus, and Michelle V. Buchanan
Since the industrial revolution began in the 18th century, fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas have powered the technology and transportation networks that drive society. But continuing to power the world from fossil fuels threatens our energy supply and puts enormous strains on the environment. The world's demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 in response to population growth and the industrialization of developing countries.1 The supply of fossil fuels is limited, with restrictive shortages of oil and gas projected to occur within our lifetimes (see the article by Paul Weisz in Physics Today, July 2004, page 47). Global oil and gas reserves are concentrated in a few regions of the world, while demand is growing everywhere; as a result, a secure supply is increasingly difficult to assure. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels puts our own health at risk through the chemical and particulate pollution it creates. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with global warming threaten the stability of Earth's climate.

A replacement for fossil fuels will not appear overnight. Extensive R&D is required before alternative sources can supply energy in quantities and at costs competitive with fossil fuels, and making those alternative sources available commercially will itself require developing the proper economic infrastructure. Each of those steps takes time, but greater global investment in R&D will most likely hasten the pace of economic change. Although it is impossible to predict when the fossil fuel supply will fall short of demand or when global warming will become acute, the present trend of yearly increases in fossil fuel use shortens our window of opportunity for a managed transition to alternative energy sources.

Hydrogen as energy carrier
One promising alternative to fossil fuels is hydrogen2,3 (see the article by Joan Ogden, Physics Today, April 2002, page 69). Through its reaction with oxygen, hydrogen releases energy explosively in heat engines or quietly in fuel cells to produce water as its only byproduct. Hydrogen is abundant and generously distributed throughout the world without regard for national boundaries; using it to create a hydrogen economy —a future energy system based on hydrogen and electricity —only requires technology, not political access.

Although in many ways hydrogen is an attractive replacement for fossil fuels, it does not occur in nature as the fuel H2. Rather, it occurs in chemical compounds like water or hydrocarbons that must be chemically transformed to yield H2. Hydrogen, like electricity, is a carrier of energy, and like electricity, it must be produced from a natural resource. At present, most of the world's hydrogen is produced from natural gas by a process called steam reforming. However, producing hydrogen from fossil fuels would rob the hydrogen economy of much of its raison d' être: Steam reforming does not reduce the use of fossil fuels but rather shifts them from end use to an earlier production step; and it still releases carbon to the environment in the form of CO2. Thus, to achieve the benefits of the hydrogen economy, we must ultimately produce hydrogen from non−fossil resources, such as water, using a renewable energy source.

Figure 1
Figure 1 depicts the hydrogen economy as a network composed of three functional steps: production, storage, and use. There are basic technical means to achieve each of these steps, but none of them can yet compete with fossil fuels in cost, performance, or reliability. Even when using the cheapest production method —steam reforming of methane —hydrogen is still four times the cost of gasoline for the equivalent amount of energy. And production from methane does not reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emission. Hydrogen can be stored in pressurized gas containers or as a liquid in cryogenic containers, but not in densities that would allow for practical applications —driving a car up to 500 kilometers on a single tank, for example. Hydrogen can be converted to electricity in fuel cells, but the production cost of prototype fuel cells remains high: $3000 per kilowatt of power produced for prototype fuel cells (mass production could reduce this cost by a factor of 10 or more), compared with $30 per kilowatt for gasoline engines.
The gap between the present state of the art in hydrogen production, storage, and use and that needed for a competitive hydrogen economy is too wide to bridge in incremental advances. It will take fundamental breakthroughs of the kind that come only from basic research.

Beyond reforming
The US Department of Energy estimates that by 2040 cars and light trucks powered by fuel cells will require about 150 megatons per year of hydrogen.3 The US currently produces about 9 megatons per year, almost all of it by reforming natural gas. The challenge is to find inexpensive and efficient routes to create hydrogen in sufficient quantities from non−fossil natural resources. The most promising route is splitting water, which is a natural carrier of hydrogen. It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water. To eliminate fossil fuels from this cycle, the energy to split water must come from non−carbon sources, such as the electron−hole pairs excited in a semiconductor by solar radiation, the heat from a nuclear reactor or solar collector, or an electric voltage generated by renewable sources such as hydropower or wind.

The direct solar conversion of sunlight to H2 is one of the most fascinating developments in water splitting.4 Established technology splits water in two steps: conversion of solar radiation to electricity in photovoltaic cells followed by electrolysis of water in a separate cell. It is well known that the photovoltaic conversion occurs with an efficiency up to 32% when expensive single−crystal semiconductors are used in multi−junction stacks, or about 3% with much cheaper organic semiconductors; remarkably, the cost of delivered electricity is about the same in both cases. Advanced electrolyzers split water with 80% efficiency.

The two processes, however, can be combined in a single nanoscale process: Photon absorption creates a local electron−hole pair that electrochemically splits a neighboring water molecule. The efficiency of this integrated photochemical process can be much higher, in principle, than the two sequential processes; it has now reached 8−12% in the laboratory4 and has prospects for much greater gains as researchers learn to better control the nanoscale excitation and photochemistry. The technical challenge is finding robust semiconductor materials that satisfy the competing requirements of nature. The Sun's photons are primarily in the visible, a wavelength that requires semiconductors with small bandgaps —below 1.7 eV —for efficient absorption. Oxide semiconductors like titanium dioxide that are robust in aqueous environments have wide bandgaps, as high as 3.0 eV, and thus require higher−energy photons for excitation. The use of dye−sensitized photocells that accumulate energy from multiple low−energy photons to inject higher−energy electrons into the semiconductor is a promising direction for matching the solar spectrum. Alternatively, oxide semiconductors can be doped with impurities that reduce their bandgap energies to overlap better with the solar spectrum. In both cases, new strategies for nanostructured hybrid materials are needed to more efficiently use solar energy to split water.

Water can be split in thermochemical cycles operating at elevated temperatures to facilitate the reaction kinetics.5 Heat sources include solar collectors operating up to 3000 °C or nuclear reactors designed to operate between 500 °C and 900 °C (see the article by Gail Marcus and Alan Levin, Physics Today, April 2002, page 54). More than 100 types of chemical cycles have been proposed, including systems based on zinc−oxygen operating at 1500 °C, sulfur−iodine at 850 °C, calcium−bromine at 750 °C, and copper−chlorine at 550 °C. At high temperatures, thermochemical cycles must deal with the tradeoff between favorable reaction kinetics and aggressive chemical corrosion of containment vessels. Separating the reaction products at high temperature is a second challenge: Unseparated mixtures of gases recombine if allowed to cool. But identifying effective membrane materials that selectively pass hydrogen, oxygen, water, hydrogen sulfate, or hydrogen iodide, for example, at high temperature remains a problem. Dramatic improvements in catalysis could lower the operating temperature of thermochemical cycles, and thus reduce the need for high−temperature materials, without losing efficiency. Molecular−level challenges, with which researchers are fast making progress using nanoscale design, include accelerating the kinetics of reactions through catalysis, separating the products at high temperature, and directing products to the next reaction step.

Figure 2
Bio−inspired processes offer stunning opportunities to approach the hydrogen production problem anew.6 The natural world began forming its own hydrogen economy 3 billion years ago, when it developed photosynthesis to convert CO2, water, and sunlight into hydrogen and oxygen. Plants use hydrogen to manufacture the carbohydrates in their leaves and stalks, and emit oxygen to the atmosphere for animals to breathe. Single−cell organisms such as algae and many microbes produce hydrogen efficiently at ambient temperatures by molecular−level processes. These natural mechanisms for producing hydrogen involve elaborate protein structures that have only recently been partially solved. For billions of years, for instance, plants have used a catalyst based on manganese−oxygen clusters to split water efficiently at room temperature, a process that frees protons and electrons. Likewise, bacteria use iron and nickel clusters as the active elements both for combining protons and electrons into H2 and splitting H2 into protons and electrons (see figure 2). The hope is that researchers can capitalize on nature's efficient manufacturing processes by fully understanding molecular structures and functions and then imitating them using artificial materials in such applications as fuel−cell anodes and cathodes.
Storing hydrogen
Storing hydrogen in a high−energy−density form that flexibly links its production and eventual use is a key element of the hydrogen economy. Unlike electricity, which must be produced and used at the same rate, stored hydrogen can be stockpiled for much later use, or used as ballast to bridge the differing temporal cycles of energy production and consumption.

The traditional storage options are conceptually simple —cylinders of liquid and high−pressure gas. Industrial facilities and laboratories are already accustomed to handling hydrogen both ways. These options are viable for the stationary consumption of hydrogen in large plants that can accommodate large weights and volumes. Storage as liquid H2 imposes severe energy costs because up to 40% of its energy content can be lost to liquefaction.

Figure 3
For transportation use, the on−board storage of hydrogen is a far more difficult challenge. Both weight and volume are at a premium, and sufficient fuel must be stored to make it practical to drive distances comparable to gas−powered cars.3 Figure 3 illustrates the challenge by showing the gravimetric and volumetric energy densities of fuels, including the container and apparatus needed for fuel handling. For hydrogen, that added weight is a major fraction of the total. For on−vehicle use, hydrogen need store only about half of the energy that gasoline provides because the efficiency of fuel cells can be greater by a factor of two or more than that of internal combustion engines. Even so, the energy densities of the most advanced batteries and of liquid and gaseous hydrogen pale in comparison to gasoline.

Figure 4
Meeting the volume restrictions in cars or trucks, for instance, requires using hydrogen stored at densities higher than its liquid density. Figure 4 shows the volume density of hydrogen stored in several compounds and in some liquid hydrocarbons.7 All of those compounds store hydrogen at higher density than the liquid or the compressed gas at 10 000 psi ( Ž700 bar), shown as points on the right−hand vertical axis for comparison. The most effective storage media are located in the upper−right quadrant of the figure, where hydrogen is combined with light elements like lithium, nitrogen, and carbon. The materials in that part of the plot have the highest mass fraction and volume density of hydrogen. Hydrocarbons like methanol and octane are notable as high−volume−density hydrogen storage compounds as well as high−energy− density fuels, and cycles that allow the fossil fuels to release and recapture their hydrogen are already in use in stationary chemical processing plants.7
The two challenges for on−vehicle hydrogen storage and use are capacity and cycling performance under the accessible on−board conditions of 0−100 °C and 1−10 bars. To achieve high storage capacity at low weight requires strong chemical bonds between hydrogen and light−atom host materials in stable compounds, such as lithium borohydride (LiBH4). But to achieve fast cycling at accessible conditions requires weak chemical bonds, fast kinetics, and short diffusion lengths, as might be found in surface adsorption. Thus, the high−capacity and fast−recycling requirements are somewhat in conflict. Many bulk hydrogen−storage compounds, such as metallic magnesium nitrogen hydride (Mg2NH4) and ionic sodium borohydride (Na+(BH4)−), contain high volumetric hydrogen densities but require temperatures of 300 °C or more at 1 bar to release their H2. Compounds with low−temperature capture and release behavior, such as lanthanum nickel hydride (LaNi5H6), have low hydrogen−mass fractions and are thus heavy to carry.

Hydrogen absorption on surfaces is a potential route to fast cycling, but has been explored relatively little except for carbon substrates. Hydrogen can be adsorbed in molecular or atomic form on suitable surfaces, using pressure, temperature, or electrochemical potential to control its surface structure and bonding strength. A major challenge is controlling the bonding and kinetics of multiple layers of hydrogen. The first layer is bonded by van der Waals or chemical forces specific to the substrate; the second layer sees primarily the first layer and therefore bonds with very different strength. The single−layer properties of adsorbed hydrogen on carbon can be predicted rather accurately and are indicated by the solid curve in figure 4; the behavior of multiple layers is much less well understood. But experience with carbon suggests that multiple layers are needed for effective storage capacity. One route for overcoming the single−layer limitation is to adsorb hydrogen on both sides of a substrate layer, arranged with others in nanoscale stacks that allow access to both sides.

Nanostructured materials offer a host of promising routes for storing hydrogen at high capacity in compounds that have fast recycling. Large surface areas can be coated with catalysts to assist in the dissociation of gaseous H2, and the small volume of individual nanoparticles produces short diffusion paths to the material's interior. The strength of the chemical bonds with hydrogen can be weakened with additives7 such as titanium dioxide in sodium aluminum hydride (NaAlH4). The capture and release cycle is a complex process that involves molecular dissociation, diffusion, chemical bonding, and van der Waals attraction. Each of the steps can be optimized in a specific nanoscale environment that includes appropriate catalysts, defects, and impurity atoms. By integrating the steps into an interactive nanoscale architecture where hydrogen molecules or atoms are treated in one environment for dissociation, for example, and handed off to the next environment for diffusion, nanoscience engineers could simultaneously optimize all the desired properties. Another approach is to use three−dimensional solids with open structures, such as metal−organic frameworks8 in which hydrogen molecules or atoms can be adsorbed on internal surfaces. The metal atoms that form the vertices of such structures can be catalysts or dopants that facilitate the capture and release cycle. Designed nanoscale architectures offer unexplored options for effectively controlling reactivity and bonding to meet the desired storage requirements.

Realizing the promise
A major attraction of hydrogen as a fuel is its natural compatibility with fuel cells. The higher efficiency of fuel cells —currently 60% compared to 22% for gasoline or 45% for diesel internal combustion engines —would dramatically improve the efficiency of future energy use. Coupling fuel cells to electric motors, which are more than 90% efficient, converts the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical work without heat as an intermediary. This attractive new approach for energy conversion could replace many traditional heat engines. The broad reach of that efficiency advantage is a strong driver for deploying hydrogen fuel cells widely.

Although fuel cells are more efficient, there are also good reasons for burning hydrogen in heat engines for transportation. Jet engines and internal combustion engines can be rather easily modified to run on hydrogen instead of hydrocarbons. Internal combustion engines run as much as 25% more efficiently on hydrogen compared to gasoline and produce no carbon emissions. The US and Russia have test−flown commercial airliners with jet engines modified to burn hydrogen.9 Similarly, BMW, Ford, and Mazda are road− testing cars powered by hydrogen internal combustion engines that achieve a range of 300 kilometers, and networks of hydrogen filling stations are being implemented in some areas of the US, Europe, and Japan. Such cars and filling stations could provide an early start and a transitional bridge to hydrogen fuel−cell transportation.

The versatility of fuel cells makes them workable in nearly any application where electricity is useful. Stationary plants providing 200 kilowatts of neighborhood electrical power are practical and operating efficiently. Such plants can connect to the electrical grid to share power but are independent of the grid in case of failure. Fuel−cell power for consumer electronics like laptop computers, cell phones, digital cameras, and audio players provide more hours of operation than batteries at the same volume and weight. Although the cost per kilowatt is high for these small units, the unit cost can soon be within an acceptable consumer range. Electronics applications may be the first to widely reach the consumer market, establish public visibility, and advance the learning curve for hydrogen technology.

The large homogeneous transportation market offers enormous potential for hydrogen fuel cells to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use, lower harmful emissions, and improve energy efficiency. Fuel cells can be used not only in cars, trucks, and buses, but also can replace the diesel electric generators in locomotives and power all−electric ships.8 Europe already has a demonstration fleet of 30 fuel−cell buses running regular routes in 10 cities, and Japan is poised to offer fuel−cell cars for sale.

Figure 5
A host of fundamental performance problems remain to be solved before hydrogen in fuel cells can compete with gasoline.10 The heart of the fuel cell is the ionic conducting membrane that transmits protons or oxygen ions between electrodes while electrons go through an external load to do their electrical work, as shown in figure 5. Each of the half reactions at work in that circuit requires catalysts interacting with electrons, ions, and gases traveling in different media. Designing nanoscale architectures for these triple percolation networks that effectively coordinate the interaction of reactants with nanostructured catalysts is a major opportunity for improving fuel−cell performance. The trick is to get intimate contact of the three phases that coexist in the cell —the incoming hydrogen or incoming oxygen gas phase, an electrolytic proton−conducting phase, and a metallic phase in which electrons flow into or from the external circuit (see Physics Today, July 2001, page 22).
A primary factor limiting proton−exchange−membrane (PEM) fuel−cell performance is the slow kinetics of the oxygen reduction reaction at the cathode. Even with the best platinum−based catalysts, the sluggish reaction reduces the voltage output of the fuel cell from the ideal 1.23 V to 0.8 V or less when practical currents are drawn. This voltage reduction is known as the oxygen overpotential. The causes of the slow kinetics, and solutions for speeding up the reaction, are hidden in the complex reaction pathways and intermediate steps of the oxygen reduction reaction. It is now becoming possible to understand this reaction at the atomic level using sophisticated surface−structure and spectroscopy tools such as vibrational spectroscopies, scanning probe microscopy, x−ray diffraction and spectroscopy, and transmission electron microscopy.11,12 In situ electrochemical probes, operating under reaction or near reaction conditions, reveal the energetics, kinetics, and intermediates of the reaction pathway and their relation to the surface structure and composition of the reactants and catalysts. These powerful new experimental probes, combined with equally powerful and impressive computational quantum chemistry using density functional theory,13 are opening a new chapter in atomic−level understanding of the catalytic process. The role of such key features as the atomic configuration of catalysts and their supports, and the electronic structure of surface−reconstructed atoms and adsorbed intermediate species, is within reach of fundamental understanding. These emerging and incisive experimental and theoretical tools make the field of nanoscale electrocatalysis ripe for rapid and comprehensive growth. The research is highly interdisciplinary, incorporating forefront elements of chemistry, physics, and materials science.

Beyond the oxygen reduction reaction, fuel cells provide many other challenges. The dominant membrane for PEM fuel cells is perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA), a polymer built around a C−F backbone with side chains containing sulfonic acid groups (SO3−) (for example, Nafion). Beside its high cost, this membrane must incorporate mobile water molecules into its structure to enable proton conduction. That restricts its operating temperature to below the boiling point of water. At this low temperature —typically around 80 °C —expensive catalysts like platinum are required to make the electrochemical reactions sufficiently active, but even trace amounts of carbon monoxide in the hydrogen fuel stream can poison the catalysts. A higher operating temperature would expand the range of suitable catalysts and reduce their susceptibility to poisoning. Promising research directions for alternative proton−conducting membranes that operate at 100−200 °C include sulfonating C−H polymers rather than C−F polymers, and using inorganic polymer composites and acid−base polymer blends.14

Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) require O2− transport membranes, which usually consist of perovskite materials containing specially designed defect structures that become sufficiently conductive only above 800 °C. The high temperature restricts the construction materials that can be used in SOFCs and limits their use to special environments like stationary power stations or perhaps large refrigerated trucks where adequate thermal insulation and safety can be ensured. Finding new materials that conduct O2− at lower temperatures would significantly expand the range of applications and reduce the cost of SOFCs.

Outlook
The hydrogen economy has enormous societal and technical appeal as a potential solution to the fundamental energy concerns of abundant supply and minimal environmental impact. The ultimate success of a hydrogen economy depends on how the market reacts: Does emerging hydrogen technology provide more value than today's fossil fuels? Although the market will ultimately drive the hydrogen economy, government plays a key role in the move from fossil−fuel to hydrogen technology. The investments in R&D are large, the outcome for specific, promising approaches is uncertain, and the payoff is often beyond the market's time horizon. Thus, early government investments in establishing goals, providing research support, and sharing risk are necessary to prime the emergence of a vibrant, market−driven hydrogen economy.

The public acceptance of hydrogen depends not only on its practical and commercial appeal, but also on its record of safety in widespread use. The special flammability, buoyancy, and permeability of hydrogen present challenges to its safe use that are different from, but not necessarily more difficult than, those of other energy carriers. Researchers are exploring a variety of issues: hydrodynamics of hydrogen−air mixtures, the combustion of hydrogen in the presence of other gases, and the embrittlement of materials by exposure to hydrogen, for example. Key to public acceptance of hydrogen is the development of safety standards and practices that are widely known and routinely used —like those for self−service gasoline stations or plug−in electrical appliances. The technical and educational components of this aspect of the hydrogen economy need careful attention.

Technical progress will come in two forms. Incremental advances of present technology provide low−risk commercial entry into the hydrogen economy. Those advances include improving the yield of natural−gas reforming to lower cost and raise efficiency; improving the strength of container materials for high−pressure storage of hydrogen gas; and tuning the design of internal combustion engines to burn hydrogen. To significantly increase the energy supply and security, and to decrease carbon emission and air pollutants, however, the hydrogen economy must go well beyond incremental advances. Hydrogen must replace fossil fuels through efficient production using solar radiation, thermochemical cycles, or bio−inspired catalysts to split water. Hydrogen must be stored and released in portable solid−state media, and fuel cells that convert hydrogen to electrical power and heat must be put into widespread use.

Achieving these technological milestones while satisfying the market discipline of competitive cost, performance, and reliability requires technical breakthroughs that come only from basic research. The interaction of hydrogen with materials encompasses many fundamental questions that can now be explored much more thoroughly than ever before using sophisticated atomic−level scanning probes, in situ structural and spectroscopic tools at x−ray, neutron, and electron scattering facilities, and powerful theory and modeling using teraflop computers. The hope is to solve mysteries that Nature has long kept hidden, such as the molecular basis of catalysis and the mechanism that allows plants to split water at room temperature using sunlight. Nanoscience provides not only new approaches to basic questions about the interaction of hydrogen with materials, but also the power to synthesize materials with custom−designed architectures. This combination of nanoscale analysis and synthesis promises to create new materials technology, such as orderly control of the electronic, ionic, and catalytic processes that regulate the three−phase percolation networks in fuel cells. Such exquisite control over materials behavior has never been so near at hand.

The international character of the hydrogen economy is sure to influence how it develops and evolves globally. Each country or region of the world has technological and political interests at stake. Cooperation among nations to leverage resources and create innovative technical and organizational approaches to the hydrogen economy is likely to significantly enhance the effectiveness of any nation that would otherwise act alone. The emphasis of the hydrogen research agenda varies with country; communication and cooperation to share research plans and results are essential.

Will the hydrogen economy succeed? Historical precedents suggest that it might. New energy sources and carriers have flourished when coupled with new energy converters. Coal became king as fuel for the steam engine to power the industrial revolution —it transformed the face of land transportation from horse and buggy to rail, and on the sea from sail to steamship.15 Oil fueled the internal combustion engine to provide automobiles and trucks that crisscross continents, and later the jet engine to conquer the skies. Electricity coupled with light bulbs and with rotary motors to power our homes and industries. Hydrogen has its own natural energy−conversion partner, the fuel cell. Together they interface intimately with the broad base of electrical technology already in place, and they can expand to propel cars, locomotives, and ships, power consumer electronics, and generate neighborhood heat and light. Bringing hydrogen and fuel cells to that level of impact is a fascinating challenge and opportunity for basic science, spanning chemistry, physics, biology, and materials.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Crabtree is a physicist in the materials science division at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. Mildred Dresselhaus is a professor in the department of physics and the department of electrical engineering and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Michelle Buchanan is a chemist in the chemical sciences division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

References
1. M. I. Hoffert et al., Nature 395, 891 (1998); Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2004, rep. no. DOE/EIA−0484 (2004), available at www.eia. doe.gov/oiaf/ieo.
2. J. A. Turner, Science 285, 687 (1999) [INSPEC]; Special Report: Toward a Hydrogen Economy, Science 305, 957 (2004).
3. US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy, US DOE, Washington, DC (2004), available at www.sc.doe. gov/bes/hydrogen.pdf; Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future, US DOE, Washington, DC (2003), available at www.sc.doe.gov/bes/report...les/SEF_rpt.pdf; Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2004), available at www.nap.edu/catalog/10922.html.
4. O. Khasalev, J. A. Turner, Science 280, 425 (1998) [MEDLINE]; S. U. M. Khan, M. Al−Shahry, W. B. Ingler, Science 297, 2189 (2002) [MEDLINE]; N. S. Lewis, Nature 414, 589 (2001) .
5. C. Perkins, A. W. Weimar, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (in press).
6. J. Alper, Science 299, 1686 (2003) [MEDLINE]; F. Gloaguen et al., Inorg. Chem. 41, 6573 (2002) [MEDLINE]; J.−Z. Wu et al., Inorg. Chem. 43, 5795 (2004) [MEDLINE]; K. N. Ferreira et al., Science 303, 1831 (2004) [MEDLINE].
7. L. Schlapbach, A. Zuttel, Nature 414, 353 (2001) [INSPEC]; W. Grochala, P. P. Edwards, Chem. Rev. 104, 1283 (2004) [MEDLINE].
8. N. L. Rosi et al., Science 300, 1127 (2003) [INSPEC].
9. P. Hoffmann, Tomorrow's Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and the Prospects for a Cleaner Planet, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2001).
10. J. Larminie, A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2003).
11. N. M. Markovic, P. J. Ross, Surf. Sci. Rep. 45, 117 (2002) .
12. P. L. Gai, Top. Catal. 21, 161 (2002) [CAS].
13. A. Mattsson, Science 298, 759 (2002) [MEDLINE].
14. Q. Li, R. He, J. O. Jensen, N. J. Bjerrum, Chem. Mater. 15, 4896 (2003) [CAS].
15. B. Freese, Coal: A Human History, Perseus, Cambridge, MA (2003).
15. B. Freese, Coal: A Human History, Perseus, Cambridge, MA (2003).

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

newbie

2004-12-26T17:29:55Z

*gives a little wave* hi everyone - happy to have found this tribe.. lots of wading thru the leftist liberal crap to get here!
i'm a 34 year old single mom ... sadly in a blue state (pa) - i tried hard to change those around me . i still have my bush/cheney sticker on my car just to piss off the kerry supporters and maybe make them relive everything one more time, along with my john kerry waffle house one *sly grin* ok, i'm a tad evil! but i'm a proud evil conservative ..

happy to meet ya'll!

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

I have a crush on CONDI

2004-12-15T18:12:39Z

Anyone else.... ;)

posted in Young Republicans - 19 replies

For those as fed up as I am.

2004-12-04T04:20:02Z

http://florida.tribe.net/thread/a5c60f3d-2015-4dec-91fb-ea27722d92ea?tribeid=dab99e66-1ded-4e62-8625-48c3b2a0401f&r=10469

Screw the republicans. Screw the democrats. They are both more alike than different. They have stolen our nation, and corrupted our government.

Reject them and embrace America. They take you for granted, they use you, they lie to you, they steal from you, they make life shit.

If you are too left for the republicans, yet too right for the democrats, here is a solution.

Centrists and moderates are simply those who lack the sight to see the issues. We are neither, we are a blend of left and right, we hold liberal views along with conservative views. We take the best of both, and leave the bullshit behind.

JOIN TODAY!

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Actual Republican Agenda

2004-11-30T04:46:27Z

This thread is for what you think Bush will ACTUALLY do in the next four years.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

Two universes

2004-11-28T17:14:29Z

Conservative people (not ideology) fare better under a liberal government than liberal peope do under a conservative one.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

Morals

2004-11-28T17:12:37Z

I'm curious to know what you all think about morality. I've always thought the idea of morality was inspired by religious doctrine. With every different doctrine there is a variation in moral value. By marketing our ideas as moral, we're a step closer to marketing them as G-D's will. Something about this makes me very uneasy. Probably because I'm cautious is claiming any idea my wretched ass would produce is even close to G-D's will. I'm concerned that each side is claiming 'moral superiority' while both seem to have very different ideas about morality.

*How does morality impacts your views on issues in today's world.

*Has the idea of morality just become a justification for your views, or can you actually back them up with moral substance?

*As morality is deeply rooted in religion, how does your religious background lead your moral values to conflict with those of someone who is of another belief system?

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Just joined

2004-11-28T06:27:35Z

Hello,
I felt the need to join this tribe because tribe.net is overwhelmingly liberal. I'm not liberal and all of the anti-bush tribes is depressing.
I happily voted for Bush because I looked at the whole picture, not just the war in Iraq.
My sister would have voted for Kerry is she lived in the U.S. I want to provide her with clear reasons why that would have been a mistake. She gets most of her news from a liberal biased media and also does not live here so she can't see first hand the issues that are prevelant.
The number one issue that was most important in this election, according to exit polls, was morals and values. Much of the registered democrats, like Mexian Americans, etc, voted Republican for these reasons.
What are some main points that you consider to be the reasons you voted for Bush and not Kerry.
Thanks!

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

Foreign Born President?

2004-11-28T06:12:00Z

Thoughts?

posted in Young Republicans - 49 replies

Lunch with Slick Willy yesterday

2004-11-11T19:15:47Z

Yes it is true. I was at the Schwab Impact 2004 conference in Philly, and I sat 20 feet from him. He gave a 1 hr. speech at about $100k tab. He posed lots of questions to the audience about world affairs, and when asked questions about his time in office, he said that not getting bin laden in 1998 and not securing middle-east peace were the two foreign policy failures that keep him up at night. Otherwise, he was entertaining to listen to.

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Clinton sez, "Shut your pie hole"

2004-11-10T16:03:38Z

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first comments on President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine" about the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."

Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing issue of gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put on the ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden in the final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism fears, as did suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security moms of 2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than Republicans, the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who were already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president — whose wife Hillary is already being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 — said Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and called for an end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in September, gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less dependence on foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism worldwide, Clinton said. "They would have to think of a new excuse to murder people."

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

BUSH WINS FLORIDA AND OHIO!!!!

2004-11-10T04:54:36Z

OOPS..sorry.. just practicing.. disregard.. FALSE START :)

posted in Young Republicans - 21 replies

2004-11-10T04:33:21Z

I don't think Cheney will run next presidential election, he'd lose.

I really don't know who republicans would run, no one stands out. Lott would have been a shoe in if he hadn't been disgraced. Maybe Frist, but not for president.

I suspect republicans might run a woman, but it's not likely.

For democrats, I suspect Bayh as vice president. Obama someday, but not in 4 years. Not clinton.

posted in Young Republicans - 35 replies

Sudan Genocide

2004-11-10T04:25:22Z

Should the US step in militarily?

http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/sudan/pdf/darfur.pdf

posted in Young Republicans - 19 replies

Ahhhhhh

2004-11-10T04:16:55Z

It's starting already... like I said, it's gonna be a fun four years...

Bush is warned about anti-abortion judges

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Lara Jakaes Jordan

Nov. 3, 2004 | PHILADELPHIA (AP) --

The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal ``giants'' on the bench.

posted in Young Republicans - 3 replies

ciao

2004-11-10T03:55:04Z

fer real.

posted in Young Republicans - 8 replies

Republican Agenda

2004-11-10T03:53:12Z

Seriously, even if you hate Bush, and you eventually get over Kerry's defeat, what should the Repub. party focus on for the next 4 years, that they weren't able to accomplish in term 1?

posted in Young Republicans - 21 replies

Where have I been, you ask?

2004-11-10T03:49:09Z

I am in Philadelphia on business. I just walked down to Independence Hall, saw where the constitution and DOI were signed. It is truly amazing the odds everyone faced when going up against the Brits back then, at the risk of being killed for treason. We've been through so much, and that is why we have what we have now.

I love this country. The whole thing brings tears to your eyes.

scott

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Bush breaks popular vote record

2004-11-04T15:17:16Z

BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN...

I am so thankful to George Soros for his America Coming Together organization. Just think, if he had just stayed out of it, Kerry might have won. But now we all see who America really wanted for four more years of leadership. Kind of sad if you think about it. A big rise in voter registrations by the Dems and they lose even bigger.

Love,
Scott

posted in Young Republicans - 21 replies

Kerry Concedes!

2004-11-04T04:27:10Z

Kerry called and conceded. Bush has been successfully re-elected!

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

Voters in 10 States OK Gay-Marriage Ban

2004-11-03T16:30:55Z

LOL

posted in Young Republicans - 16 replies

a question

2004-11-03T16:21:24Z

I know that all the conservatives are celebrating their win, but my question is this, who here actually feels really good about the election?

posted in Young Republicans - 5 replies

Hey there....

2004-11-02T21:39:30Z

New here. I am a little shy, but I will come out of my shell once I know people. I am not a Republican, but I was told that if I lived in the US, I would be one. Since I live in Canada, I cannot comment.
Things you shoudl know about me....

I hate volence.
I am shy.
I hate confrontation.
I have trouble expressing myself most of the time in the most simplistic ways.

Thank you for letting me join this tribe. I hope to make lots of friends.

Thank you

posted in Young Republicans - 11 replies

Other Voting options

2004-11-02T21:36:29Z

It seems no-one can be happy with the way the states pick their own system of voting.. early elections, absentee ballots, voting booths, touch screens, etc. What is the right way to do it?

I think internet voting is the way to go, and I think it is one thing the gov't should control, leaving the states out of it since they can't get it right. You should be able to vote with your social and then a PIN # that is mailed to you in advance, just like a credit card PIN is generated and mailed to you. Then you select a backup alternative, like touch tone phone or a physical place to go like your local school.

posted in Young Republicans - 8 replies

Patriot Act - Beacon of Freedom

2004-11-02T19:54:13Z

The Patriot Act: Wise Beyond Its Years

By JOHN ASHCROFT
October 26, 2004; Page A24

"[The Patriot Act] takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike." -- President George W. Bush, at the Patriot Act signing ceremony, on Oct. 26, 2001.
* * *

The Patriot Act turns three today, but its age belies its experience -- and its phenomenal success. Over the past 36 months, the Patriot Act has proved itself to be an indispensable tool that the men and women of law enforcement use to combat terrorism and to compile a record of accomplishment that has grown even as their responsibility for the safety of Americans has increased.

The Patriot Act enhanced communication on every level of law enforcement to combat terrorist threats, while also giving investigators the same tools to use in terrorism cases that they were using to combat other serious threats.

Armed with these tools, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agents have pursued and captured operatives in the war on terrorism from Florida to New York, from Virginia to Oregon and points in between. Since Sept. 11, 2001, 368 individuals have been charged and 194 have been convicted.

Despite the documented successes in keeping Americans safe from terrorism, the Patriot Act rarely receives its due, and indeed is often portrayed in an outright false light.

Take the latest example. Just last month, several major news organizations erroneously reported that a federal judge in New York had overturned "an important surveillance provision" of the Patriot Act. In fact, the judge ruled on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) and passed in 1986, 15 years before the Patriot Act. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post were forced to print corrections the next day.

Time and again, the image of the Patriot Act is at odds with the facts on the ground. Three years ago today, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, a piece of long-overdue legislation that has been critical to keeping Americans safe and free. The parade of witnesses that appeared before the 9/11 Commission spoke of the importance of the Patriot Act. Former Attorney General Janet Reno and many others credited the Patriot Act with updating the law to deal with terrorists, and, most critically, for tearing down the "wall" in terrorism investigations that restricted the communication and cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence officials.

This new ability to share information helped U.S. law enforcement, working with German authorities, to break up an alleged al Qaeda fund-raising plot in Germany. Here in the United States, the Patriot Act helped federal, state and local law enforcement dismantle the "Portland Seven" terrorist cell in Oregon, as well as cells in Seattle and New York, and alleged terrorist financers in Florida and Texas.

The Patriot Act has also been successful in updating anti-terrorism and criminal laws to bring law enforcement up to date with technology. Pre-Patriot Act, a new court order was required to continue surveillance of a suspected terrorist whenever he switched phones. The Patriot Act gave anti-terrorism investigators the same authority that investigators in criminal cases had to get a single court order allowing surveillance of every phone a suspect uses. Common sense dictates that tools that help fight the drug lords should be available to protect the American people from terrorist attacks.

The Patriot Act also increased penalties for not only those who commit terrorist acts, but for those who provide support to terrorists as well. In particular, the Act enhanced law enforcement's ability to crack down on unlicensed foreign money transmittal businesses, a favored method of financing for terrorists. Prosecutors in New Jersey recently used the Patriot Act to convict Yehuda Abraham, whose services were used in a plot to sell shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles to terrorists with the understanding that they were going to be used to shoot down U.S. commercial aircraft.

The Patriot Act has proved its usefulness beyond the war on terrorism in protecting our most vulnerable citizens from harm. During the course of drafting and debating the Patriot Act in 2001, Congress wisely decided to provide some investigative tools for all criminal investigations, including terrorism investigations.

The result? In pedophile and kidnapping investigations, for example, a delay can literally mean the difference between life and death for a child. For years, investigators could subpoena some information from Internet service providers. But filing subpoenas to get information quickly to identify and locate a suspect could cost life-saving time.

Section 210 of the Patriot Act changed that. In Operation Hamlet, sexual predators were using the Internet to exchange photos and videotapes of children being sexually abused. Sometimes the abusers molested children while running a live feed via a Web cam; this allowed other child sexual abusers to watch in real-time online. Investigators used the Patriot Act to quickly obtain subpoenas for information from Internet service providers. The sexual predators were identified, and 19 were convicted. More than 100 children were spared further harm.

The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement achieve more safety and security for the American people without any abuse of civil liberties. Misleading rhetoric aside, not a single instance of abuse under the Act has been cited by any court, the Congress or the Justice Department's own Inspector General -- not one.

The public has expressed overwhelming support for the Patriot Act in opinion poll after opinion poll. They know what the 9/11 Commission affirmed: that for the past three years, America's families and communities have been safer, and their freedom is enhanced because of the president's resolve and leadership, the foresight of Congress in enacting these vital tools, and the courageous men and women on the front lines who have used the Patriot Act to protect our lives and liberties.

posted in Young Republicans - 14 replies

You, a terrorist

2004-11-02T19:41:14Z

You have the ability to launch your own jihad, and declare a fatwa on either Fox News or the Communist News Network (CNN).

What would your goals be?
What would you wear in your address?
What would you call yourself?
What would your organization be called?

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Kerry misvote!!

2004-11-02T19:05:46Z

I just saw John Kerry vote, then he came out and asked for a new ballot! When he went outside, the reporters asked him why...HE ACCIDENTALLY VOTED FOR BUCHANON!!!!!

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Anyone else have a problem with this?

2004-11-02T17:51:34Z

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/27/crime.halloween.reut/index.html

I'm fine with the restrictions on sex offenders. However, is it really responsible for a DA to go around calling people "perverts?"

They are convicted felons on parole (i assume). However, presumably they have served their time, and the DA should be a little more professional.

posted in Young Republicans - 24 replies

His words

2004-11-02T16:47:18Z

BIN LADEN'S OWN WORDS

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404

I don't care who your voting for you should look at what Bin Laden was saying.

Did you notice the Micheal Moore reference about Bush, "It appeared to him that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers."

Did you notice the statement of attacks against states that voted for Bush? "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

Here is the translation from Middle East Research Institute:

******

To the American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its reasons and its consequences. . . . I tell you: Security is an important element of human life, and free people do not give up their security. Unlike what Bush says that we hate freedom, let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example.

It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones. We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even as you enter the fourth year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush is still misleading and deluding you and hiding the real reason from you. Consequently, there are still reasons to repeat what happened. I will tell you about the reasons behind these attacks and will tell you the truth about the moments during which the decision was made, for you to contemplate.

God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind. The incidents that affected me directly go back to 1982 and afterward, when America allowed Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the help of the American 6th Fleet.

In these tough moments, many things raged inside me that are hard to describe, but they resulted in a strong feeling against injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. We have a long experience with them. Both types include many who are full of arrogance and greed.

This resemblance became clear in Bush the father's visits to the region. ... He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision.

He passed on tyranny and oppression to his son, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of fighting terror. Bush the father did well in placing his sons as governors and did not forget to pass on the expertise in fraud from the leaders of the [Mideast] region to Florida to use it in critical moments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We had agreed with the general emir Mohammed Atta, God bless his soul, to carry out all operations within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed. It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American armed forces will leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone.

It appeared to him that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands. Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

the wonderful mother theresa...

2004-11-02T15:19:40Z

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083

"This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa

"After Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of civil liberties in 1975, Mother Teresa said: "People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes." These approving comments were seen as a result of the friendship between Teresa and the Congress Party. Mother Teresa's comments were even criticized outside India within Catholic media. (Chatterjee, p. 276.)

An Indian-born writer living in Britain, Dr. Aroup Chatterjee, who had briefly worked in one of Mother Teresa's homes, began investigations into the finances and other practices of Teresa's order. In 1994, two British journalists, Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali, produced a critical British Channel 4 documentary, Hell's Angel, based on Chatterjee's work.

The next year, Hitchens published The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, a pamphlet which repeated many of the accusations in the documentary. Chatterjee himself published The Final Verdict in 2003, a less polemic work than those of Hitchens and Ali, but equally critical of Teresa's operations.

Mother Teresa had a short response to her critics: "No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work".

posted in Young Republicans - 41 replies

chicken hawks and heroes

2004-10-29T14:11:03Z

http://newyork.tribe.net/listing/ecf106df-b1f2-46d6-80b8-74a5e7ecf792?r=10352

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Identity Clubs

2004-10-29T06:01:56Z

Should a club on a campus be allowed to discriminate on identity?

Christian clubs want to exclude gays and atheists, and people of other religions.

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Innnnteresting...

2004-10-28T16:55:59Z

http://news.com.com/Bush+campaign+site+blocks+traffic+from+abroad/2100-1028_3-5429543.html?tag=nefd.top

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Social Security

2004-10-28T13:58:54Z

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

(got this in e-mail)

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Cost of Medicine

2004-10-28T09:03:21Z

Material Costs of Medical Compounds
Investigative Research Reveals the True Costs of Drugs

By Sharon Davis and Mary Palmer
US Department of Commerce
7-3-4

The women who wrote this email and signed below are Federal Budget Analysts in Washington, D.C.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United State contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.
The chart below speaks for itself.
Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809%
Zithromax 600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor 40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft 50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone I knew should know about this. Please read the following and pass it on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner.
On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo ... three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco, Sam's Club and other discount volume stores consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs. I went to the the discount store's website, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Comparing, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients. I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19..89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at another discount store for $28.08. I would like to mention, that although these are a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in. (This is true, I went there this past Thursday and asked them.)
I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own email, and send it to everyone you know with an email address.
Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
Email Address:
Mary Palmer
Budget Analyst
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Office of Budget & Finance
Voice: (202) 606-9295
Fax: (202) 606-5324

(got this in e-mail)

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

Welfare

2004-10-28T08:30:39Z

How would you reform welfare?

posted in Young Republicans - 38 replies

Is it or isn't it?

2004-10-27T16:58:36Z

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/27/sex.video.ap/index.html

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Lightbulb

2004-10-27T13:47:11Z

the race is on to see which reactionary cobbles together a liberal version.

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a
light bulb?

The answer is ten.

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs
to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for
changing the light bulb or for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the
new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing
on a stepladder under the banner, "Mission Accomplished."

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in
detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear #7.

9. One to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a
strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between
screwing a light bulb, and screwing the country.

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

The Flip Flopper

2004-10-26T16:51:51Z

Truly, the face of the conservative republican party.

(Washington) President George W. Bush has softened his approach to same-sex unions as he makes his final bid to reach out to moderate voters in the final days of the campaign.

Tuesday morning Bush told ABC's Charles Gibson that he would support civil unions but remains opposed to gay marriage.

In an exclusive interview on Good Morning America Bush said that traditional marriage must be preserved. But, for the first time has added a qualifier.

"I view the definition of marriage difference from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others."

Bush, said he continues to support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, because he is concerned about what "activist judges" will do without clear guidelines.

"Look. If you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, without the courts making the decision. That's through the constitutional process and obviously I think that's the way to go, because I am concerned that courts are making this decision. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making, on behalf of the American people," Bush said.

The president said he would leave the issue of civil unions to the states, but said he also would not be opposed to granting some of the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay couples.

Bush's new position puts him closer to Democratic candidate John Kerry. While Kerry has said he opposes same-sex marriage, he does not support a constitutional amendment, and supports civil unions.

When asked about his indecisive answer during the final presidential debate on the question of the origins of sexuality, Bush also has a new explanation. Bush told Gibson that he's open to the possibility that nature could be the defining component when it comes to a person's sexuality.

Bush's new approach drew immediate condemnation from Democrats.

"One week before he loses his own reelection can say whatever he wants in an attempt to grab voters but the American people are smarter than that," DNC spokesperson Brian Richardson told 365Gay.com.

"For four years this president has failed and misled the American people and has discriminated the GBLT community on every possible occasion."

LGBT civil rights organizations also dismissed Bush's comments.

"After years of promoting discrimination President Bush's attempt to reinvent himself a week before election day will not persuade voters," Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques told 365Gay.com.

"President Bush's election eve conversion to support civil union s cannot be reconciled to his efforts to amend the const to ban civil unions."

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

October Surprise

2004-10-26T01:57:29Z

A column from a fledgling Libertarian web site dedicated to California news, politics, culture, and lifestyle. (www.battlecry-ca.com)

Best wishes,
Mike Forbes

The phrase "October Surprise" was invented on Oct. 2, 1980 by George H. Bush at a campaign appearance in Eugene, Ore. Mr. Bush warned that President Carter might engineer an event that would change the way the electorate viewed the national race because, "When you are a president, you have an ability to shape things to some degree.” 

Whether there will be an October Surprise in 2004 remains to be seen. We may even see a November 1st Surprise. Or a 2nd of November Surprise. Or we may see an October Surprise not engineered by the President. 

If an October Surprise were to occur, what manifestation is it likely to take? Might it be the announcement that Osama bin Laden has been captured? 

Earlier in the year, both left and right-wing ideologues claimed that the U.S. military already had Osama bin Laden on ice, ready to be produced. 

Putting that nonsense aside, what are the chances Osama will be taken between now and the election? 

The C.I.A. believes bin Laden is in a mountainous area north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is populated with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to have 50 bodyguards with him at all times. bin Laden and his men sleep in caves. The area is subject to snow storms sweeping 10,000ft-high mountains and buffeted by high winds. There are no roads and donkeys are the preferred mode of transport. 

This makes conventional assault- surrounding the area and methodically searching for the terrorist- impossible. The plan to capture bin Laden would depend on a swift, surgical operation. Special Forces troops in Afghanistan await intelligence about bin Laden’s location and the order to snatch him. 

Capturing bin Laden would seal the election for Bush. The only problem is no one in the U.S. military knows where to find The World’s Most Wanted Man. 

The U.S. hasn’t been able to locate bin Laden since 9/11. Let some simple, extremely unscientific numbers set the odds for bin Laden’s capture between now and the election- 160 weeks since the W.T.C. Bombings without useable intelligence : 1 week remaining before the election. 

The far more likely October Surprise is that Al Qaeda will employ the Madrid Strategy, so named for the March 11, 2004 commuter train bombings in Spain that killed 191 people, to turn voters against President Bush. 

The Madrid Strategy seeks to pick away at the coalition until it is reduced until only the U.S. remains. The bombings in Spain were clearly intended to coincide with that country’s election season. Al Qaeda’s hopes of turning middle-of-the-road voters against supporting U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq were realized. The terrorists, heartened by success in Spain, will try their best to strike where Americans will feel it most. 

Battle Cry doesn’t shy from making predictions and so far we’re 2-0, but we can’t employ that kind of a hot streak in an arena that deals with domestic terrorism. Instead, Battle Cry will set the odds. 

Odds on a domestic terrorist attack before Election Day… 1 : 1. 

And if terrorists succeed in killing Americans at home? 

Bush would be victorious. 

There is little doubt that the Bush Administration, though hamstrung by the lumbering nature of all bureaucracies, has done its best to protect Americans at home and no patriotic American could ever believe that an American leader of either party would allow an attack to occur for political gain. 

Americans aren’t appeasers. Blood on American soil would put even “safe” states like California back into contention. 

(www.battlecry-ca.com)

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

The world votes

2004-10-26T00:49:00Z

George Bush, dumpster bait.

http://worldpeace.org.au/virtualelection.asp

posted in Young Republicans - 34 replies

Bgst.Tax Cut in 2 decades

2004-10-25T18:51:32Z

Associated Press
Bush Signs $136B Corporate Tax Cut Bill
Friday October 22, 3:25 pm ET
By Terence Hunt, AP White House Correspondent
President Bush Signs Sweeping Rewrite of Corporate Tax Law, Issues $136 Billion in Tax Breaks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With no fanfare, President Bush on Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.

But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.

There was no ceremony for the bill-signing. White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced it on Air Force One as Bush flew to a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania.

Bush mentioned the new tax law at the beginning of a health care event in Canton, Ohio.

"I signed a bill that's going to help our manufacturers -- that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America," Bush said. "That will help keep jobs here."

The handling of the corporate tax bill was in contrast to Bush's action on Oct. 4 when he sat before television cameras on a stage in Des Moines, Iowa, to sign three tax-cut breaks popular with middle-class voters and reviving other tax incentives for businesses.

Bush's campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry, missed the vote on the corporate tax breaks. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said there were many important things in the bill but that "George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas. In his first budget, John Kerry will call for the repeal of all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill."

The Joint Tax Committee said the overall bill would not increase the deficit because the $136 billion in tax cuts were balanced by $136 billion in tax increases. Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.

The original purpose for the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization. Repeal of the tax break was needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than 1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to Europe.

The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America's largest corporations.

The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by tobacco farmers. However, a Senate provision that would have coupled this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration was dropped by the conference committee that resolved differences between the two chambers.

The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track owners.

The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering, construction and architectural firms and large farming operations.

The bill was seen as must-pass legislation because it repeals a $5 billion annual subsidy for U.S. exporters that has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Because of that ruling, 1,600 American exports to Europe have been hit by penalty tariffs that now stand at 12 percent and are rising by 1 percentage point a month.

In addition to the $76.5 billion in tax relief for manufacturing, the measure would also provide $42.6 billion in tax relief to multinational companies.

Supporters argued that the tax relief for multinational corporations would boost the competitiveness of U.S. companies, but opponents argued that it would simply provide more tax benefits to support the movement of U.S. jobs overseas.

To pay for the $136 billion total of new tax relief over the next decade, the legislation would rely on the savings from repealing the export subsidy and would close corporate loopholes and tax shelters -- thereby raising an estimated $82 billion over the next decade.

posted in Young Republicans - 3 replies

CA Republicans... we need your content

2004-10-25T13:31:34Z

Battle Cry (www.BattleCry-CA.com) is an electronic periodical dedicated to articulating, shaping, and promulgating the ideas that will secure liberty and prosperity for the inhabitants of California.

Battle Cry is a non-partisan news source that seeks to increase individual freedom and responsibility, protect the rights of property owners, bolster a marketplace that encourages business and the creation of wealth, improve education, manage our environment at the crossroad of sustainability and profitability, aid in the swift rendering of humane justice, and find solutions to the problems we hold in common with our neighbors in a manner that encourages peace and tolerance.

We give equal space to all qualified viewpoints. Our philosophy is built around respect. We are looking for intelligent activists and writers to join our team. Here is our code:
Working for Change First, Dollars Second
Our contributions to Battle Cry should be directed in the spirit of our mission statement: to articulate, shape, and promulgate ideas that will secure liberty and prosperity for California. Our goal is to make the world a better place. BattleCry-CA.com is run for profit, but compensation should not be our sole consideration. Ideally, we will look upon working for a better future as our foremost reason for contributing to BattleCry-CA.com. At Battle Cry we work for change first, dollars second. This mind-set will help BattleCry-CA.com survive until our company begins to generate revenue. Helping one’s community is a reward unto itself; the paycheck is gravy. (Compensation schedules are addressed below.) Remembering this attitude after the money begins to arrive will assure that we continue to affect positive change.
Employee Empowerment
People are Battle Cry’s most important resource and the key to our competitive advantages. We have experts writing in every topic. The way to sustain a high level of enthusiasm and personal satisfaction is to empower the individual. Our product is timely, interesting information that people trust and want. How editors and writers go about making that product is up to them.
Building networks of contacts and writers is an important task for all levels of Battle Cry personnel. The more people working with us the better our product will be, the faster our popularity will grow, the quicker we will turn a profit. We are our own best publicity department and our own best recruiters.
Editors have been told they should treat their subject categories as their own personal kingdoms. It is up to the editors which topics are reported. The editor of each bureau knows that subject best; they know what should be written.
Battle Cry’s only content stipulations, besides that articles be timely, interesting, and pertinent to California, are no advocating treason (violent overthrow of the United States government/giving comfort or aid to foreign enemies), no anonymous sources (all original writing citing opinions or containing quotes must have a name verifiable by a phone number), and no conspiracy theories (no proof means no publish).
However, editors are advised to keep the publisher and managing editor informed of their intended course of articles. Doing so will prevent repetition of subjects, conflicts with other editors, and the wasting of time on subjects that are of marginal interest. Occasionally a subject may straddle the lines between the boundaries of two subjects. The publisher will decide which editor and writer will offer Battle Cry’s position.
Respect for Diversity

Respect for the views of others is the concept that unifies Battle Cry into a team for change. Harnessing the thinking, ideas, and energy of a wide cross-section of people is the best strategy for us to find stories and information that no one else has yet. It is of paramount importance that we demonstrate trust and respect for the unique talents and perspective of each member of Battle Cry. Each person on our staff is an expert in their field. Please defer to their expertise or simply agree to disagree.
Professionalism
Everyone is expected to conduct themselves with professionalism when acting in their capacity as members of the Battle Cry staff. We must be seen by all who come in contact with us as sober, rational, and lucid.
Please take the time to use an endearment when writing email on behalf of Battle Cry. Please use the spell check and re-read what you have written when corresponding with writers or other companies. Please do not over-use capitals, engage in “flaming” email, over-punctuate (???), or use dem

Visit our site, take a look around, then contact us at managingeditor@battlecry-ca.com. Help change California for the better! Join our team today!

It’s a great day for California!
- Michael M. Forbes, Publisher of Battle Cry (www.BattleCry-CA.com)

posted in Young Republicans - 2 replies

Helpline West LA : : :

2004-10-24T18:23:13Z

Just moved to Los Angeles to attend UCLA. This campus is something else. I thought I'd be going to Berkeley until I got in here, and seeing the political climate on campus, I'm grateful that I'm not at Cal. There is some good work being done on the UCLA campus, but it's largely behind the scenes at this point. Conservative Cluture week is coming up, and we'll see how that goes...

Anyone in here in the West LA area??

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

Republican Cheating

2004-10-21T14:10:27Z

Sproul play
The RNC-funded firm Sproul & Associates stands accused of lying, cheating and even destroying Democratic voter registration forms to get more Republicans to the polls.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

Oct. 21, 2004 | Lisa Bragg, a 37-year-old mother of two in St. Albans, W. Va., spotted a newspaper ad last August for a customer-service position offering the pretty good wage of $9 an hour. Bragg, who studied communications in college and talks with the easygoing flair of someone who "really just loves people," called the number and soon found herself in the offices of Kelly Services, the national temp agency, filling out an application. And then, like the other people who'd come in for the job, she discovered that there was something strange afoot.

The people at Kelly were cagey about the nature of the position. They first made the applicants watch workplace-safety videos before divulging that the job had nothing at all to do with customer service. Instead, employees would be conducting a "political survey." At that point, some annoyed applicants walked off. Those who remained were asked to attend "orientation" at the Charleston Civic Center the next day. There, the workers were let in on the big secret: "They said we'd be working for the Republicans," Bragg recalls. "They'd been sneaky all along, so when they said that, you could hear the sighs around the room." The applicants were then handed several documents describing what they would be doing -- and Bragg, a proud Democrat, saw that the entire enterprise was based on deception, and she decided to walk away.

The employment session that Bragg attended that summer afternoon in West Virginia was, it turns out, part of an apparent nationwide voter-registration scheme engineered by Sproul & Associates, an Arizona consulting firm that's been paid more than $600,000 by the Republican National Committee this year.

During the past week and a half, several former employees, elections officials and others across the country who've had dealings with the firm have revealed to various local media outlets Sproul's methods for boosting GOP registration in key swing states. The accounts allege that Sproul's workers were encouraged to lie, cheat and, according to Eric Russell, a former Sproul employee in Las Vegas who first told his story to a local television station last week, even destroy the registration forms of Democrats who'd registered to vote with Sproul canvassers. Sproul has denied those charges, variously challenging the veracity of its former employees; but taken together, the stories are compelling, and they may provide an early glimpse into the kinds of shady tactics Republicans are using to win at the polls this year.

In Bragg's account, workers were asked to congregate outside local convenience stores and pretend to be nonpartisan political pollsters interested in the nuances of local opinion. "If anyone asks what kind of poll [this is], it is a simple field poll to see what neighborhood support is," reads the script Sproul handed Bragg. But if the respondents to this pretend poll said that they were Bush supporters, canvassers were told to offer to help them register to vote. If they said they were Kerry supporters, the canvassers would politely walk away.

Bragg says that fooling people was the key to the job. Canvassers were told to act as if they were nonpartisan, to hide that they were working for the RNC, especially if approached by the media. Bragg's story mirrors the accounts provided to Salon by several librarians across the country who say they were contacted by Sproul in early September. In letters the firm sent to the libraries, Sproul misrepresented itself as America Votes -- a left-leaning national voter registration group not affiliated with Sproul -- but said that it was interested in registering "all those who wish to register to vote." Shortly after Sproul canvassers began working the libraries, though, patrons began complaining that the canvassers were being especially inquisitive about their political leanings, and some were pushing people to register as Republicans.

Pushiness seems to be a common theme in accounts of Sproul's activities. Barbara Nielsen, the clerk of Douglas County, Ore., says that she received a couple of written complaints from local citizens who'd been harassed by Sproul canvassers bent on recruiting people for the GOP. Since many Sproul canvassers were paid for each Republican registration form they handed in but got nothing for Democratic forms, some had an incentive to coerce people to go red, and to be careless about the forms Democrats handed to them. Michael Johnson, a Sproul canvasser in Portland, Ore., told a local TV station there last week that because he wasn't being paid for the Democratic forms he turned in, he "might" sometimes trash them. The revelation prompted Oregon officials to open an investigation into Sproul.

Across the nation, state and federal officials are now looking into Sproul's efforts. There is no evidence that Sproul's questionable tactics were encouraged by Republican Party officials or, indeed, that the RNC even knew what the firm was up to. In statements, the Republicans have responded to the Sproul news by claiming to have a "zero-tolerance policy for anything that smacks of impropriety in registering voters."

But Democrats in Arizona say that the RNC was playing with fire in choosing Sproul for its outreach efforts and that the selection at least shows the party's lack of concern for preventing fraud. Nathan Sproul, the 32-year-old founder of Sproul & Associates (who did not respond to several of Salon's phone calls), "always seems to be playing things right on the edge," says Bob Grossfeld, a Democratic political consultant in Phoenix. Sproul's efforts, earlier this year, to collect signatures to repeal Arizona's public campaign financing bill were considered underhanded. Democrats also blanched at Sproul's involvement over the summer with Ralph Nader's efforts to find a place on the Arizona ballot.

Sarah Rosen, spokeswoman for the state's Democratic Party, says news of Sproul's activities in Nevada didn't come as any surprise to anyone in Arizona. "Absolutely no surprise. Nathan Sproul is accused of ripping up Democrats' registration forms? Everybody went, 'Oh, sure, that sounds right.' So why is this man who's been known to be involved in these activities continually receiving contracts from the Republican Party?"

- - - - - - - - - - - -

"Hello, we are doing a simple survey. If the election were held today, would you vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry?" So goes the first question on the script that Sproul's employees were asked to read to prospective registrants. The script, which was provided to Salon by Lisa Bragg, is printed on Sproul & Associates and America Votes letterhead, even though Sproul & Associates is not affiliated with America Votes. (In other states, the company has also gone by the name Voters Outreach of America.)

Bragg gave Salon several documents that she was handed during the recruitment session. Some of these documents counseled employees not to dismiss Democrats; the headline on one of the documents reads, "Don't turn anyone away!" In large, all-caps type, it says, "ALL CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER." The documents also remind canvassers to be polite. "If a person becomes angry, it is important to listen to them, but not argue back," the documents say. "If a person is agitated, they might complain to the store manager, risking the loss of this location to register voters at. Please be sensitive toward others of different political affiliations who do not want to support President Bush. The Goal is to Register Republicans, and to remain positive."

But while they were asked to keep a cheery outlook, it's clear the employees were also told not to register Democrats unless people specifically asked for the forms. In what's called the "Kerry Scenario" on the script handed to employees, people who said they supported the Democrat for president were to be told, "Thank you very much for your time, I will record this." But people supporting Bush were to be told, "Great, well this is a very important election. Are you registered to vote at your current residence?" The Sproul employee was to help those who were not registered fill out the form.

On Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that a Sproul employee script that it had received from a former worker in western Pennsylvania featured additional questions for undecided voters: "Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?" and "Are you worried about the Democrats raising taxes?" If the voters were pro-life, they were to be registered. "If they are pro-choice, say thank you and walk away."

To Bragg, such tactics constituted lying to her friends and neighbors. "They were asking me to be deceptive and to go behind people's back," she says. "I thought that was wrong and sneaky." She remembers other prospective workers at the recruitment drive also saying they felt uncomfortable with these guidelines, but for many, the money was too good to pass up. "Most people jumped at the chance to get this kind of work. A lot of the jobs around here are minimum wage, and this was a good opportunity for people who needed some part-time work or flexible hours."

Some workers at the orientation session said that they would try, despite Sproul's rules, to register Democrats anyway, Bragg recalls. "But the Sproul people were saying that they were going to have people checking up on us in the field. I thought, 'I don't want to be looking over my shoulder to see if Big Brother is watching me to make sure I'm not signing up Democrats.'" Bragg decided not to take the job and instead she alerted her former college journalism professor and the local press about her experiences. Her story was first reported, to little national notice, in the Charleston Gazette in late August.

In the past few years, left-leaning third-party advocacy groups have made voter registration a priority, and they've launched unprecedented efforts to sign people up for the polls. Though nominally nonpartisan and not affiliated with the Democratic Party in any official capacity, nobody doubts that the efforts of these groups -- such as the real America Votes, which works together with America Coming Together (ACT) and the Media Fund -- are meant to bolster Kerry in November. So how is Sproul's work different? Why is it wrong when Sproul asks its workers to focus on Republicans in the same way that America Votes might ask its workers to canvass a historically Democratic neighborhood?

Those are the questions the RNC asks in attacking Democrats "whose selective outrage does not apply to Democrat aligned groups like ACT, ACORN and others despite widespread allegations of systematic voter registration fraud." And in fact, the Republicans are right that some progressive groups have been accused of registration mischief. On Oct. 11, for instance, a local television news show in Denver reported that employees for ACORN, a group that has focused on registering low-income minorities, say they've been registering the same people multiple times in order to get paid more than once. (ACORN says that it's investigating the claims and notes that, logically, it doesn't have an interest in paying employees extra for registering the same people more than once.)

But former employees and others who've dealt with Sproul say its efforts go beyond the line of acceptable party boosterism sometimes seen in voter registration efforts. The firm's tactics are systematically deceptive, they say; lying seems to be part of its normal business plan. When you tell people you're doing a poll but you aren't really doing a poll, you're lying to them. The established left-leaning groups say they'd never engage in such a practice -- and so far, there's no evidence they have engaged in it.

The yarn that Sproul concocted for librarians around the country during the summer is another example of the company's uneasy relationship with truth. One of these librarians is Meghan O'Flaherty, the central library manager of the Jackson County Library in Oregon, who received a solicitation letter from Sproul in early September. "Our firm has been contracted to help coordinate a national non-partisan voter registration drive, America Votes!, in several states across the nation," the letter began. It went on to ask permission to have "1 to 2 people assigned to register voters" outside the library.

When she got the letter, O'Flaherty looked online for more information about America Votes, and after calling the group she discovered that the real America Votes wasn't connected with Sproul's firm. "I do feel they were trying to deceive me," she says now. Flaherty posted her findings on a librarian's listserv, and when her story was reported in the local paper on Sept. 21, Nathan Sproul professed innocence. "We were not trying to copy their name," he told the paper, saying that he'd never before heard of the large, well-funded America Votes.

Holly McCullough, the special assistant to the director of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, also received a solicitation from Sproul & Associates in September. McCullough and other librarians in the region initially let the firm conduct registration at the libraries. When library patrons began complaining about the Sproul workers' tactics, though, she called the company and complained. In response, the firm told her some outlandish stories.

Sproul first said that workers had been asking people their political affiliations "because they were doing some market analysis in the area," McCullough says. "I told them they were only supposed to be doing registrations, not market analysis. So then they said they were having trouble with temp agency they were using: the temp workers weren't working according to the rules. In my last conversation with them I asked them who they're associated with -- are you really with America Votes? They put me on hold. Then they came back and said, 'We've always represented that we were Sproul, and America Votes is a non-partisan group we're working with.' But then they said, 'There is another, partisan America Votes, and we're not affiliated with them.'" McCullough asked the firm to cease its operations at her library.

Despite the recent chatter among librarians and some former employees about Sproul's practices, the various threads of the Sproul story weren't pulled together until Eric Russell, a 26-year-old in Las Vegas, came forward last week with his explosive account. Russell, who has acknowledged a beef with the firm over pay, told his local CBS affiliate that supervisors at the company routinely discarded Democratic registration forms. The station, KLAS 8, managed to fish some from the trash, and when it contacted the affected voters they were, understandably, shocked.

Republicans have responded by questioning Russell's motives and his political affiliation. "There's no way to prove what he says either way. He's a disgruntled employee who had access to those forms. There's no way to prove he didn't tear them up," says Brian Scroggins, chairman of the Clark County Republican Party. "I was told he had a prime seat at the Michael Moore event the other day," Scroggins added. According to a report in the Arizona Republic on Friday, Nathan Sproul responded to Russell's allegations by filing a defamation lawsuit against him. "The lawsuit claims that after Russell was fired, he returned to the office holding what appeared to be voter registration forms and told workers he would claim that he saw a supervisor tear up the forms unless he was paid what he wanted," the paper said.

Sproul also told the Arizona Republic that his firm has turned in more than 1,000 Democratic registration forms in Nevada, and many others elsewhere; he has no policy against registering Democrats, he said. This was confirmed for Salon by elections officials in the regions where Sproul has been known to work; many said that Sproul's workers did indeed turn in Democratic forms. But the Democratic forms were far outnumbered by the Republican forms, officials said, as you'd expect to occur with the kind of dishonest tactics Sproul was using.

Russell's attorney declined Salon's request to interview his client, citing the distress caused by the many attacks Russell has faced since he came forward. But the attorney, Michael Mushkin, says that his client has not been served with any lawsuit.

Russell has been interviewed by the FBI, according to media reports. But if his story proves true, action by law enforcement may not make much difference; the damage may have already been done, at least for the many Democrats who registered to vote with Sproul's workers who are unsure whether their forms were turned in. In Nevada, the Democratic Party asked a judge last week to open voter registration for one additional day to accommodate the disenfranchised. The request was denied on Friday afternoon.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrats in Arizona who claim to see a connection between Nathan Sproul and the efforts of the state and national Republican Party point to this fact: Sproul's Phoenix office is located at 4715 N. 32nd St., Suite 107. The offices of Gordon C. James Public Relations, a Republican political firm run by a former member of the advance team for George H.W. Bush, and his wife Lisa, the head of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign in Arizona, are located at 4715 N. 32nd St., Suite 104. At least geographically, then, Nathan Sproul is very close to a few of the most well-connected, powerful GOP politicos in the state.

But do the connections go beyond the physical? Gordon James says no; he and his wife don't have a working relationship with Nathan Sproul, he said. "We don't do any business together," James said. "I've been with the Bush family for 26 years. I barely know Nathan. We both happen to be Republicans." Before she began working on the Bush-Cheney campaign, though, Lisa James did head a group called No Taxpayer Money for Politicians, formed in the spring by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., to pass a ballot initiative that would have essentially repealed Arizona's Clean Elections campaign finance system. Sproul, a former head of the Arizona Republican Party, was hired by No Taxpayer Money for Politicians to conduct a signature drive to get the anti-Clean Elections bill on the ballot.

Sproul was phenomenally successful at his task. In Arizona, the Clean Elections system, which provides public campaign dollars to candidates who agree to forgo private funds, is broadly popular with voters, who approved the system in 1998. It's supported by some of the state's leading politicians, including Gov. Janet Napolitano and Sen. John McCain. But Sproul managed to get 280,000 signatures to repeal the bill. How did he do it?

Democrats in the state say his people weren't playing fair. Sarah Rosen, spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party, recalls talking to some of the anti-Clean Elections canvassers while they were out looking for signatures. "What they would do is come up to you and say, 'You know all those commercials on TV, those negative ads by politicians? All those are financed by your taxpayer dollars. Isn't that just awful? I want to get rid of that, you should too. Sign this petition, no taxpayer dollars for politicians.'"

The claim, Rosen notes, was false; the Clean Elections law doesn't provide enough money for many politicians to run TV ads, and anyway it prohibits a broad range of negative ads. But that didn't matter to Sproul's canvassers. Others in the state say that the petitioners would routinely just lie about the nature of the bill they were hawking. Even though their measure repealed Clean Elections, canvassers would say either that the measure didn't alter Clean Elections in any way, or that it actually helped Clean Elections. Bob Grossfeld, the Democratic political consultant, secretly videotaped one canvasser peddling this lie. In the video, Grossfeld, pretending to be an interested voter, repeatedly asks Sproul's canvasser how the bill in question would affect the Clean Elections bill.

"Would this help Clean Elections?" Grossfeld asks.

"Yeah."

"I like the Clean Elections concept -- would this be OK with that?"

"Yeah ... this is for Clean Elections."

"This is for Clean Elections?"

"Yes, it is."

Despite the signatures Sproul raised, the anti-Clean Elections bill was struck from the Arizona ballot this year by a court that concluded that the proposition's wording violated a state election law. But that wasn't Sproul's fault; his effort in the campaign, the signature drive, was a hit, and it's perhaps based on that record that the RNC decided to hire him for its voter registration efforts.

Doesn't the Republican Party fear being associated so closely with a man, and a firm, whose record is less than fully aboveboard? That's not clear; generally, Republicans say that many of the accusations of voter fraud being leveled at them by Democrats right now are not substantive, that they're part of a campaign to cast doubt over the election before it occurs, in order to contest the results if Kerry loses.

But this theory isn't credible; it's hard to look at what Nathan Sproul's firm has done, and what it's accused of doing, and conclude that the controversy is all part of a Democratic campaign. Clearly, Sproul's firm coached employees to lie to voters. "That's not how the country operates," Grossfeld says. "Trying to suppress registration is antithetical to what this country's about. For all of the flag waving that comes out of folks like that, to engage in that kind of behavior is just disgusting."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

You for President

2004-10-20T18:10:29Z

Assume somehow YOU were elected president, with a high enough majority that you could pass pretty much your entire agenda.

List your priorities. Keep descriptions brief.

posted in Young Republicans - 50 replies

Death Penalty

2004-10-20T17:52:10Z

What would YOU do as president?

posted in Young Republicans - 0 replies

For parents only

2004-10-19T18:23:25Z

What would you choose over supporting your children?

posted in Young Republicans - 1 reply

With friends like these...

2004-10-19T03:35:14Z

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/index.html

Another reason to vote against bush.

posted in Young Republicans - 4 replies

The Jewish PBS Lawyer Cameron F. Kerry

2004-10-18T02:22:02Z

PBS (Presidential Brother Syndrome)

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=kessler20040923145

CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL
By E.J. Kessler
September 24, 2004
By E.J. Kessler
Oh Brother: Cameron Kerry is pledging his brother John would review the sentence of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, who received a life sentence in 1985 after pleading guilty of passing classified documents to Israel.

"It does seem like [Pollard] got a disparate sentence. I'm sure a President Kerry will take a look at it," the younger Kerry said at a lunch with reporters from Jewish newspapers Wednesday in Manhattan. "I can guarantee you that if he looks at it he'll spend longer than George Bush did looking at the death penalty clemency case in the state of Texas," he added, taking a swipe at the president, who notoriously spent only minutes reviewing each case when he was governor.

The remarks seemed pitched to curry favor with Orthodox Jews. Bush has rebuffed numerous calls to free Pollard, who has many defenders among Orthodox Jewry.

A convert to Judaism, Cameron Kerry was back in town for another meeting with Orthodox Jewish communal leaders and others after an awkward meeting with some of the same folks August 26. Then, he got off on the wrong foot by criticizing Attorney General John Ashcroft for, among other things, starting his day with a prayer. That antagonized the Orthodox leaders, who start their day the same way. The Wednesday meeting, brokered by New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, went much better.

...

What do you think, should Kerry if elected president, release Pollard, because his brother is Jewish and thinks that he as orthodox jews do, want him freed?

posted in Young Republicans - 7 replies

Young Republicans's topics - tribe.net

Join national Meetup group to support Mitt Romney

Proof that Protectionism works - Chinese workers getting 24% raises!

I need ...

Reno Republican Women Luncheon

out of touch?

bagpuss

and then, of course, there's

what would you make?

Where did I put that?

Bananas....

Pooh!

I just bought a mixer!

Corn!

Olives!

Pele Juju

Off to work!

Collins Mix

Weather

Passport Pictures

Donuts

Can't believe it

liberalism is a mental disorder

Liberals

What happened to unity? (Open to all who really give a damn)

Hi, Republicans

A test of loyalty

The Ford era was better than now.

Fair weather republicans?

gitmo

Kerry

the troops don't defend our freedoms

READ MY BLOG!

Flash Education /w love

Urgent!!! Please help

What are your thoughts on the WTO?

Draft Young Republicans!

Republicans, prove you support the troops

Jokes that conservatives laugh at?

Where's the National Guard?

Bush cut levee funding - for Iraq

What good has come?

Bush is my Older Brother!!!

judiciary bashing...

The self-destruction of the GOP

the decline of liberalism

k street project

Your voice needed...

Is it okay for capitalists to buy from Communist countries?

Inaguration speech

I like this.....

The Hydrogen Economy

newbie

I have a crush on CONDI

For those as fed up as I am.

Actual Republican Agenda

Two universes

Morals

Just joined

Foreign Born President?

Lunch with Slick Willy yesterday

Clinton sez, "Shut your pie hole"

BUSH WINS FLORIDA AND OHIO!!!!

Next

Sudan Genocide

Ahhhhhh

ciao

Republican Agenda

Where have I been, you ask?

Bush breaks popular vote record

Kerry Concedes!

Voters in 10 States OK Gay-Marriage Ban

a question

Hey there....

Other Voting options

Patriot Act - Beacon of Freedom

You, a terrorist

Kerry misvote!!

Anyone else have a problem with this?

His words