BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

It’s not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don’t come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law. I have been writing about the terrifying and precipitous assault on our liberties and our very system of checks and balances; I have crossed the country with this message — today I am in Boston — and I have heard across the nation that (as usual) the people are ahead of the leaders and the pundits. Americans of all backgrounds are alarmed and outraged and ready to take action against these vicious assaults on the rule of law. But what I hear again and again is: “What can we do?”

Here is what you can do, and it is big, big news. If we do this together in our millions we are safer; and if we fail to act we miss an historic opening and risk far worse to come.

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Both would, if passed, protect Americans from the scary stories of abuse and recrimination I am hearing every single day — journalists intimidated, prisoners tortured, innocent citizens spied on by the State in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both would make it illegal for any administration to commit the kinds of crimes against America and its constitution that we have seen under this one: the innocent lawyer Brandon Mayfield’s home broken into, the innocent software engineer Maher Arar kept prisoner by U.S. agents in an interrogation cell in a U.S. airport and prevented from calling his lawyer, and journalists reporting on abuses by the government threatened by the state with prosecution that could keep them in jail for a decade. Urgently it would close the horrific legal possibility for the president to call you or me an “enemy combatant” tomorrow — JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO — and lock us up in solitary confinement for years.

Passing the legislative agenda of either group would make it clear that American citizens — in spite of a heretofore craven and compliant Congress — refuse to stand by silently while a group of criminals systematically violates the core structure of the democracy our Founders put in place for us.

The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA’s legislative package into Congress. (The mainstream press has an irrational habit of disparaging outsider candidates — as if corrupt money and machine endorsements equal seriousness of purpose — even though the Founders hoped that the system they established would lead citizens, ideally those unembedded in the establishment, to offer their service to the nation.) It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 [PDF], and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:

“The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists.”

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way — and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been — even on the Democratic sign — even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration — and their manipulations of the terms “patriotism” and “terror threat” — and insist with legislation on the Founders’ vision and on restoring democracy.

A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake — we get it — and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. I am not a voter on his side of the ballot — but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda. (Interestingly when I run into Paul’s supporters — who are deeply alert to the abuses of democracy — and I demur by saying I am a Democrat, it is they who rightly assure me that these issues transcend party).

There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the “blueprint” for what I have called a “fascist shift” — the closing down of democracy — calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls — the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines’ administration to that of the TSA itself — and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.

This is the answer both to those who say “What we can do?” and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) “there is nothing we can do.” And if we don’t act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve — which is no democracy at all.

Put aside your partisan ideal world — sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship — and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

We at the AFC are putting out a call to pass this set of laws. Pick up the phone — every day. Email your representative — every day. Let them hear from millions of Americans a day. Let them hear from twenty. Please play hardball — the times demand it and nice girls and boys have managed to get this Congress to do literally nothing at all to protect liberty.

Congressmen and women say off the record that they can’t support liberty, much as they’d like to, because they are scared of “looking soft on terror” and they want to run out the clock — a naive and self-serving posture in a time of crisis. Make them more scared of you if they don’t. Tell them you will bombard their donors with the message that they have sold out liberty. Tell them you will denounce them as traitors to the Constitution in your local and regional letters to the editor and op-eds. Tell them they are unpatriotic to stand by while liberty is disemboweled. Tell them you will stop at nothing to ensure their future defeat unless they support this and make it the law of the land.

Let’s do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you — as the Founders intended it should be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html

Have Your Say: Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Blair emerges as candidate for ‘President of Europe’

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

By Andrew Grice

Tony Blair has emerged as a possible candidate for “President of Europe”, a new post created by the treaty approved by EU leaders at their Lisbon summit.

The former prime minister’s name was put in the frame yesterday by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, who described Mr Blair as “a very remarkable man – the most European of all Britons.” He added: “To think of him would be a good idea.”

The treaty scraps the current system under which one country holds the EU’s rotating presidency for six months. It will be replaced by the appointment of a President, who will chair EU meetings, drive through its agenda and serve for two-and-a-half years.

Gordon Brown said: “Tony Blair would be a great candidate for any significant international job.” He added: “As you know the work that he is doing in the Middle East is something that is of huge international importance.”

But he said it was premature to speculate on who might fill the post because the appointment would not be made until the treaty had been ratified by member states next year.

There remain considerable obstacles to Mr Blair securing the post. Although he is regarded as a heavyweight in EU capitals, he is also remembered as the man who divided Europe by giving George Bush such strong backing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Some EU diplomats predicted that he would not secure enough support from member states.

Friends doubt that Mr Blair would want the job. The new President would not be as powerful as the title or £200,000-a-year package suggests. He or she would help to shape the EU’s agenda and be seen as the EU’s representative on the world stage. But the key decisions would still be taken by national leaders from member states.

After standing down as Prime Minister in June, Mr Blair became the Middle East peace envoy for the Quartet – the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the EU. Yesterday his spokesman did not rule out him taking up the new EU post but said: “He is focusing on his current role in the Middle East.”

Other potential candidates for the post include Aleksander Kwasniewski, the former Polish president, and Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister.

Have Your Say: Blair emerges as candidate for ‘President of Europe’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Ian Blair misled over Jean Charles de Menezes

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

By John Steele

Britain’s most senior policeman was under fire last night after a scathing report revealed he was deliberately kept in the dark by his senior officers after the shooting of an innocent man on the London Underground.


	Sir Ian Blair was ‘kept in the dark’ by senior officers

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was left “almost totally uninformed” following the death of the Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, even though there were widespread fears among the force that he was not a terrorist, the police watchdog said.

The report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said officers heard rumours that a mistake had probably been made hours after the shooting at Stockwell Tube station.

Police watching cricket at Lord’s were said to have heard there was a “terrible mistake”. A secretary working near Sir Ian’s office believed that “they had got the wrong man” and was surprised not to hear this on the news, the report said.

Yet Britain’s terror chief, Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, deliberately did not tell Sir Ian of growing evidence that Mr de Menezes was innocent even though he had been briefing journalists that a mistake may have been made, the report said.

Unaware of the growing concerns, Sir Ian told a press conference on the afternoon of the shooting he “understood” that the electrician - shot seven times in the head by anti-terror officers - had been directly linked to the hunt for the July 21 terrorists.

Sir Ian also claimed that Mr de Menezes failed to stop when challenged by police. He was not told of the mistake until 24 hours after the incident.

The report concluded that although Sir Ian did not lie, Scotland Yard put out misleading information.

It also upheld a complaint of misconduct against Mr Hayman. Last night, representatives of the family of Mr de Menezes said Sir Ian’s ignorance of the unfolding crisis raised “shocking” questions about his command of the force on July 22, 2005.

In addition, there were calls for Mr Hayman’s resignation after the report concluded he kept the commissioner in the dark and misled the public. He faces a discipline inquiry by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

The MP in whose constituency Mr de Menezes died, the Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes, said: “It will not be possible for him to continue in his present post with the confidence of the people of London.” However, there was powerful support for Mr Hayman, not only from colleagues at Scotland Yard who believe he has been made a “scapegoat”.

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said his “counter-terrorism activity has saved dozens of lives”. “It’s all very well for academics, which is largely what the police complaints people are, sitting in their office saying this is how it should have worked. You try doing it when you are waiting for the next bomb to go off.”

Sir Ian said Mr Hayman had his full support. Mr de Menezes, wrongly identified as one of the four July 21 bomb plotters, was killed at Stockwell Tube station, on July 22, 2005. An IPCC report into the death - “Stockwell One” - has not yet been released.

“Stockwell Two”, which cost £300,000 and was released yesterday, followed complaints from his family.

It offered few new facts about the killing, though it asserted that, contrary to Scotland Yard statements, Mr de Menezes did not fail to obey a clear instruction and was not dressed or behaving suspiciously.

Mr de Menezes was being watched after he walked out of a block of flats being watched by a surveillance team.

The IPCC report concluded that, as the day wore on, reports that the Met had shot a “lone Pakistani” who failed to obey an instruction had changed into suspicions that he was not a terrorist.

A wallet was found after he was shot at around 10.00am. When it was finally examined about five hours later it showed the name of Mr de Menezes.

The inquiry heard disputed evidence that one of Sir Ian’s senior aides had remarked hours after the shooting that a “Brazilian tourist” had been shot. Sir Ian allegedly walked by when this was being discussed “without saying anything and without anything being said to him”.

The report said that when the commissioner “left New Scotland Yard mid evening on July 22, 2005, he was almost totally uninformed about the post-shooting events at Stockwell.

“He did not know of the considerable information within the Met in relation to the emerging identity of Mr de Menezes.” The report considered a briefing Mr Hayman gave to the Crime Reporters Association around tea time on July 21, in which he suggested the dead man was not one of four suspects whose faces had been put out earlier.

However, in a subsequent briefing with Sir Ian, Mr Hayman did not mention these fears and a subsequent Met press release said it was not known whether he was one of the four.

The report said: “AC Hayman either misled the public when he briefed the CRA that the deceased was not one of the four or when he allowed the 18.44 July 22 press release to state that it was not known if the deceased was one of the four. He could not have believed both inconsistent statements were true.”

It is recommended that the MPA consider what action it intends to take.

The report found no evidence of misconduct against several senior officers including Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown, who was responsible for the operation. But Mr Brown, who has retired, and two of Sir Ian’s staff officers are criticised for an “error of judgment”. Sir Ian said after the publication of the report: “I have always made it clear that it was never my intention to mislead and, that if I had lied, I would not be fit to hold this office. I did not lie.

“I neither believe that my senior colleagues let me down nor that my position was unreasonable.”

But Sir Ian also admitted: “Public confidence was damaged when statements, for instance, about Mr de Menezes’s behaviour and clothing were revealed to be inaccurate, largely by a leak rather than by official clarification.”

Profile: Sir Ian Blair

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has cast a long shadow over Sir Ian Blair’s reign as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

He was cleared yesterday of lying about the incident in the aftermath or purposefully misleading the public.

But revelations that the head of Scotland Yard was left in the dark about the shooting of an innocent man raise questions about his leadership.

Sir Ian became Met commissioner in February 2005. In his first main test, he was praised for broadcasting a resolute message live to the nation minutes after the July 7 bombings in London.

But his subsequent, regular public appearances have led to controversy and ridicule. More recently, he has been perhaps conspicuous by his absence. Already dubbed New Labour’s favourite policeman, criticism began mounting in January 2006 when he described the media as institutionally racist for its allegedly unbalanced coverage of crimes against white people.

As an example he said “almost nobody” knew why the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman was such a big story.

He later apologised after it was revealed that he secretly taped telephone conversations, most notably with the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

In December, speaking on Radio 4, he drew anger for saying that Islamic terrorism was a “far graver threat in terms of civilians” than either the Cold War or the Second World War.

To some senior officers, the English graduate from Oxford appears to be most comfortable as a thoughtful academic.

But it is a role that has left him dangerously out of touch.

Profile: Andy Hayman

The head of specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police is chalk to Sir Ian Blair’s cheese.

Assistant Commissioner Hayman is a plain-speaking son of Essex, while the Commissioner has cultivated an image of an erudite, Oxford-educated police chief.

No one in the police world, though, would equate Mr Hayman’s occasional use of the vernacular, including the phrase “cooking on gas” to describe a promising operation, with a lack of intellectual grip.

Those who know him say he will regard his current problems as a side issue compared to the “big picture” of countering the jihadi terror threat. He is known to deny categorically that he deliberately misled anyone.

Born in 1959, and having reached the third highest rank in the Met, Mr Hayman is said to have impressed Tony Blair and Government figures in July 2005 with his calm briefings to the Cobra emergency security committee.

With his deputy, Peter Clarke, Mr Hayman has overseen high-profile operations, including last year’s arrest of those involved in the alleged plot to blow up airlines.

In November 1998, Mr Hayman entered the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) when he was appointed to the rank of commander in the Met.

He left the Met to become Chief Constable of Norfolk and returned to Scotland Yard to take up his present post in February 2005.

Mr Hayman, who is married with two daughters, became a CBE last year.

Have Your Say: Ian Blair misled over Jean Charles de Menezes
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

CIA VETERAN: ‘YOU CAN’T MAKE UP SOME OF THE STUFF I’VE SEEN’

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

CIA veteran Valerie Plame Wilson was never supposed to be famous. For 20 years it came naturally to her to lie to her friends and family about being a spy. (She says none of them were mad at her when they found out.) She used false passports and work names and disguises. WATCH VIDEO

She was the best shot with an AK-47 in her mostly-male CIA training class.

She was good enough that, with infant girl-boy twins at home, she went back to work at the CIA, less than full time, and was chosen to be Director of Operations for the Joint Task Force on Iraq. When Condoleeza Rice told the country we didn’t want the “smoking gun” in Iraq to be a “mushroom cloud,” it was Valerie Wilson’s job to mount the operations that would discover if Saddam actually did have nuclear weapons. And from time to time, she did it with two toddlers playing under the desk.

She thinks being female and blonde may have made her more effective on operations, because who expects a spy to look like that? (Obviously not her boss on her first foreign assignment, who made her come into his office, instructed her to turn around, and announced, “Great, great. You’ll do fine here.”)

She doesn’t read spy novels and laughs at shows like “ALIAS” (about a beautiful young female spy) because, as she puts it, “real life is so much better.”

But when her husband angered the Bush administration by criticizing the war in Iraq, and she was “outed,” it was tough. Wilson writes that the stress she and her husband faced almost ended their marriage. They were financially devastated when his consulting business dried up.

And scary things began to happen - scarier than being called names in the paper. She worried that al Qaeda might target her family. She got death threats and crank calls. She gives no details, but her former colleague, Larry Johnson, writes on his blog, NoQuarterUSA “in 2004 the FBI received intelligence that Al Qaeda hit teams were enroute to the United States to kill Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Valerie Plame.”

Wilson knew about the threat. Yet the CIA turned down her request for security for her children. She taught her nanny counter-surveillance techniques herself.

In her book, “FAIR GAME: MY LIFE AS A SPY, MY BETRAYAL BY THE WHITE HOUSE” (Read a Book Excerpt here) she also recounts being audited by the IRS in 2005 for the first time in her life, and the mysterious but alarming discovery that the structural bolts that had connected her elevated deck to the back of her house were all missing, one year after it was completely renovated.

She also believes the CIA went after her book more aggressively than the books of other ex-spies. Roughly 10% of it is “redacted” - here on page 50 and 51, all you can see are the periods. We’ll probably never know what she wanted to tell us on that page, or many more.

That’s not all we don’t know. Valerie Wilson and her husband are still in civil court, suing Vice President Cheney, his Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others, because the one mystery this spy never unraveled is … who started it all? Someone knew her secret and told others, who told reporters, who told the world. Now the woman whose career was ended when she was “outed” now wants that someone “outed” as well.

Have Your Say: CIA VETERAN: ‘YOU CAN’T MAKE UP SOME OF THE STUFF I’VE SEEN’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

BBC Boycott

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

First, they axed Ozzie soap Neighbours. Then, they edited film footage of the Queen to make her look like a mardy old minnow.

Now, the BBC plans to recover a £6 billion “shortfall” by making cuts to the very departments that made it so well-respected – news, factual programming and children’s TV - resulting in up to 2,800 job losses over the next six years. Even the corporation’s world-famous broadcast journalists will not be spared in the mass cull.

As a child I hoped I’d grow up to become just like pearl-earring-wearing news correspondent Kate Adie or the late, great, crime-solving Jill Dando. Others idolized iconic Radio 4 presenters who helped to keep British culture and humour alive, or the Blue Peter presenters who pioneered educational entertainment and humanitarianism for children. It pains me that today’s equivalents, like Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys, are being treated with such little respect. Even more disgraceful is the fact that Beeb bosses called its big-namers into “special meetings” when the ruckus began, urging them to stay on-side with the changes whilst leaving the rest of its workforce to rot in job-loss paranoia.

The British Broadcasting Corporation’s treatment of its hard-working, long-committed staff during recent talks has bought shame on one of the UK’s finest media institutions – with the company first discouraging strikes on site, then sending out template letters seeking volunteers for redundancy. Director general Mark Thompson has since become the face of blame for staff and general public alike, largely thanks to his act of coolly camouflaging a gross money-making scheme as a “cultural development” white paper.

Whilst other channels have always been twinned with the notion of soulless commerciality, the BBC has long considered itself a cut above. However, with its overpaid, outdated stars (inc. irritating one-trick pony Graham Norton) and ubiquitous desk monkey ‘executives’ being automatically saved from the big chop, this has been proven rather untrue. At the heart of the Beeb’s upcoming rebirth is NOT forward-thinking innovation as spouted by the salacious press office but a trust of rich, greedy dictators and a large sum of cash.

This, of course, begs the question: if all the BBC will be offering up from now on is second-rate news and more repeats, what exactly are us licence payers paying £100 a year for? Especially those of us who also pay to subscribe to satellite or cable packages but are still not spared from the terrestrial TV licence trap!

It’s hard to believe that the recent panic came as a result of the government announcing that the BBC’s licence fee would actually RISE, to £151.50 by 2012. Unfortunately, this was less than the Beeb had been expecting. Mr. Thompson responded by saying that the settlement figure left a “gap” of about £2bn over the six years. The BBC trust then asked Mr. Thompson to make further efficiency savings of 3% each year.

Sure, it’s a case of cause and effect - we all understand how the industry works and how the digital age has affected traditional TV - but why should cuts come from popular and informative programmes like Planet Earth and Top Gear? Short answer: money. Low-brow ‘entertainment’ such as Strictly Come Dancing is far more lucrative and thereby far more valuable to the Beeb.

Speaking of the digital age - with the BBC now launching its own online streaming service (where you can download your favourite BBC programmes directly to your computer for free) what right does the corporation have to demand an ever-rising fee for a dying medium?

It is becoming clear that the name of the once-prestigious, classically-British BBC is now permanently soiled. If the TV giant plans to ‘reinvent’ itself by pumping more big-number, no-brainer reality shows into the TV Guide, why don’t they sell out like compadres ITV, C4 and Five and charge for advertising? Could it be that penny-pinching the pockets of Britain’s television-owning population (whether they watch your rubbish channel or not) is more “cost-effective” than popping ad breaks in? More importantly, did they ask us, their financial backing and viewing audience, what we’d like to see sacrificed to profit?

It’s been a long time coming but I finally feel that it is time for us to boycott the Beeb by tuning out and switching off.

For years, this out-of-date channel has coasted along on an archaic reputation that no longer applies. Even worse – the BBC have recently used our hard-earned cash to reel off a series of sub-standard channels like BBC3 and BBC4, which have tiny viewing audiences. With no reference to its public, the BBC has cut its losses by axing the very programming that made it so excellent and unique – keeping instead the pop tart variety of television that can be found anywhere at any time.

Just like another much-disputed obligatory ‘tax’ one cannot choose to opt out of paying for the BBC - our own government enforces this by law, fining and prosecuting those who challenge it - but we can protest in another way: by refusing to watch all and any BBC programming. This way, the Beeb will pay for their blind-sighted ignorance in falling viewer figures. Since they have our money irregardless, do the Beeb really care whether we watch or not? Let’s find out!

Nobody claimed that TV wasn’t a corrupt business (just look at the movie Network for clues) but the flailing BBC should now be left to its own devices, not supported by our own governmental administration! You can damn well work for your advertising revenue, BBC, just like everyone else! We should no longer be legally forced to pay for it, especially in light of recent events that have damaged its validity, popularity and worthiness.

I urge you to press this, pass it on, link to it, or comment in support of the BBC Boycott. Switch off and switch over to C4 or ITV! Peppered with ugly, mindless commercials they may be but at least they’re not asking us to stump up for a service that should be free - like in most countries across the globe, where just buying a TV set is enough! I’d rather watch the Dairy Milk gorilla or even Carol ‘First Plus’ Vorderman than pay for something I don’t watch and - bar Spooks, Question Time and the odd nature documentary - no longer enjoy.

Only by ‘striking’ against the BBC can we actually have an input in what the company are doing with the money they steal from us without consultation. Only by refusing to watch Channels 1 and 2 can we protest against crucial job cuts in news, factual programming and children’s TV - the very backbone of the British televisual experience!

Boycott the British Broadcasting Corporation! Ban the Beeb! Turn off your BBC channels until either the government revoke obligatory TV licences or until the BBC take their cost-cutting, damage-limitation bullshit elsewhere. Here’s a hint: start with the who-cares?-comedy-crap on BBC3 and BBC4!

http://shitandspin.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/bbc-boycott/

Have Your Say: BBC Boycott
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 at 11:28 pm and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: