Bush's Gross Negligence

Yahoo!

WH on Times: 'Gross negligence'

*
Buzz Up
* Send
o Email
o IM
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o del.icio.us
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Technorati
o Yahoo! Bookmarks
* Print

Mike Allen Mike Allen – Sun Dec 21, 2:02 pm ET
Featured Topics:

* Barack Obama
* Presidential Transition

President George W. Bush makes a statement to reporters after donating coats AP – President George W. Bush makes a statement to reporters after donating coats with first lady Laura Bush …

* Blagojevich report expected this week Play Video Presidential Transition Video: Blagojevich report expected this week AP
* Illinois governor: `I'm not going to quit' Play Video Presidential Transition Video: Illinois governor: `I'm not going to quit' AP
* N.C. lawmaker meets with Obama transition team Play Video Presidential Transition Video: N.C. lawmaker meets with Obama transition team WRAL Raleigh

The White House on Sunday issued a blistering 500-word response to a scathing 5,000-word article on the front page of Sunday's New York Times that says President Bush and his style and philosophy of governing played a direct role in the mortgage meltdown that's crippling the nation's economy.

The response accused the nation's largest Sunday paper of "gross negligence."

"The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in an e-mailed statement.

In an unusual double-header, The White House later issued a document headlined, "Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis."

The article was part of the newspaper's "The Reckoning Series" about the nation's market implosion, and was headlined, "‘Ownership society’: White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire."


"Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, 'faced with the prospect of a global meltdown' with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed," says the article by Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton. "There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk. But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials. From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone. ...

"Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. ... As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a 'rough patch.' The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis."



In response, the White House today released the following "Statement by Press Secretary Dana Perino":

"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed.

"The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the president's prime time address to the nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises. For example, the president highlighted a factor that economists agree on: that the most significant factor leading to the housing crisis was cheap money flowing into the U.S. from rest of the world, so that there was no natural restraint on flush lenders to push loans on Americans in risky ways. This flow of funds into the U.S. was unprecedented. And because it was unprecedented, the conditions it created presented unprecedented questions for policymakers.

"In his address the president also explained in detail the failure of financial institutions to perform normal and necessary due diligence in creating, buying and selling new financial products -- a problem that almost no one saw as it was happening.

"That the NYT ignored such an important economic speech to the American people and the complex causes of the crises is gross negligence.

"The Times story frequently repeats a charge by the Administration's critics: a 'laissez faire' attitude toward regulation. We make no apology for understanding the concept of regulatory balance. That is, regulation should be stringent enough to protect the greater public good and safety but not overly strong so that it unnecessarily inhibits innovation, creativity and productivity gains that are the sole source of increasing Americans' standards of living. But while repeating this charge, the reporters gave glancing attention to the fact that it was this Administration that pushed for strengthened regulation and oversight, greater transparency, and housing reform.

"The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market -- even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials — in particular the chairmen of the Banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the president in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"There are many more reporting failures in this story — failure to consider the impact of monetary policy; ignoring the regional nature of housing markets; and ignoring the Bush administration's historic proposal to overhaul the nation's regulatory system, for example. But then a review of these issues would wave complicated the reporters' myopic point of view that only Bush administration policies could possibly be responsible for the housing and finance crises."

Wall Street still flying corporate jets

AP IMPACT: Wall Street still flying corporate jets - Yahoo! News

AP IMPACT: Wall Street still flying corporate jets

*
Buzz Up
* Send
o Email
o IM
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o del.icio.us
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Technorati
o Yahoo! Bookmarks
* Print

By STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer Stevenson Jacobs, Ap Business Writer – 1 hr 52 mins ago
In this Feb. 6, 2007 file photo, a visitor walks past Gulfstream business jets AP – In this Feb. 6, 2007 file photo, a visitor walks past Gulfstream business jets at the Asia Business Aviation …
Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
AIG 1.60 -0.07
BAC 13.80 -0.16
BRK-A 96,540.00 -1,260.00
C 7.02 -0.41
INTC 14.44 +0.18

NEW YORK – Crisscrossing the country in corporate jets may no longer fly in Detroit after car executives got a dressing down from Congress. But on Wall Street, the coveted executive perk has hardly been grounded.

Six financial firms that received billions in bailout dollars still own and operate fleets of jets to carry executives to company events and sometimes personal trips, according to an Associated Press review.

The jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money — lots of money. And some firms are cutting back, either by selling the planes or leasing them.

Still, Wall Street's reliance of the rarified mode of travel has largely escaped the scorn poured on the Big Three automakers.

Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.

"Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now," AIG spokesman Nicholas J. Ashooh said. "I'm not saying there's no use, but there's very minimal use."

To cut costs, AIG sold two jets earlier this year and is selling or canceling orders for four others.

Five other financial companies that got a combined $120 billion in government cash injections — Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley — all own aircraft for executive travel, according to regulatory filings earlier this year and interviews.

A cross-country trip in a mid-sized jet costs about $20,000 for fuel. Maintenance, storage and pilot fees put the cost far higher.

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

A few big U.S. companies have shunned jet ownership. Chip maker Intel Corp., for example, requires executives and employees to fly commercial. Intel occasionally charters jets for executives on overseas trips for security reasons, though.

For automakers, the public relations nightmare exploded last month when the chief executives of Ford, GM and Chrysler were criticized for flying on corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for federal bailout money.

"Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled, or something, to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked the CEOs.

When the executives went back to Capitol Hill two weeks later for a second round of hearings, they traveled by car.

So why were Wall Street executives spared from the corporate-jet backlash? One reason is that they didn't have to go before Congress to request bailout money, so no one asked how they traveled to Washington.

But an AP review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and FAA records offers a glimpse of Wall Street firms' ownership and use of private aircraft. Among the findings:

• CITIGROUP: Has a wholly owned subsidiary, Citiflight Inc., that handles air travel for executives. Citi spokeswoman Shannon Bell refused to comment on the size of the firm's fleet but said it has been reduced by two-thirds over the past eight years. FAA records show four jets and a helicopter registered to the company.

In 2007, then-CEO Charles Prince used company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons. Those trips cost the company $170,972 for that year. Current CEO Vikram Pandit began reimbursing the company for all personal travel on company planes since being appointed in November 2007.

Use of Citigroup's aircraft currently is confined to a "limited number of executives," Bell said. "Executives are encouraged to fly commercial whenever possible to reduce expenses."

• MORGAN STANLEY: Has reduced its executive jet fleet size from three planes to two since 2005, company spokesman Mark Lake said. FAA records show two Gulfstream G-Vs as registered to the company.

In 2007, CEO John Mack's personal use of company aircraft totaled $355,882, according to a February proxy filing. Mack is required to use company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons.

• JPMORGAN: Registered as the owner of four Gulfstream jets, including a 2007 ultra-long range flagship G550 model, FAA records show. A G550 ordered for delivery that year would have cost roughly $47.5 million.

CEO Jamie Dimon is required to use company aircraft for personal trips; In 2007, his personal use of company jets totaled $211,182, according to a May filing with the SEC. Company spokesman Joe Evangelisti refused to comment on whether the bank has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since accepting $25 billion in TARP money.

• BANK OF AMERICA: Registered as the owner of nine planes, including four Gulfstreams, FAA records show. Company spokesman Scott Silvestri refused to say whether the company has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since taking $15 billion in bailout money.

CEO Kenneth Lewis, also required to use company aircraft for personal trips, racked up $127,643 in such travel last year, according to a March filing with the SEC.

• WELLS FARGO: Owns a single jet that "is strictly for business purposes under appropriate circumstances," spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said. "No (government) funds will be used for corporate jet travel," she added.

SEC rules require publicly held companies to disclose executives' personal use of corporate aircraft. But there's "a lot of gray area" in how they do it, said David Yermack, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who has studied the matter.

"If you use the plane for a personal trip but make one business call, should you report it?" he said. "Or if you're playing golf with potential business partners, does a company report that as business or personal?"

As mounting losses force companies to cut costs, some are becoming stingier about personal use of the company plane. Merrill Lynch & Co., for example, has banned such trips, according to company filings.

Experts say other companies that took bailout money will probably follow suit.

"The personal use of these planes is virtually indefensible at this point," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Group. "Once you're on the federal dole, the pressure is going to become immense on these firms to cut these costs."

Private jet manufacturers say the debate over executive travel has been overblown.

"What people don't understand is that business jets are mobile offices," said Robert N. Baugniet, Gulfstream's director of corporate communications. "If time has any value to you, then you'll understand why people use business jets."

He said the dustup hasn't hurt orders for new planes.

Still, some firms have avoided corporate jet ownership. Goldman Sachs Group, whose executives in past years have been among the highest-paid in the industry, has never owned its own aircraft since going public in 1999, spokesman Michael DuVally said.

The company does make private planes available to some executives through a fractional jet agreement, a timeshare-style arrangement, according to filings. Duvally refused to say how much the company spends on its fractional agreement.

Wary of being perceived as opulent, most companies fly in unmarked jets. Aviation buffs can usually track planes over the Internet using aircraft tail numbers. But many companies, including AIG and Citigroup, have blocked the public's ability to do so for security reasons.

Some corporate chieftains make no excuses for flying the private skies.

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead

Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead ...a message from Michael Moore - Inbox - Yahoo! Mail

Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead

Friday, December 12th, 2008

Friends,

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.

It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

Fat chance.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com


Join Mike's Mailing List | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Become Mike's MySpace Friend

You are currently subscribed to michaelmoore as: jbcard@yahoo.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-16048066-37770764.68614453dd25fdf1c4d3bb6b67d10296@go.netatlantic.com
Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages
ASCII (ASCII)Greek (ISO-8859-7)Greek (Windows-1253)Latin-10 (ISO-8859-16)Latin-3 (ISO-8859-3)Latin-6 (ISO-8859-10)Latin-7 (ISO-8859-13)Latin-8 (ISO-8859-14)Latin-9 (ISO-8859-15)W. European (850)W. European (CP858)W. European (HPROMAN8)W. European (MACROMAN8)W. European (Windows-1252)Armenia (ARMSCII-8)Baltic Rim (ISO-8859-4)Baltic Rim (WINDOWS-1257)Cyrillic (866)Cyrillic (ISO-8859-5)Cyrillic (KOI8-R)Cyrillic (KOI8-RU)Cyrillic (KOI8-T)Cyrillic (KOI8-U)Cyrillic (WINDOWS-1251)Latin-2 (852)Latin-2 (ISO-8859-2)Latin-2 (WINDOWS-1250)Turkish (ISO-8859-9)Turkish (WINDOWS-1254)Arabic (ISO-8859-6, ASMO-708)Arabic (WINDOWS-1256)Hebrew (856)Hebrew (862)Hebrew (WINDOWS-1255)Chinese Simplified (GB-2312-80)Chinese Simplified (GB18030)Chinese Simplified (HZ-GB-2312)Chinese Simplified (ISO-2022-CN)Chinese Simplified (WINDOWS-936)Chinese Trad.-Hong Kong (BIG5-HKSCS)Chinese Traditional (BIG5)Chinese Traditional (EUC-TW)Japanese (SHIFT_JIS)Japanese (EUC-JP)Japanese (ISO-2022-JP)Korean (ISO-2022-KR)Korean (EUC-KR)Thai (TIS-620-2533)Thai (WINDOWS-874)Vietnamese (TCVN-5712)Vietnamese (VISCII)Vietnamese (WINDOWS-1258)Unicode (UTF-7)Unicode (UTF-8)Unicode (UTF-16)Unicode (UTF-32)
| Full Headers

Search Mail


Copyright © 1994-2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Guidelines
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site.
To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy

FUCK Fox News!

FUCK Fox News! - Op Ed - The Daily Show Forum

You know, I HIGHLY doubt that any of us on this Board give any credibility to Fox "News." However, it's really much more destructive than just useless TV. Again, I doubt that many, if any, of us here are unaware of that.



But what really got my goat today is a video clip that "Mister Mr" posted on another thread showing some jerkoff on Neil Cavuto straight-up blaming Obama for the stock market sell-off. Dude's saying that the market doesn't like Obama's economic policy so it's selling off. Um, no mention of a frozen credit market and illiquidity unseen since the '30s or anything like that.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcFYUXtYS8&feature=user



The fact that Cavuto has a financial background (used to be at CNBC) gives him the ability to create an illusion of possibility of anything being anything financially. He's a smart guy. It's just that he's a total cock and SO far up the reupublicans' asses I can smell him through the TV!



This false credibility is easily enough to fool the unsophisticated American, or even smart people that just don't understand the economy and the financial markets. And these aren't easy concepts to truly grasp. This kind of "reporting" isn't just useless, it's flat-out misleading and dangerous!



For this reason, I want to rejuvenate the campaign to pull Fox News' press credentials. Or to force them to rename themselves "Fox Opinion News" or "Republican Opinion News."



Will you join my campaign? Thanks!



And repeat after me... FUCK FOX "NEWS!!!"

Revoke the Mormon Church's Tax Exempt Status - Keep Fighting Prop 8

Revoke the Mormon Church's Tax Exempt Status - Keep Fighting Prop 8

Revoke the Mormon Church's Tax Exempt Status

* Posted by Mike Basham on November 6, 2008 at 8:30am
* View Mike Basham's blog

If you're angry that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something that you can do.

To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print and fill out http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as the ridiculously full name of the church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) at the same address.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of the IRS's separation of church and state rules, and for conspiring to interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

Bush and Cheney should go to prison !!!

Indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes !!!

YouTube - MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage and more!

Well said Keith,

Open Letter to the Lamest Duck on Veterans Day ...from Cindy Sheehan

MichaelMoore.com : Open Letter to the Lamest Duck on Veterans Day ...from Cindy Sheehan

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008
Open Letter to the Lamest Duck on Veterans Day ...from Cindy Sheehan

November 11, 2008

George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC

Dear George,

I am writing this to you on the fifth Veteran's Day I have mourned the death of my son, Casey Sheehan. Casey was a soldier in the Army. You killed my oldest son with your lies and greed for Empire. Casey never became a Veteran because he came home in one of those pesky flag draped coffins that your mother doesn't want to bother her "pretty mind" with.

During that other illegal and immoral war that you and your VP, Dick, had the good sense to dodge, your mother never had to go through one second of worry for your safety, did she? You were too busy doing your drugs and going AWOL to bother her "pretty mind" about that. What galls me the most when I think about my brave and honorable son's needless and untimely death, is that you were so cowardly and worthless when you were his age and you had the nerve to condemn thousands of our children to death or disability with your lies.

George, I have written you letters before. I have demanded your resignation and also promised you that I would work for your impeachment. If you remember, I even started a peace camp of thousands of protesters outside your Crawford ranch and I even tried to get into Congress so I could impeach your criminal hide. You never answer my letters and you have never had the integrity to tell me what "Noble Cause" killed my son. This is the last letter you will receive from me while you are infecting our Oval Office, but it won't be the last time you hear from me.

George, I guess I could "rest on my laurels" and allow you to slink off into the quiet desperation of leaving the White House as the most detested President in American history, but that is not enough for me: Millions are dead, wounded, displaced and suffering life-long pain because of your actions. You are the number one terrorist in the world today and this country catches, tortures and prosecutes "terrorists" doesn't it? Haven't you said so yourself? You have turned the USA into a nation of imperial mobsters and we have the ignominy of being torturers and you do not deserve to retire with any kind of peace or honor.

George, if Nancy Pelosi and the other complicit Congressional leaders won't hold you accountable, I will. This nation has a very short memory and we have been assaulted on a daily basis by your arrogance and stupidity and most of America is buying the hype of pre-packaged and aggressively marketed, Hope, but I don't have the option of burying your deadly legacy like it never happened and moving on. The hole in my heart that used to contain the living and breathing presence of my son will never heal and you are the one who put it there. If you think you are going to live a comfortable life in Dallas, or Paraguay, or wherever, a la Johnson, Nixon, McNamara or Kissinger, you are wrong.

George, this country too hastily moved on from the abomination of Vietnam and we never healed from that horror because we never did the hard work of holding American leaders accountable for crimes against humanity. If history repeats itself, as it tends to do, you won't be held accountable for your crimes, but I won't let you forget the faces of my son, Casey, and his comrades or the legion of faces of the Afghan and Iraqi dead. Are your dreams haunted by the souls of the people massacred by your hubris?

If I have to buy or erect a billboard near your home and plaster it with the faces of the people you murdered, I will. I will also work with my contacts in the international community to have you indicted for crimes against humanity. I will do whatever it takes to be the thorn in your side as you have been my sorrow. There are many people around the world who thirst for justice and healing who will join me in this noble cause.

This Nation forgot the faces of the 58,000 plus Americans and millions of Vietnamese who were slaughtered for imperial greed, but they won't forget the faces of the ones you have sacrificed on your altar of deception or the ones who will be sacrificed for the President Elect's continued War OF Terror. If Obama does not declare a speedy and complete end to the USA's war of terror on the world, someone should set up camp at his vacation home (which I bet will be nicer than Crawford, TX in August).

On this Veterans Day, I make this pledge to you. Unless we stop the bloody tide of war for profit and US hegemony by seeking justice for your war crimes and crimes against our Constitution, more Casey's will die and more countries that unfortunately lie in the path of imperial conquest will be decimated.

On this Veteran's Day, I also send my love and support to the Vets from all wars who live on our streets and are substance abusers because they can't get help from this hypocritical government. My heart goes out to all Gold Star Mothers who have nothing but a box of medals, a triangular folded flag and memories of a dead child and regrets for a life not lived with him/her. The war machine in collaboration with our government chews people up and rolls on, oiled with pain.

George you broke your oath to "faithfully" execute your office and you betrayed the troops that you command, due to nothing but election fraud, but I will not break my promise to you.

Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Casey Austin Sheehan
KIA in Sadr City, Baghdad
April 04, 2004

FOX News' Explicit Content Inappropriate for Basic Cable Households

Brave New Films Tells FCC: FOX News' Explicit Content Inappropriate for Basic Cable Households

Brave New Films Tells FCC: FOX News' Explicit Content Inappropriate for Basic Cable Households


LOS ANGELES - November 8 - Brave New Films is asking basic cable subscribers to tell the Federal Communications Commission they should not be forced to pay for inappropriate sexual content on FOX News. A new online video from BNF shows numerous, lengthy FOX News clips of women stripping and posing nude or near-nude for cameras, frequently in stories condemning precisely such images in the media as morally corrosive. Accompanying the video is a petition to the FCC asserting that cable subscribers "should not be forced to pay for FOX's smut" and asking the agency to require cable companies to allow consumers to choose which cable channels they want in their homes and to pay only for those channels.

The video and the petition can be viewed at http://foxattacks.com/

"FOX News shows more sexualized violence and humiliation than probably any other network -- all in the name of condemning it -- while under-showing violence in Iraq, all in the name of supporting it," said Gloria Steinem after watching the short video, entitled FOX Attacks: Decency. "After this video, smart viewers and advertisers will boycott FOX."

Currently parents cannot block explicit content on FOX News even with V-Chip parental control technology because as a 'news' channel FOX is not required to carry a viewer rating. With a 'lockbox,' cable subscribers can block a FOX signal to their televisions but they are still required to pay for the channel. Brave New Films is asking basic cable subscribers to sign a petition asking the FCC to force cable companies to offer 'a la carte' cable, which allows subscribers to pay only for the channels they wish to receive. With a la carte cable, viewers could block FOX and its inappropriate sexual content and not be forced to pay for the channel. Currently cable operators do not offer an a la carte option even though according to an October 2007 Zogby poll 52% of Americans prefer a la carte cable over bulk channel packages and 71% don't want to pay for channels they don't watch (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1377).

"Bill O'Reilly and others at FOX News cannot have it both ways," said Robert Greenwald, President of Brave New Films. "Either they're the morality police of our culture, or they're the smut-peddlers. They can't be both. Right now it looks like they're more interested in being the smut-peddlers. A lot of FOX's content would be more appropriate as 'after hours' instead of daytime coffee klatch chatter." Greenwald has taken on FOX many times in the past, with his feature-length documentary OutFoxed, and with online videos such as FOX Attacks: Iran, which to date has garnered 683,868 views on YouTube. Greenwald's latest online video, FOX Attacks: Decency, was launched today alongside the petition to the FCC calling for a la carte cable.

Boycott the Fox News Channel !!!

Boycott the Fox New Channel | Infoshop.org

Home
Boycott the Fox New Channel

Home | Letters | Company Contacts | Right Wing Nuts

p>Bill O'Reilly: "I'm not a journalist, but I play one on TV."

Infoshop.org is calling for a boycott of companies that advertise on the Fox News Channel. Fox News is the main purveyor of the right wing agenda in America, which has had a deleterious effect on American politics. Fox News presents itself falsely as a bastion of "fair and balanced" journalism and as an alternative to the "liberal media."

Infoshop.org is calling for people to boycott products and services associated with companies that do business with this right wing cable channel. We seek the removal of Fox News from cable services until radical, anarchist, and left wing voices are allowed on television.
A GUIDE TO FOX NEWS DOUBLESPEAK

Fox News spends a lot of effort to convince viewers that it is accurate, fair, balanced, and unbiased. Not only is Fox News none of those things, but it frequently engages in Orwellian doublespeak in order to pursue its right wing, pro-government agenda. The following phrases are a few examples of the Fox News Doublespeak Lexicon:

"fair and balanced": A small book could be written about how the content of Fox News is not fair or balanced, in fact, Al Franken currently has a bestseller which precisely does that.

"nest of terrorists": Not only is the use of the word "terrorists" a prejudicial term that has no place in journalism, but the use of the word "nests" implies that the so-called terrorists aren't human.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom": This phrase was Orwellian enough when the Bush administration adopted it to sugarcoat its invasion of Iraq, but journalists should know better than to use this phrase to describe the war in Iraq.
Boycott List

The following companies advertise their products and services on the Fox News Channel.

Please feel free to forward this list to email lists.

Version 1.3 / Last updated: October 21, 2003

Look up contact information for a company on this list.

Primary advertisers

Earthlink
Gateway Computers
Honda
Orbitz
Shell Petroleum

Other advertisers

Adobe
American Express
AMEX
AstraZeneca
Avaya
Ameriquest Mortgage
ATT
Bayer
Boeing
Bristol-Meyers Squibb
CDW
Circuit City
Direct TV
Edward Jones Investments
ELoan.com
Ensure
Evergreen Investments
Farmers Insurance
GlaxoSmithKline
IBM
Infiniti
Johnson and Johnson Inc. (Aveeno)
L.L.Bean
MCI
Mens Wearhouse
Microsoft
Olay
Priceline.com
Procter & Gamble (Swiffer)
Suburu
Time Warner Cable
Toyota
UPS
Verizon Wireless
Wachovia
Walgreens
WebMD
Xerox
XM Satellite Radio

Look up contact information for a company on this list.
Endorsers

Yes! You can endorse this boycott. Please send an e-mail to chuck [at] infoshop.org to have your name or the name of your organization added to the endorser list.

Groups

RAG (Roots Action Group) (Erie, PA)

Individuals

Kris Warner (Erie, PA)
Celine Grenier (Capitola, California)
Jon Fatula (Capitola, California)
Donald Minasian, managing partner, Five M Partnership
do1st@aol.com
Tony Tribby (Alexandria, VA)
Yvgrvny - SoutheastAutonomousZone.(S.E.A.Z) (Melb. Australia)
bkbuy1@jacksonkramer.com
Purple Monkey Mafia/Cabal (Chicago)
Lynne H. Schultz
byung an (Austin, Texas)
Eric Butler, Torrance Ca
Heather Bruggman, Torrance Ca

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

Buy Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair
and Balanced Look at the Right" from Powells.com
Join Our E-mail List!

Want to be kept up-to-date on the latest news about the Fox News boycott? Want to receive analysis, opinion, and humor about Fox News? Then join our new email list. Subscribe today!

Outfoxed video

Outfoxed is a new video expose of Fox News. An in-depth look at the lies, spin, and right wing agenda of this "news" network.

Is Fox News Supporting the Troops or the President?
What fascinates me is how people at FOX News have convinced themselves that they're “supporting the troops” while supporting the U.S. government's continued occupation of Iraq. After all, no one can honestly still claim that the troops are dying for “freedom” because Saddam Hussein is now in jail. Moreover, according to Iraqi Shi'ite Sheik Raed Saadi, it is now Sunni and Shi'ite Muslems in Iraq who are uniting “to liberate” (his words) Iraq from the occupiers.

When a Canadian Insults Fox News, Them's [Expletive] Fighting Words!

American-Canadian relations have seen better days. Canada opposed the war in Iraq, and got a stern public lecture from the United States ambassador, Paul Cellucci, in return. The Bush administration does not like Canada's liberal drug policies. Trade disputes involving beef and softwood lumber continue to fester. But such frictions rarely get much television coverage at a time when Washington has a barrage of international problems to worry about.

Fox News. Not here yet, but already hilarious

I've never been called "a douche-nozzle" before. At least, not that I know about anyway. The insult came from one supporter of the Fox News Channel.

Who's afraid of the big bad Fox? Certainly not us
The Fox News slogan is "Fair and Balanced," which it obviously isn't. It's a tip-off that you're not supposed to take it seriously. The slogan is a joke, a raspberry blown at every other news channel. It's tongue-in-cheek.


Copyright-free artwork by Brazilian cartoonist Latuff.

The Ratings Mirage
Reporting on the ratings rivalry between the Fox News Channel (FNC) and CNN is often misleading – and almost always over-hyped. "Fox Tops CNN as Choice for Cable News," declared one typical headline in the Chicago Tribune. "Fox News Channel Continues to Crush CNN," reported Knight Ridder in a column comparing the rivalry to a party primary titled, "Fox News Channel is winning the Nielsen caucuses." Last August, the New York Times Magazine declared, looking back at the period of the Iraq invasion, "Fox was – and still is – trouncing CNN in the ratings."

Fox News and the Masters of War
In the first days after the events known as 9/11, I wrote a piece that appeared in a view different journals and websites that was titled "The Terrorism of War." In that piece I mentioned that although there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Islamic terrorists, the US "war on terror" would probably wind up creating one. Recent events in Iraq and Madrid seem to bear this prediction out. In short, the US war machine has created the situation it described, leaving the world with an invigorated collection of groups committing acts of terror against civilians in Iraq and elsewhere and an armed resistance movement opposed to the US and its diminishing allies occupying the countryside of Iraq.

Bill O'Reilly's "Apology": Still Spinning in the 'No Spin Zone'
Viewers of ABC's Good Morning America saw something very unusual earlier this month: Fox News Channel's star host Bill O'Reilly admitted he was wrong about something. Sort of.

Fox News: The inside story
When veteran television journalist Chris Wallace announced this week that he was leaving ABC for Fox News, reporters asked him whether he was concerned about trading in his objectivity for Fox's rightward slant. "I had the same conception a lot of people did about Fox News, that they have a right-wing agenda," Wallace told The Washington Post. But after watching Fox closely, Wallace said, he had decided that the network suffered from an "unfair rap," and that its reporting is, in fact, "serious, thoughtful and even-handed."

Doh! Murdoch's Fox News in a spin over 'The Simpsons' lawsuit
Serious news is no laughing matter. Especially at Fox News Channel. That, at least, is the allegation of The Simpsons creator Matt Groening, who has accused Rupert Murdoch's "fair and balanced" news channel of threatening legal action after a particularly pointed episode poked fun at Fox.

O'Reilly "Responds" to FAIR
By FAIR

Though never mentioning FAIR by name, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly responded to a recent FAIR action alert correcting statements the host made about the L.A. Times and its coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Study hits war views held by Fox fans
By David Folkenflik - Baltimore Sun Staff

Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. "When evidence surfaces that a significant portion of the public has just got a hole in the picture ... this is a potential problem in the way democracy functions," says Clay Ramsay, research director for the Washington-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, which studies foreign-policy issues.

The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
(Seth Ackerman) FAIR
When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization
and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Fibbing It Up at Fox
by Dale Steinreich (LewRockwell.com)
Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I've been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Weapons Of Mass Stupidity
Fox News hits a new lowest common denominator

Fox News is an oxymoron and Cheech and Chong would have made a more credible team of war correspondents than Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North. Neither Saturday Night Live nor the 1973 film Network, Paddy Chayefsky's corrosive satire of TV news, could even approach the comic impact of Geraldo embedded, or of Fox's pariah parade, its mothball fleet of experts who always turn out to be disgraced or indicted Republican refugees. If Ed Meese, Newt Gingrich and Elliott Abrams couldn't fill your sails with mirth, you could count on the recently deposed Viceroy of Virtue and High Regent of Rectitude, my old schoolmate Blackjack Bill Bennett.
More news

Fox News loses attempt to block satirist's book
Three Little Words: Fox News Sues
'FAUX News' parody site draws FOX News lawyers

Websites

Agitproperties
FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Media Matters for America
Oreilly-sucks.com

Resources

FAIR on Bill O'Reilly
News Corp / Fox
The Most Biased Name in News

Merch

Promotional Graphics

Please feel free to put these graphics on your website to promote this boycott.

*
* Login or register to post comments

Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!

Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!

Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!

* blog
* Protest Locations
* Local Contacts 4 U

November 10th, 2008
Prop 8 Protest: A Call to the LGBTQ Community, Friends, & Family

I’m sure all would agree that with the election of Barack Obama, this week
has been one of amazing wins in the world of equality! Still,
Tuesday night was one of bitter-sweet celebration, as we came together
to witness the first black man who will become our president, and
watched in sadness as Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California all
voted down equal rights for all citizens. Pendants and bloggers
alike have put their focus on Proposition 8, trying hard to find an
explanation for the anti-gay wins in the face of a huge pro-equality
event. Some have blamed the voters, others blame religious
groups, and even others blame the LGBTQ community for not being able to
mobilize on a larger enough scale. And you know what, there is
truth in every argument.

As a community, we have to admit to the fact that we are polarized
in various ways. Honestly, I’m not sure what community isn’t and
I believe that our polarization is proof to our humanity - we are no
different than anyone else, regardless of color, creed, or sexual
orientation. Still, our polarization has hindered us from
mobalizing as one strong voice. We all come together in the month
of June to celebrate Gay Pride, but few of us are even aware of why Gay
Pride exists. Gay Pride is a celebration to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of 1969.
Many say that the Gay Rights Movement began in 1969, which means that
we are still a young movement and have accomplished a great deal in
such a short amount of time. The generation that fought for us in
1969 deserves our gratitude and respect. This is a generation of
amazing people who fought for our ability to hold hands in the street,
to speak out against hate, to dance to our own “thumpa thump”, witness
television shows with a queer cast, and come together in the streets
celebrating for an entire month! This is the generation that
opened the doors for us to even have a conversation about gay marriage,
and this is the generation that deserves our help and our voices
now. On June 27th, 1969, this generation came together in
protest, jumping from closets, taking to the streets, and mobilizing in
ways this country had never seen before! And what happened?

The country was forced to respond. The Queer identity was forced
onto the front pages and coffee tables of people’s worlds and people
had to once and for all accept that we are human too!

Now, almost 40 years later we NEED to come together again. We
need to show this nation that we are ONE LOUD VOICE THAT DEMANDS TO BE
HEARD! We need to be one organized unit. Our gay pride shouldn’t
be something we celebrate one month out of the year. Our
gratitude towards the ones who came before us shouldn’t be ignored and
wasted away with one party after another. We beg to be given a
right that requires responsibility and commitment, yet we, as one
strong community, have not proven to this nation that we deserve to be
taken seriously! The gay pride parade has become a great party,
but it has lost the memory of Stonewall and therefor given the nation
another reason to cast us aside as irresponsible. It’s time we
come together for debate, for public recognition, and for LOVE!

Let’s move as one full unit, on the same day, at the same hour, and
let’s show the United States of America that we too are UNITED CITIZENS
EQAUL IN MIND, BODY, SPIRIT AND DESERVING OF FULL EQUALITY UNDER THE
LAW!

On the steps of your City Hall on November 15th at 10:30am PST /
1:30pm EST, our community WILL take to the streets and speak out
against Proposition 8 and all of the other pro-equality losses that we
have faced in our lifetimes, in our parents’ lifetimes, and for many
generations before us. WE CAN’T DO THIS ALONE! WE NEED YOUR
HELP! We need organizers in every major city to work with us and
get out the protest! I know you’re all tired from all of the work
you’ve done for this great election year, but I’m asking for one more
push! Let the country hear our voices together. Let them
see that we are a strong, adamant, and powerful community that deserves
equal rights, and CAN’T BE DEFEATED!

Send this post to everyone! We have one week and must react to
the pro-hate votes cast against us! Let’s help our LGBTQ friends,
families, neighbors, and each other to IMPACT this country with a
demand for our basic human rights! Join the cause, join the
voice, and JOIN THE IMPACT!

FIND YOUR PROTEST LOCATION HERE

Protests sweep across Calif. on post-Prop 8 Sunday

MichaelMoore.com : Protests sweep across Calif. on post-Prop 8 Sunday

November 9th, 2008 5:23 pm
Protests sweep across Calif. on post-Prop 8 Sunday

By Thomas Watkins / Associated Press

LOS ANGELES – On the first Sunday after a gay marriage ban passed in California, activists rallied in defiance, including hundreds of protesters outside an Orange County megachurch whose pastor brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."

About 300 gay-rights advocates fanned out along sidewalks leading to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest to voice their anger of the church's support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters Tuesday that overturns a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex unions.

Ed Todeschini, a Human Rights Campaign volunteer, accused Saddleback in particular of helping propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners.

A message seeking comment left at the church's main office, which was closed Sunday, was not immediately returned.

"They told such obvious lies. They used their lies to deceive the public," Todeschini said of the church, which gained national attention in August when its pastor, Rick Warren, brought Obama and McCain together to discuss their religious faith. The two candidates embraced during an often-contentious presidential campaign.

Todeschini said Sunday's rally was peaceful, with demonstrators waving placards with slogans including "Equality for all" and "Shame on you."

The amendment was passed last week with 52 percent of the vote, and backlash at churches over their support swept across California on Sunday after days of protests.

In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety. Protest organizers said they hoped to tone down the anger that has characterized some previous demonstrations.

"Our intent is not to disturb churchgoers," organizer Tim DeBenedictis said in a statement. "Our goal is to mend fences and build bridges so that all Californians can achieve marriage equality under the law."

The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing."

The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.

"It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," the Rev. Ed Bacon said after his sermon.

In Sacramento, a protest at the state Capitol was boisterous but peaceful as speakers led the crowd in noisy chants. Protesters waved rainbow flags, a symbol of the gay rights movement, and "No on 8" signs as police watched from the side.

Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed disappointment at Proposition 8's passage.

"It is unfortunate," Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

___

Associated Press writer Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) Status

Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) Status

Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) Status
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone too far in substantial activities to influence legislation.

* Home
* About
* Reports of other charitable organizations’ involvement
* The Rock Church, San Diego


How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint
29 October 2008

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the “Mormon” or LDS Church) has gone too far in promoting the 2008 California Proposition 8, which would claims to amend the California state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman in order to supersede a state supreme court opinion issued earlier this year. [Whether the proposition was a lawful amendment or a revision that cannot legally be made by a voter initiative remains an open question.]

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8 (resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.

You can help! Send the IRS an official complaint about the LDS Church’s activities, either by email, fax or US Mail.

1. Prepare a copy of the Official LDS Prop. 8 Letter read in all LDS churches in California on 29 June 2008.
2. Prepare one or more other articles of your choice (you can use these links, or do your own research) showing the LDS Church’s substantial activities attempting to influence this legislation.
3. Prepare this Pre-Filled IRS Form 13909 and add your personal information, or fill out a Blank IRS Form 13909 from scratch with the information in the pre-filled form (these links and an alternative filled form are copied below in RESOURCES.)
4. Don’t forget to date your referral at the top and include your submitter information. If you are a member of the Church, you may wish to check the box marked “I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if my identity is disclosed.”
5. Send it to the IRS, either by:
* Email: Prepare your documents as PDF’s or web links, and send your complaint form with supporting documentation to eoclass@irs.gov.
* Fax: fax your documents to (214) 413-5415
* Mail: mail your documents to
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas TX 75242-1198


Bookmark and Share
RESOURCES:
Official IRS Complaint Process for Tax-Exempt Organizations
US Code Title 26, Section 501
Official LDS Prop. 8 Letter
List of LDS Entities (Source of Tax ID Number)

Information required for IRS Form 13909:
Name of Referred Organization: The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Street Address: 50 E. North Temple St., Salt Lake City UT 84150
Organization’s EIN: 23-7300405
For Section 4, see the Pre-Filled IRS Form 13909, or write your concerns in your own words. If your reader will not open that form, try the Alternative Pre-Filled 13909.

27 Comments | Proposition 8 | Tagged: 501(c)(3), California, Constitutional Amendment, LDS, Mormons, Proposition 8, tax-exempt | Permalink
Posted by lds501c3
Brigham Young on Marriage
3 November 2008

It wasn’t difficult to find words of the prophet Brigham Young about the role of government in defining marriage. What will be difficult is for the Church to reconcile its position on Proposition 8 with these teachings of one of its greatest leaders, while he was the President of the Church and God’s mouthpiece for His faithful on Earth. These are written in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, pp. 266 ff.

Who knows but the time will come when the inquiry will be made in Washington, by the President, by the Congressmen: “Are things any worse in Utah than in Washington: than they are in New York? or in any State of the Union? are they more unvirtuous, are they more disloyal to the Government? But then there is polygamy.” That has nothing in the least to do with our being loyal or disloyal, one way or the other. But is not the practice of polygamy a transgression of the law of the United States? How are we transgressing that law? In no other way than by obeying a revelation which God has given unto us touching a religious ordinance of his Church. And the anti-polygamy law has yet to be tested, as to its constitutionality, by the courts which have jurisdiction. By and by men will appear in the departments of the Government who will inquire into the validity of some laws and question their constitutionality.

Above, Young implies that the anti-polygamy law did not need to be obeyed as it had not yet been tested in courts with appropriate jurisdiction. One would further infer from this that Young would be (justifiably) concerned if an anti-polygamy law were upheld as constitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Young then immediately continues (emphasis added),

Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk.

Young opposed a law that stated that a man could only marry one woman — not a far cry from “marriage shall be defined as the union of one man and one woman.” The words of this latter-day prophet are unequivocal: marriage is a civil contract. It is not a function of the government, and government’s role in protecting the “traditional meaning of marriage” didn’t carry a whit of weight to Brigham Young. Clearly, the tradition cited by LDS opponents of same-sex marriage is not as old as their relatively young church (no pun intended).

Young meant that if a man wished to marry five women, and those women desired to enter into those marriage contracts, they should be entitled to do so without the interference of the government. But this logic also means that if two women wish to marry each other, those two individuals should be entitled to enter an equivalent civil contract that a man and a woman might wish to enter into. Young’s point is that the government should not make laws about individuals’ rights to enter into civil contracts.

9 Comments | Proposition 8 | Permalink
Posted by lds501c3
LDS Articles of Faith
3 November 2008

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541

LDS Church members and leaders who support the “Yes on 8″ and “Protect Marriage” campaign believe that the magistrates (judges) on the California State Supreme Court were wrong, and are not honoring and sustaining the law as written in the California state constitution and interpreted by duly appointed and confirmed judges on the bench.

There is no reason to make this post longer: either you believe in being subject to the magistrates who were appointed to interpret the law of California, and honoring and sustaining that law, or you don’t. Clearly, the LDS Church believes that this article of faith only applies when the magistrates’ opinions and law of the land are consistent with Church doctrine. (Ironically, anti-polygamy laws were influential on the Church in the late 19th century, when the Church restricted its more expansive definition of marriage practices to become in line with the law of the land.)

The lies of Yes on Prop 8 finally exposed

The lies of Yes on prop 8 finally exposed.

The lies of Yes on prop 8 finally exposed.
Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-11-06, 5:25PM PST


http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

THE MORMON CHURCH. For the past six months, Mormons misled Californians about the effects of the Supreme Court ruling. They told us we would lose the right to participate in our children's education. Lies. They told us the California state public school curriculum would be modified to teach sex education to kindergartners. Lies.
They told us churches would lose the right to free speech. Lies.
If this is the way Mormons treat gays and lesbians of California, let us ask:

How has America treated Mormons? The Mormon church began in 1830 in New York. The first Mormons were persecuted by the American majority, and were compelled to emigrate to Utah where they could live unmolested, much like gays and lesbians who lived in the urban ghettos last century. Mormons had alternative views of what family meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process. In their arguments against the majority, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote:

Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9)
Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008.

The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place. America believes in the rights of its citizens to determine their own fates, and grants rights to individual communities to determine their own norms and values. The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country's generous spirit.

But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor.

The Mormons began with the Boy Scouts of America, originally a children's club meant to introduce boys and girls to the natural beauty of America. Mormons took financial control of the Boy Scouts by donating more than 28% of their global operating budget per year. Gays and lesbians are barred from participating in this group not just in Mormon troops, but nationwide, thereby turning our children into a political football.

Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to "conversion camps," where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs. The emotional stress of such experience drives many to contemplate suicide. The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities.

Now the Mormon Church has set its target on gay and lesbian adults of California. They have started by amending our constitution to deny equal protection to gays and lesbians.

Ask the Jews about how freedoms are lost. The concentration camps were not built in a national referendum. They were the product of a systemic reduction of freedoms, year after year, one at a time.

We as citizens of California, Americans, and persons of various beliefs and faiths will not allow this to happen.

Are all Mormons against rights for gays? Absolutely not. So far, 300 Mormons and 1 Mormon celebrity have stood up against their church to support gay rights. We respect the challenge of standing up to a majority, especially when those 301 stand in the face of more than 13.1M Mormons worldwide.

To the rest of those silent Mormon protesters, one can offer the words of Elie Wiesel:

"I swore to never be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides, Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

How can we stop this agenda?

To restore the right stolen from us, we must correct the amendment to California's constitution. To do this requires another statewide proposition. Yet how will we avoid another election season of deception, when the Mormon Church can pour limitless, tax-free money into advancing their platform?

Strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization. According to IRS law,
Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

In this country, you can be a church. You can be a political action committee. You cannot be both. The Mormon Church stands in direct defiance of the spirit of our laws by actively campaigning to change California law. The United Kingdom has already moved to strip the church of its tax-exempt status.

Through Prop 8, the Mormon Church has shown its true colors as a political group with specific social ends. Political speech is fair and legal here; such speech under the guise of religion is not. The playing field must be leveled.

Californians will vote on future propositions to correct this flawed amendment next year, and every year, until we achieve our rights under the state constitution. We must be assured that our advocacy organizations are on an equal legal and financial playing field as those of our opponents.

What can I do now?
Sign this petition to support the legal effort to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status. We intend to share this list with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other official legal organizations that will be pressing forward with this effort.

Think Progress � Rep. Sanchez: Karl Rove Should Go To Jail

Think Progress � Rep. Sanchez: Karl Rove Should Go To Jail

Rep. Sanchez: Karl Rove Should Go To Jail»

Yesterday, former White House adviser Karl Rove skipped the country and refused to to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about the politicization of the Justice Department, despite a subpoena.

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA), chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, rejected Rove’s claim of immunity. Conyers called Rove’s absence an “insult to the American people and to the system of checks and balances that are the basis of our constitution and our democracy.”

Yesterday, Sanchez appeared on MSNBC and said that “in the next couple of weeks,” the Judiciary committee will vote to hold Rove in contempt. She believes that if the measure goes to the full House for a vote, there “a very great probability” that it would be approved. Sanchez also said that she thinks Rove should go to jail:

SHUSTER: But in any case, you want Karl Rove put in jail for this, right?

SANCHEZ: I would like to see him held accountable for his complete disregard of the law absolutely.

SHUSTER: But will you say “Yes, Karl Rove should go to jail if he doesn’t cooperate”?

SANCHEZ: I personally believe, yes, absolutely. Anybody who scoffs at the law and who has committed an offense that is punishable by jail time should be put in jail.

Watch it:

Conyers has now given Rove five days to comply with the subpoena. The House has also approved contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, although the Justice Department refused to bring criminal charges against them. The case is now in federal court.

Digg It!

Transcript:

DAVID SHUSTER, GUEST HOST, ‘VERDICT:’ Rep. Linda Sanchez who heads that subcommittee joins us now. Congresswoman, today you’ve voted to reject Rove’s claim of executive privilege. What are you going to do now?

REP. LINDA SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.: Ah, well the next step would be for the full committee to take up the contempt recommendation to vote on it which I’m being told by Chairman Conyers that he’s anxious to do. And from there it would go to the Full house for a vote.

SHUSTER: And how anxious? When will this vote in the committee take place?

SANCHEZ: Mr. Conyers hasn’t given a time deadline but I can imagine it would be in the next couple of weeks or so.

SHUSTER: And you want the contempt vote to happen right? You do want to hold him in contempt. Is that what you’re saying today?

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. Absolutely. The claim of executive privilege and immunity is ridiculous. It’s clear that in conversations that he’s had with the U.S. attorney’s office over different matters that he was handling, the president wasn’t involved in those communications and so the claim of executive privilege is really not a valid one.

SHUSTER: And Congressman I just want to clarify there is a jail in the U.S. Capitol that hasn’t been used for sometime, but you are saying and the committee and some of your colleagues are saying tonight, “you want Karl Rove in that jail.” If he continues to refuse the demands of this committee Is that what you’re saying?

SANCHEZ: Well, the inherent contempt powers of Congress were last used in the 1930s and there was a jail cell located in the Capitol that was utilized for that purpose. My understanding is that with some of the renovations that have gone on in the Capitol over the years there really isn’t an actual jail there.

SHUSTER: But in any case, you want Karl Rove put in jail for this, right?

SANCHEZ: I would like to see him held accountable for his complete disregard of the law absolutely.

SHUSTER: But will you say “Yes, Karl Rove should go to jail if he doesn’t cooperate”?

SANCHEZ: I personally believe, yes, absolutely. Anybody who scoffs at the law and who has committed an offense that is punishable by jail time should be put in jail.

SHUSTER: Congressman are you worried at all about the time frame though? I mean isn’t this the sort of thing- you’re up against the election. Doesn’t this need to happen within the next five months?

SANCHEZ: Well, it’s not limited to particularly this year. I mean in an ongoing investigation it could potentially happen next year but personally I think time is of the essence and the sooner we act on this the better.

SHUSTER: But just to clarify, and again, real quickly here, do you believe yes or no that the United States House of Representatives, your colleagues will support holding Karl Rove in contempt, if you guys send it to the full House.

SANCHEZ: I think if it goes to the full House there is a very great probability that yes, they would hold Karl Rove in contempt.

• Comments
• 54

• Share
• Permalink
• Print

Pinch Me ...a message from Michael Moore

Pinch Me ...a message from Michael Moore - Trash - Yahoo! Mail

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Friends,

Who among us is not at a loss for words? Tears pour out. Tears of joy. Tears of relief. A stunning, whopping landslide of hope in a time of deep despair.

In a nation that was founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves, it was an unexpected moment, shocking in its simplicity: Barack Obama, a good man, a black man, said he would bring change to Washington, and the majority of the country liked that idea. The racists were present throughout the campaign and in the voting booth. But they are no longer the majority, and we will see their flame of hate fizzle out in our lifetime.

There was another important "first" last night. Never before in our history has an avowed anti-war candidate been elected president during a time of war. I hope President-elect Obama remembers that as he considers expanding the war in Afghanistan. The faith we now have will be lost if he forgets the main issue on which he beat his fellow Dems in the primaries and then a great war hero in the general election: The people of America are tired of war. Sick and tired. And their voice was loud and clear yesterday.

It's been an inexcusable 44 years since a Democrat running for president has received even just 51% of the vote. That's because most Americans haven't really liked the Democrats. They see them as rarely having the guts to get the job done or stand up for the working people they say they support. Well, here's their chance. It has been handed to them, via the voting public, in the form of a man who is not a party hack, not a set-for-life Beltway bureaucrat. Will he now become one of them, or will he force them to be more like him? We pray for the latter.

But today we celebrate this triumph of decency over personal attack, of peace over war, of intelligence over a belief that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs just 6,000 years ago. What will it be like to have a smart president? Science, banished for eight years, will return. Imagine supporting our country's greatest minds as they seek to cure illness, discover new forms of energy, and work to save the planet. I know, pinch me.

We may, just possibly, also see a time of refreshing openness, enlightenment and creativity. The arts and the artists will not be seen as the enemy. Perhaps art will be explored in order to discover the greater truths. When FDR was ushered in with his landslide in 1932, what followed was Frank Capra and Preston Sturgis, Woody Guthrie and John Steinbeck, Dorothea Lange and Orson Welles. All week long I have been inundated with media asking me, "gee, Mike, what will you do now that Bush is gone?" Are they kidding? What will it be like to work and create in an environment that nurtures and supports film and the arts, science and invention, and the freedom to be whatever you want to be? Watch a thousand flowers bloom! We've entered a new era, and if I could sum up our collective first thought of this new era, it is this: Anything Is Possible.

An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.

We really don't have much time. There is big work to do. But this is the week for all of us to revel in this great moment. Be humble about it. Do not treat the Republicans in your life the way they have treated you the past eight years. Show them the grace and goodness that Barack Obama exuded throughout the campaign. Though called every name in the book, he refused to lower himself to the gutter and sling the mud back. Can we follow his example? I know, it will be hard.

I want to thank everyone who gave of their time and resources to make this victory happen. It's been a long road, and huge damage has been done to this great country, not to mention to many of you who have lost your jobs, gone bankrupt from medical bills, or suffered through a loved one being shipped off to Iraq. We will now work to repair this damage, and it won't be easy.

But what a way to start! Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States. Wow. Seriously, wow.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Q&A With Michael Moore

MichaelMoore.com : Q&A With Michael Moore

November 3rd, 2008 2:51 pm
Q&A With Michael Moore

By Richard Corliss / Time Magazine

Michael Moore, whose Fahrenheit 9/11 was the all-time top-grossing documentary and a sticking point of the 2004 presidential campaign, is the author of the New York Times best-selling Mike's Election Guide 2008 and star of the feature documentary Slacker Uprising, available for free download at www.slackeruprising.com. He also runs the website www.michaelmoore.com. TIME's film critic Richard Corliss caught up with Moore via email on Sunday.

Richard Corliss: In 2004 you traveled to 62 campuses in 45 days in support of the Democratic presidential ticket. What did you do this weekend?

Michael Moore: Sat back and watched the fruits of all my work over these eight long years possibly come true this Tuesday. Also, spent time making calls to help remove three Republican incumbent Congressmen from Michigan: Knollenberg, Wahlberg and Rogers. I am very hopeful about that. Went to a double bill at my art house here in northern Michigan: To Kill a Mockingbird and Bulworth. And I was on Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher on Friday. This fall I have spent the bulk of my time helping bring Michigan from a swing state to solid for Obama.

You campaigned for Ralph Nader in the 2000 Presidential election, and John Kerry, as the anti-Bush, in 2004. This time you're backing Obama, and you did it early, in April of this year. Does it feel weird to support someone who might actually win?

It's a relief, but I'm not stopping 'til 8pm Tuesday night. I've offered to drive people to the polls here locally. I've also got two vans stocked with food and hot chocolate and some entertainment to help people in the long lines pass the time.

Personally, the opportunity to vote for someone like Barack Obama will be one of the greatest things I will have done in my life. The Republicans aren't kidding when they say he's the "most liberal" senator in the Senate. When have we ever had the chance to vote for the "most liberal" of anything?

When I was a child, my parents took us on vacation in the South and I saw the signs over rest rooms that said "Coloreds" and "Whites." I saw the pain in my mother's face that she even had to explain something like that to me in the United State of America. My mother didn't live to see this moment, but I have, and it will be a bit emotional when and if he is declared the winner. I know I will cry a tear or two when I think of all who suffered at the hands of a racist nation. Redemption is always a wonderful thing.

Obama's been pretty sharp at seeming liberal to liberals and moderate to most other people. Where on the political spectrum do you think an Obama Presidency would land?

I believe his presidency will be guided by honesty and justice. His heart will be on the side of the people. People will be inspired to think of new directions to take this country. He is our best possible chance to step back from the edge of the cliff.

As for the things Obama has said that I don't agree with — like expanding the war in Afghanistan and creating a health care system that is not single-payer — well, on these points I'm hoping he's a politician. Politicians never keep all their promises. So those are two I'm hoping he'll break!

Even at the early-voting sites, there are eight-hour lines, and endless foul-ups in voting lists and machines. What can the U.S. do to have an electoral system that works better than, say, Zimbabwe's?

Paper and pencil. That's how nearly every other Western democracy does it. It's easy, simple. You put what ever mark you want in the box next to your candidate's name, fold it over and put it in the ballot box. When the polls close, the box is opened, the ballots dumped out on a table for everyone to see, with poll watchers from each party present. And federal elections should be run by the federal government. That's how they do it in Canada. Elections Canada is the name of the federal agency. They use all local people but they go through an intense training. I went up there to witness it a few weeks ago, and it was amazing.

As a member of a group that's been in the headlines lately, would you care to speak up for vote-fraud perpetrators — sorry, I meant community organizers?

For all the demeaning things the Republicans said about Obama being a community organizer, he has had the last laugh. It's community organizing that has turned out record numbers to the early voting polls. McCain could've used a few community organizers in the last few weeks.

If Obama becomes President, do you want him to take vengeance on the Bushies? In Mike's Election Guide 2008 you wrote that impeachment was too good for Bush and Cheney; they had to be arrest — made to do a perp walk.

I do not believe in any form of vengeance. But to allow the war crimes that were committed in our name, to invade a sovereign nation that did not and was not going to attack us, to have that war line the pockets of the companies that funded your campaign — this is the most egregious thing that has happened during my lifetime, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. If we fail to do that, it will be the green light to a future administration to do it all over again.

You pioneered the art of docu-comedy, with clips and stats anchored to an outsize personality, all aiming to energize the public and move it leftward. In a way, that's what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been doing this past election cycle. Do you think their shows have been a real factor in encouraging young people to vote, mirroring your effort in 2004?

Well, I'm honored you would say that. And yes, Stewart and Colbert have been brilliant and devastating. And Letterman and Olbermann and Maher. Even Wolf Blitzer has been funny lately. Comedy is a great slayer of rogues in power.

I view the coming years as great ones to make movies, especially ones that have a social conscience. It will be like a big bright ray of sunlight and hope. Filmmakers and artists always thrive during more liberal times. The FDR era gave us Frank Capra and Preston Sturges. Will Rogers — humor, politics, populism — was the #1 box office star two or three years in a row. Not to mention The Grapes of Wrath and Woody Guthrie. We'll need that kind of art during the very difficult economic times ahead of us. I am truly looking forward to an age of enlightenment.

You once kidded that you could hold a film festival of all the anti-Michael Moore movies. There's a new one, a comedy by David Zucker called An American Carol, whose main character, a documentary filmmaker named Michael Malone, bears a superficial resemblance to you.

[Cyber-silence.]

If you haven't seen the movie, I'll tell you it has some funny parts. One is that the Malone character isn't a real movie person because he makes documentaries. And nobody goes to those. Yet Fahrenheit 9/11 earned more at the domestic box office than any movie David Zucker has directed.

Now that's comedy!

The Zucker movie's argument is one we've heard a lot of over the past seven years: that people on the Left who criticize government policies like foreign invasions and botched health care hate America. Is that the best case the right wing can make against the Left?

Their "case" is full of so much hate and dishonesty. The American people are about to render their verdict on the Right's case. From this point forward I believe that anyone who works for peace or decent health care will be thanked, not spat upon. Tuesday can't come soon enough.

Al-Qa'ida-linked website backs McCain as president

MichaelMoore.com : Al-Qa'ida-linked website backs McCain as president

October 24th, 2008 7:27 pm
Al-Qa'ida-linked website backs McCain as president

Associated Press

Al-Qa'ida supporters suggested in a website message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted on Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah website, said if al-Qa'ida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qa'da will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Maryland, monitors the website and translated the message.

"If al-Qa'ida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qa'ida. Al-Qa'ida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the website chatter but had no immediate comment.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qa'ida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the US election.

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis - and apparent jubilation - about American financial woes.

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."

Al-Qa'ida leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 US presidential election directly addressing the American people.

Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls

MichaelMoore.com : Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls

October 27th, 2008 1:59 pm
Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Bronstein / CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia -- College senior Kyla Berry was looking forward to voting in her first presidential election, even carrying her voter registration card in her wallet.

But about two weeks ago, Berry got disturbing news from local election officials.

"This office has received notification from the state of Georgia indicating that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore, not eligible to vote," a letter from the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections said.

But Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts. She has a passport and a birth certificate to prove it.

The letter, which was dated October 2, gave her a week from the time it was dated to prove her citizenship. There was a problem, though -- the letter was postmarked October 9.

"It was the most bizarre thing. I immediately called my mother and asked her to send me my birth certificate, and then I was like, 'It's too late, apparently,' " Berry said.

Berry is one of more than 50,000 registered Georgia voters who have been "flagged" because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information. At least 4,500 of those people are having their citizenship questioned and the burden is on them to prove eligibility to vote.

Experts say lists of people with mismatches are often systematically cut, or "purged," from voter rolls.

It's a scenario that's being repeated all across the country, with cases like Berry's raising fears of potential vote suppression in crucial swing states.

"What most people don't know is that every year, elections officials strike millions of names from the voter rolls using processes that are secret, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation," said Wendy Weiser, an elections expert with New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

"That means that lots and lots of eligible voters could get knocked off the voter rolls without any notice and, in many cases, without any opportunity to correct it before Election Day."

Weiser acknowledged that "purging done well and with proper accountability" is necessary to remove people who have died or moved out of state.

"But the problem is it's not necessary to do inaccurate purges that catch up thousands of eligible voters without any notice or any opportunity to fix it before Election Day and really without any public scrutiny at all," she said.

Such allegations have flared up across the United States during this election cycle, most notably in Ohio, where a recent lawsuit has already gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There, the state Republican Party sued Ohio's Democratic secretary of state in an effort to make her generate a list of people who had mismatched information. But Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said generating such a list would create numerous problems too close to the election and possibly disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

The Supreme Court last week ruled against the GOP on appeal of a lower court order directing Brunner to prepare the list.

In Florida, election officials found that 75 percent of about 20,000 voter registration applications from a three-week period in September were mismatched due to typographical and administrative errors. Florida's Republican secretary of state ordered the computer match system implemented in early September.

In Wisconsin, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sued the state's election board after it voted against a proposal to implement a "no-match" policy. The board conducted an audit of its voter rolls and found a 22 percent match failure rate -- including for four of the six members of the board.

The Brennan Center has also documented cases across the country of possible illegal purging, impediments to college student voting and difficulties accessing voter registration.

A lawsuit has been filed over Georgia's mismatch system, and the state is also under fire for requesting Social Security records for verification checks on about 2 million voters -- more requests than any other state.

One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit says Georgia is violating a federal law that prohibits widespread voter purges within 90 days of the election, arguing that the letters were sent out too close to the election date.

"They are systematically using these lists and matching them and using those matches to send these letters out to voters," said McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in Georgia.

"It's not, you know, an individualized notion of people maybe not being citizens or not being residents. They're using a systematic purging procedure that's expressly prohibited by federal laws."

Asked if he believed that eligible voters were purged in Georgia, McDonald said, "If people who are properly eligible, are getting improperly challenged and purged, the answer would be 'Yes,' " he said.

Elise Shore, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said letters like those sent to Berry appear to violate two federal laws against voter purging within 90 days of the election.

"People are being targeted, and people are being told they are non-citizens, including both naturalized citizens and U.S.-born citizens," said Shore, another plaintiff in the Georgia lawsuit. "They're being told they're not eligible to vote, based on information in a database that hasn't been checked and approved by the Department of Justice, and that we know has flaws in it."

Georgia's Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican who began working on purging voter rolls since she was elected in 2006, said that won't happen. If there are errors, she said, there is still plenty of time to resolve the problems.

Handel says she is not worried the verification process will prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot.

"In this state and all states, there's a process to ensure that a voter who comes in -- even if there's a question about their status -- that they will vote either provisional or challenge ballot, which is a paper ballot," she said.

"So then the voter has ample opportunity to clarify any issues or address them," Handel added. "And I think that's a really important process."

Handel denied the efforts to verify the vote are suppression.

"This is about ensuring the integrity of our elections," she said. "It is imperative to have checks and balances on the front end, during the processes and on the back end. That's what the verification process is about."

So someone like Kyla Berry will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot when she votes, but it's up to county election officials whether those ballots would actually count.

Berry says she will try to vote, but she's not confident it will count.

"I know this happens, but I cannot believe it's happening to me," she said. "If I weren't allowed to vote, I would just feel like that would be ... like the worst thing ever -- a travesty."