Just today, in the NY Times an article regarding how Industries are ducking for cover and requesting regulation from the US government. In the quote below shows how they are trying to make it look like as if they have been requesting this for years.

In the NY Times,In Turnaround, Industries Seek U.S. Regulation by ERIC LIPTON and GARDINER HARRIS, Sept. 16, 2007 "After years of favoring the hands-off doctrine of the Bush administration, some of the nation’s biggest industries are pushing for something they have long resisted: new federal regulations."

But, even in the event that some corporations are swift to punish, such as the case in Formula -1 racing. The fines are extreme and shamed in the publics eye!

www.planet-f1.com

"McLaren have been banned from the Constructors' Championship and fined $100 million."

"Ferrari: "In light of new evidence, facts and behavior of an extremely serious nature and grossly prejudicial to the interest of the sport have been further demonstrated. Ferrari is satisfied that the truth has now emerged."

Now thats what I call a fine! But why can't we hold corporations accountable for there actions? If our government won't, who will?

Just last week another fast swift penalty was enforced when a major football team was found guilty of spying on another team...and they were fined and harsh terms with members of the team were placed on them.

Even that both are sports related, they are a corporation and took into account public opinion and handled it swiftly and harshly.

So, if they took public opinion into account in the event that business would suffer if not acted quickly, why can't this Congress hold this administration to public opinion and act prompt and harshly?

The time has come to hold that heftily fine to all the evidence that has surfaced regarding this administration.

This may be one tool to freak out politicians to changing their political views with their party and start thinking about who elected them...THE PEOPLE!

California is the model for such an action, but when we have people who just are not held accountable for their actions....the republican party did everything in their power to hold a democrat accountable during the ENRON energy crisis..in order to be in power!

Enron was part of the big picture in Texas...they were part of the plan to put politics first and make a terrible thing look as if it was one person doing harm to its purse and its states people!

There's fuzzy math, and now we have fuzzy LAW!

Yesterday, I sat watching C-Span and found my self gasping when I heard Rep. Jones from North Carolina talk about the Border Patrol Agents who where convicted for killing a known Drug dealer on the US and Mexico border.

After the 5 minute speech was over I just sat there in shock! Could this be true? Could there be a connection between the US Attorney's and other cases across America? How did no one notice that the US Attorney changed the law like plagiarism; in fact, Rep. Jones stated "Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make the law."

Well, Bush does this with signing statements, yet its ok for the Attorney General to act as a third arm of the White House, so what makes this any different? Congress makes laws, US Attorney's are to enforce them, right?

Then I started to think beyond what Rep. Jones stated, how many other times has this happened?

This is a very big deal! US Attorney's making up laws in order to prosecute!

Read the statement from Rep. Jones...

What makes this different from Bush, Gonzales, and any other agency that just makes up laws to fit their needs, OUR CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION!

<---------------------------------------->

PROSECUTION OF FORMER U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2007)

[Page: H6633] GPO's PDF

---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the Members of this House well know, in February 2006, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted in a U.S. District Court in Texas for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, and today is the 153rd day since the two agents entered Federal prison.

What Members of this House may not know is that 10 years of each of their sentences were based on an indictment and conviction for a Federal crime that does not exist. The Federal crime they were convicted of does not exist.

The law that they were charged with violating has never been enacted by the United States Congress but rather was fashioned by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas , Johnny Sutton.

The law that the agents were charged with, 18 United States Code section 924(c)(1)(a) as enacted by Congress, requires a defendant to be indicted and convicted either of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

However, neither Mr. Ramos nor Mr. Compean was ever charged with the specific elements of the crime. Instead, Mr. Sutton's office extracted from the United States Criminal Code a sentencing factor, discharging a firearm, and substituted that sentencing factor for the congressionally defined elements of the offense.

In this case, I can imagine how difficult it would be to obtain an indictment and conviction for ``using,'' ``possessing'' or ``carrying'' a firearm when the Border Agents were required to carry firearms as part of their job. That difficulty may well, very well, explain why this United States Attorney's Office unilaterally changed Congress's definition of a crime to a definition that would be easier to prove by the prosecution.

Any change in the elements of a crime amounts to the seizure of legislative authority by a Federal prosecutor. When this encroachment upon the legislative power of Congress was brought to my attention and to the attention of my colleagues, Congressmen VIRGIL GOODE and former Texas State judge, Congressman TED POE, we joined forces with the Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund to file a friend of the court brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court.

The brief urges reversal of these unjust convictions and 10 year mandatory minimum sentences by spelling out how changes contained in two counts of the indictment against the agents are ``fatally defective'' because they fail to charge an offense as defined by the statute.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and the American people have been greatly concerned about the denial of due process of law to Agents Ramos and Compean. The American people must be confident that prosecutors will not tailor the law to make it easier to convict in a particular case. Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make the law.

It is my understanding that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold hearings to examine the prosecution of this case, and I want to thank Chairman JOHN CONYERS for his interest in investigating the injustice committed against these two Border agents.

I encourage the chairman and the committee to take a thorough look into the actions of the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas and its pattern of aggressively prosecuting law enforcement officers, including Ramos and Compean, former Border Patrol Agent Aleman and Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez. These are legitimate legal questions and concerns about this prosecutor's office, and they need to be answered.

And again, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his interest and concern about justice to right an injustice.

Well, yes!

He went on to restate that even congress doesn't answer emails, phone calls, etc...So what are we doing, screaming at the TV, computer when our voice is left to deaf ears!

Read his very short call to end our pain, if you have had enough!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/3/154627/3818

I think his words speak clearly and he has a way for those who have had ENOUGH of this government being trashed!

The time to be seen and heard is now!

Our time has come to get off that fence and stop watching the clouds float by! Start acting and get mad while your at it!

The Over site committee has posted on their web site the companies that have been Sold to our elective officials at our expense! Now this may be the short list, and there may be lots more...But its a start in knowing the ins and outs of this!

Happy readings!

You lap Tax paying stupid DOG!

-----..-----..----..

Security Guards for Army Installations

$480.0 million

In 2003, the Army awarded two sole-source contracts to acquire the bulk of its contract guards to Alutiiq Security and Technology and Chenega Integrated Systems, both 8(a) Alaska Native firms. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Army hired an inexperienced contractor to help refine the performance work statement, failed to monitor certain subcontracting limitations under 8(a) contracts, and turned to 8(a) sole-source contracts in a third acquisition phase despite having previously competed the contracts at a significant savings in cost. GAO also found that screening weaknesses resulted in applicants with criminal histories, including felons, being employed as guards.

-----..-----..----

National Currency Exchange, Iraqi Banknote Exchange

$24.8 million

In 2003, Custer Battles, a U.S. firm with no previous security experience, was awarded a $16.8 million sole-source contract to provide security at Baghdad International Airport and a $21.3 million contract to provide security for the exchange of Iraqi currency. According to two former employees, Custer Battles engaged in a variety of fraudulent acts, including setting up shell subcontractors to charge inflated prices to the government and submitting fake invoices from sham subsidiary companies. In March 2006, a federal jury found that Custer Battles committed 37 separate acts of fraud under the currency security contract and ordered the company to pay over $10 million in penalties and refunds to the government. Claims relating to the airport security contract are still pending in federal court.

----..----..

Personal Security Detail for Senior Adviser to the Minister of Interior.

$3.6 million

According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Joint Contracting Command – Iraq/Afghanistan failed to perform any property administration for this contract to provide personal security for the Senior Adviser to the Iraqi Minister of Interior.

Contract Information

Awarding Department(s): Department of Defense

Sub-department(s): JCC-IA

----..----..

Contractor: Not ReleasedDouble Cab Trucks for Maysan Police

187,500.00

According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the contracting officer paid the contractor a payment of $87,500 in advance of delivery of trucks for the Iraqi police, in contravention of the terms of the contract stating that payment was to be made after delivery. The Inspector General also found that the contracting official paid the remaining balance of the contract without documentation that the contractor had actually delivered the vehicles.

Contract Information

Awarding Department(s): Department of Defense

Sub-department(s): Coalition Provisional Authority

Contractor: Al-Mulla Group, Kuwait

Issue Area(s): Iraq

----..----..

Deepwater

$24.0 billion

In 2002, the Coast Guard began a $24 billion, multiyear acquisition program to replace or modernize its fleet of deep water boats and aircraft. The program relied on a single systems integrator, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, to oversee and implement the entire program. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) repeatedly has issued warnings that the program carries significant risks in the areas of program management, cost control, and contractor accountability. In particular, GAO warned that the system integrator arrangement “creates a potential risk that program decisions and products could be influenced by the financial interest of the contractor … which may not match the primary interest of the government.” In 2007, following highly publicized design and performance failures of two types of boats and a series of scathing Congressional hearings, the Coast Guard announced that they would restructure the contract to eliminate the systems integrator.

Issue Area(s): Iraq

----..----..----..

Contract Guard Program in the National Capital Region

$487.0 million

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) relies heavily on contract guards to protect the federal government’s buildings and property. According the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, FPS has not effectively monitored the guard program in the National Capital Region. The Inspector General found that FPS was not deploying qualified and certified contract guards, and that security guards were not performing their duties in accordance with the terms of the contracts. The Inspector General also found that FPS paid over $1.2 million in interest payments to contractors for late payments between 2004 and 2005.

Contract Information

Awarding Department(s): Department of Homeland Security

Sub-department(s): Federal Protective Service

Contractor: Not Released

Issue Area(s): Homeland Security

----..----..

Trilogy

$537.0 million

In 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched Trilogy, a project to upgrade and modernize FBI’s IT systems. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), FBI’s inadequate management and oversight of Trilogy left the agency vulnerable to payments of unallowable and questionable contractor costs. GAO identified $10.1 million in questionable costs paid by FBI, including excessive airfare, incorrect billings, and overcharging of labor rates.

Contract Information

Awarding Department(s): Department of Justice

Sub-department(s): Federal Bureau of Investigation

Contractor: Computer Sciences Corp., Science Applications International Corp.

Issue Area(s): Homeland Security

----..----..

Security Installation at U.S. Embassies

$354.0 million

In 2003, the State Department awarded a sole-source contract to provide security services at U.S. embassies to EmbSec LLC, a joint venture of RDR, Inc., a former small business, and BP International, a small business at the time the contract was awarded. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the State Department relied on an improper waiver to award the contract without competition. GAO also found that the contracting officials have failed to adequately administer the contract and exercise appropriate oversight.

Contract Information

Awarding Department(s): Department of State

Sub-department(s): Bureau of Overseas Business Operations

Contractor: EmbSEC LLC (a joint venture of RDR, Inc. and BP International)

Issue Area(s): Other

Yesterday, I sat watching C-Span and found my self gasping when I heard Rep. Jones from North Carolina talk about the Border Patrol Agents who where convicted for killing a known Drug dealer on the US and Mexico border.

After the 5 minute speech was over I just sat there in shock! Could this be true? Could there be a connection between the US Attorney's and other cases across America? How did no one notice that the US Attorney changed the law like plagiarism; in fact, Rep. Jones stated "Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make the law."

Well, Bush does this with signing statements, yet its ok for the Attorney General to act as a third arm of the White House, so what makes this any different? Congress makes laws, US Attorney's are to enforce them, right?

Then I started to think beyond what Rep. Jones stated, how many other times has this happened?

This is a very big deal! US Attorney's making up laws in order to prosecute!

Read the statement from Rep. Jones...

What makes this different from Bush, Gonzales, and any other agency that just makes up laws to fit their needs, OUR CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION!

<---------------------------------------->

PROSECUTION OF FORMER U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2007)

[Page: H6633] GPO's PDF

---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the Members of this House well know, in February 2006, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted in a U.S. District Court in Texas for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, and today is the 153rd day since the two agents entered Federal prison.

What Members of this House may not know is that 10 years of each of their sentences were based on an indictment and conviction for a Federal crime that does not exist. The Federal crime they were convicted of does not exist.

The law that they were charged with violating has never been enacted by the United States Congress but rather was fashioned by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas , Johnny Sutton.

The law that the agents were charged with, 18 United States Code section 924(c)(1)(a) as enacted by Congress, requires a defendant to be indicted and convicted either of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

However, neither Mr. Ramos nor Mr. Compean was ever charged with the specific elements of the crime. Instead, Mr. Sutton's office extracted from the United States Criminal Code a sentencing factor, discharging a firearm, and substituted that sentencing factor for the congressionally defined elements of the offense.

In this case, I can imagine how difficult it would be to obtain an indictment and conviction for ``using,'' ``possessing'' or ``carrying'' a firearm when the Border Agents were required to carry firearms as part of their job. That difficulty may well, very well, explain why this United States Attorney's Office unilaterally changed Congress's definition of a crime to a definition that would be easier to prove by the prosecution.

Any change in the elements of a crime amounts to the seizure of legislative authority by a Federal prosecutor. When this encroachment upon the legislative power of Congress was brought to my attention and to the attention of my colleagues, Congressmen VIRGIL GOODE and former Texas State judge, Congressman TED POE, we joined forces with the Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund to file a friend of the court brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court.

The brief urges reversal of these unjust convictions and 10 year mandatory minimum sentences by spelling out how changes contained in two counts of the indictment against the agents are ``fatally defective'' because they fail to charge an offense as defined by the statute.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and the American people have been greatly concerned about the denial of due process of law to Agents Ramos and Compean. The American people must be confident that prosecutors will not tailor the law to make it easier to convict in a particular case. Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make the law.

It is my understanding that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold hearings to examine the prosecution of this case, and I want to thank Chairman JOHN CONYERS for his interest in investigating the injustice committed against these two Border agents.

I encourage the chairman and the committee to take a thorough look into the actions of the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas and its pattern of aggressively prosecuting law enforcement officers, including Ramos and Compean, former Border Patrol Agent Aleman and Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez. These are legitimate legal questions and concerns about this prosecutor's office, and they need to be answered.

And again, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his interest and concern about justice to right an injustice.

Now, to start off flicks of the 1960's may seem old and non meaning to some in the current movie environment, but as I watched this morning a flick "Billion Dollar Brain" (1967) staring Michael Caine, Karl Malden and Ed Begley had me looking at the similarities it had with the current administration's view!

Now, Michael Caine is a English spy out to save his country, but what makes this movie special in the context of the Bush administration, is that the "bad" guy is a Texas General who forms his own military and wants to take down Russia.

In some small way, the talking points that this administration repeats and the denial they encounter have been taken (in my view) from movies such as "Billion Dollar Brain" and their script writing is right out of movies, and not from knowledge that is educational based.

I know for me, I will be watching more movies that reflect how and who this administration seems to mimic.

Job title: Knowledge and experience of foreign affairs, 10 or more years. Managing over 150 million staff. Understanding and implementing laws and applying them according to the rules. Must be a multi task person and be willing to collaborate with many different people with different values and views. Must be able to work for and by the American people at all times. Must be held to the highest standard of professional ethical code with no exceptions. In addition, there religious beliefs are to be just that, their own, and not projected to the American public.

The selected person will travel around the United States to listen and engage with all Americans in order to understand their needs and help for fill them. In no way will the person selected engage with corporate moguls, which can cloud their mind regarding the American people. In addition, the funds taken from any person or party is to be subject to the selected person , to match the funds and placed in a trust for the American people.

The selected person must verify their educational background and any form of Military service. This is mandatory with no exceptions.

The selected person, must submit to a psychologist's test for cognitive thinking ability, and must meet the standards in order to proceed to the next interview level.

This job is open for no more than 4 years at a time. And is subject to dismissal for lying to any American about any topic or forging any document at any time. Again, this is subject to the body of Congress at any time and for any reason. This includes any staff or cabinet member in which the selected person may hire at any time.

If there is anything missed on this list, The American people will address it in the job interview process.

If interested, please call 888-888-8888

ask for An American Citizen

There's vanilla-mist..what is that? sounds more like a air freshener! What about Orbit! Just the name alone wonders what would happen to my mouth once I started to chew and chew! Does my mouth feel like it just went out to space and is now refreshed?

Just the names alone boggle my mind, and some come in fancy holders that flip open as if there the NEW cigarettes! Some whiten, kill terrible bad breath, and even do all three in one little stick of gum!

So, whats in a name...and who are these people who think that we are sucked into the gum-killing bad breath-whitening my teeth-fresh as if you justed went around the world anyways? The marketing tools they use are the same tools they use on selling toys, candy to kids; but, they just moved up to the big kids market.

So, next time your at the store, market or mini mart; look at the fancy gum and wonder what are they really trying to sell me!