Something's Wrong with The Water In Delaware County

Yes. Our tap water smells of a putrid stench. like Naylor's Run creek when I was a kid in the 60's down at Cobbs Creek park. My wife and son drank a few glasses earlier and both are complaining of frontal headaches. Ever since AQUA took over the Philadelphia Suburban Water Company this has been a frequent complaint in our household in Clifton Heights. Well, It's off to bed now. Be sure to get off your asses and VOTE tomorrow.

Icemans Blog: Folcroft-Asshole-Bastards on Bennington Road

Seems there are scumbags living in Delaware County. My buddy Mike tells of thieves in Folcroft, Delaware County. I hope these cretins have instant karma beheveled right back at them! Typical Bennigton Rd scum? Or just needy crack whores? It amazes me that people can be so downright tuncs... Icemans Blog: Folcroft-Asshole-Bastards on Bennington Road

People in Delaware County are not stupid

More good points being made by concerned people in Pennsylvania. Haverford Township Politics / Elections - Township, County, State, National / 40 Bush Visits - Good for us? Oct 21, 2004, 10:21pm Started by WhyDoICare Last post by WhyDoICare George Bush visits Pennsylvania today for the 40th time since taking office. Let's take a look at what each of those visits has meant. Since George Bush took office, we've lost 161,200 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania. That's 4,030 pink slips for every time he set foot in the Commonwealth. Health insurance premiums for the average Pennsylvania family have risen $3,697. That's a $92.43 co-pay per Bush visit. 337,000 Pennsylvanians have lost their health coverage altogether since George Bush became president. That's 8,425 more people worrying about what happens if they get sick each time the president came to town. The average family is paying $540 more to keep their gas tanks full each year during the Bush administration. That's $13.50 for every time the president gassed up Air Force One to visit us here in Pennsylvania. The president sure has given Pennsylvania a lot of attention over the past four years, but you have to ask yourself: Are you better off today than you were 40 visits ago? Source: Haverford Blog

Curt Weldon - Demigod or Pariah ?

Main Entry: demi·god Pronunciation: 'de-mE-"gädFunction: noun1 : a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god2 : a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine For more Information on "demigod" go to Britannica.com

Get the Top 10 Search Results for "demigod" pa·ri·ah ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-r)n. A social outcast: “Shortly Tom came upon the juvenile pariah of the village, Huckleberry Finn, son of the town drunkard” (Mark Twain). An Untouchable.

Curt Weldon has been a Congressman for the 7th District in Pennsylvania since 1986. In those years, he had done a lot for his constituents, via lobbying for defense contracts, that provided companies like Boeing to thrive. But lately, as I scoured the "Internets" (har har) about his dealings, I have become very concerned. This man is supposed to represent me and my family. His last update to his web site concerning news was on February 25th , 2004. He tells of being proud of a firm in West Chester (Not in the 7th district) being awarded a contract to renovate a naval base for the Iraqi navy.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is that to Boeing and other companies specializing in warfare systems, this is fine and dandy. But to other companies in Delaware County and the surounding area, this does nothing. And now even the Boeing plant in Essington, not far fron Curt's former home in Marcus Hook, has been abandoned by Curt in favor of doing business with Russia. Reason to me? His daughter Karen. Even good old Charlie Sexton, (Not his link, but check out his wives name) rummored to be the head honcho of the "war board" in Delco has his hands in this.. READ ON...

Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of PoliticsFri Feb 20, 7:55 AM ETLA Times By Ken Silverstein, Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Karen Weldon, an inexperienced 29-year-old lobbyist from suburban Philadelphia, seemed an unlikely choice for clients seeking global public relations services. Yet her tiny firm was selected last year for a plum $240,000 contract to promote the good works of a wealthy Serbian family that had been linked to accused war criminal Slobodan Milosevic.

Despite a lack of professional credentials, she had one notable asset — her father, U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who is a leading voice in Washington on former Eastern Bloc affairs. She got the contract after he championed the efforts of two family members, Dragomir and Bogoljub Karic, to win U.S. visas from the State Department, which so far has refused them entry.

Intelligence officials warned Weldon that the brothers were too close to Milosevic, who is accused of leading the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslav federation. But the congressman has praised the Karics, who own a vast empire of banking, telecommunication and other firms, as model business leaders and humanitarians. He has portrayed them as victims of faulty intelligence reports and, last month, asked the CIA to sit down with them and sort things out. He has repeatedly pressed the State Department to give them visas.

Karen Weldon said her father "developed a rapport" with the Karics and introduced her to them. But her firm, Solutions North America Inc., won the consulting contract on its merits, she said. Her father declined to answer questions for this article. The congressman also has gone to bat for at least two of Solutions' other clients, both struggling Russian companies. Together, the three contracts are worth almost $1 million a year to her firm for services that have included joining her father on congressional trips and in meetings with clients. The Weldons are the latest example of special interests hiring relatives of important members of Congress as lobbyists and consultants. Over the last year, The Times has identified 11 other House members and 17 senators with relatives who lobby or consult, many of them for clients the members have helped through legislative or other action. Congressional ethics rules provide few barriers to the practice. They do not forbid members of Congress from helping companies or others who are paying their relatives. But Weldon has brought his daughter so deeply into his official activities that they sometimes appear to be working in tandem.

For example:

After a Russian aerospace manufacturer hired Karen Weldon's firm for $20,000 a month plus 10% of any new business it generated, Rep. Weldon pitched the company's saucer-shaped drone to the U.S. Navy which signed a letter of intent to invest in the technology. And Weldon, who chairs a subcommittee that oversees $60 billion in military acquisitions, has been working to get funding for the project, Navy officials say. A lawyer for Solutions said the firm did not collect the finder's fee and it was later removed from the contract. Federal law bars companies from paying commissions to lobbyists on government contracts.

The congressman helped round up 30 congressional colleagues for a dinner at the Library of Congress to honor the chairman of a Russian natural gas company, Itera International Energy Corp., that had just agreed to pay his daughter's firm $500,000 a year to "create good public relations." Records show Solutions North America helped arrange the privately funded affair for the company, which has been trying to improve its image with U.S. officials after questions were raised about its acquisition of vast natural gas fields in post-Soviet Russia.

Karen Weldon's firm paid for her father's chief of staff to take a "fact-finding" trip to Serbia, where he met with U.S. Embassy officials about the Karics' visa problems. The congressman approved the arrangement, travel records show. House ethics rules bar members or staff from taking official trips paid for by lobbyists or registered agents of foreign companies. The chief of staff, Michael J. Conallen Jr., said he reimbursed Solutions with his own money last week after The Times raised questions about the trip. Conallen said the congressman's actions on behalf of Karen Weldon's clients posed no "ethical concerns".. I just don't think there's anything strange about it," he said. "If Curt wanted to he could snap his fingers and divert a lot of business to Karen, and that hasn't happened."

Karen Weldon has a partner in Solutions, Charles P. Sexton Jr., 67, the former finance chairman of Rep. Weldon's campaigns. Neither has lobbied Weldon nor asked for his help, Conallen said. "The fact that they have contracts with these clients hasn't influenced anything Curt has done," he said. The congressman was advocating for the Karics and other Eastern European business interests long before his daughter opened her firm, Conallen said. In a written statement Thursday, Conallen added, "The congressman is generally aware of his daughter's company and the work she does for several of her clients. But the congressman has not discussed the specifics of Solutions North America's agreements with their clients or the nature of their representation." Karen Weldon declined to say whether she discussed her clients with her father. But she said her firm's success was not due to his position in Congress. "Because of who he is, people have questioned me all my life about whether I'm qualified and if I can do the job," she said. "I have nothing to hide. I haven't done anything inappropriate."

Going Into Business

Rep. Weldon, a former school teacher, was first elected to Congress in 1986 from the Republican suburbs southwest of Philadelphia. Over nine terms, he has moved up in seniority on the House Armed Services Committee. He is vice chairman — the second-ranking Republican — and chairman of its tactical air and land forces subcommittee. Weldon, a Russian studies major in college, also is a noted advocate of closer relationships with the former Soviet Union. He has made more than 30 trips to Russia as a member of Congress. He is the founder and chairman of the Congressional U.S.-Former Soviet Union Energy Caucus and founder and co-chairman of the official interparliamentary exchange between the U.S. and Russia. Today, Conallen said, "There is nobody in Congress more knowledgeable about Russia than Curt Weldon." That judgment is shared by many of Weldon's House colleagues. Until she launched Solutions, Karen Weldon had been following a different career path. She had an undergraduate degree in education and a graduate degree in information systems. She spent six years, she said, working on "learning and training programs" for Boeing Co., which has a helicopter plant at the edge of Rep. Weldon's district. Conallen said Weldon did not help his daughter get the job at Boeing, which is a frequent beneficiary of his work in Washington and one of his top campaign donors. When she and Sexton opened their business in September 2002, Solutions' office consisted of a cubicle in a suburban Philadelphia office suite that provided a common receptionist and conference room for all 120 of its tenants. A few months later, Solutions opened a similar office in downtown Washington. Karen Weldon said Sexton "makes a lot of the business connections" for their firm. Her partner is a political power broker in Weldon's district and the former owner of a security guard company, which he recently sold for $6 million. She described her role as "legwork and project management," including graphics and Web development. (Web Development? Ok... Whatever you say.) She said she doesn't work on legislation and called Solutions "more of a business consultancy than a lobbying firm," though she and Sexton have registered with the Justice Department as foreign agents for their three clients. Lobbyists representing overseas clients must file disclosure reports with the department's Foreign Agents Registration Unit. She would not say who else she and Sexton represented beyond the three clients reported in Solutions' disclosure forms. Karen Weldon said the idea for Solutions originated with Sexton. He was already talking to Itera, the Russian energy company, she said. Sexton declined an interview request from The Times. She said they became 50-50 partners, and Itera became Solutions' first client. It paid $170,000 of its annual fee up front — a timely infusion of cash for a start-up firm, especially one that had little experience or presence in Washington.

Russian Relations

Itera needed friends in Washington. Questions had been raised by Russian energy and investment companies about how Itera had gained title to billions of dollars worth of natural gas resources from a state-controlled conglomerate called Gazprom. William Browder of Hermitage Capital Management, a large Russian investment fund with a stake in Gazprom, said the conglomerate transferred the assets for little or nothing. Itera officials declined to be interviewed. The controversy has been a cloud over Itera's efforts to gain access to Western investment capital and markets. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency withdrew an $868,000 grant to the company in March 2002 after questions were raised about Itera's background, said Leocadia Zak, an agency lawyer. It was a setback to the image of the company, which is seeking to expand its natural gas, timber and real estate holdings in the United States. Two months later, Rep. Weldon led a congressional delegation to Moscow in connection with a visit by President Bush. Weldon toured Itera's offices and, according to a company news release, praised it as a "strong and well-established company," and recommended it as "a great source" for U.S. energy firms seeking partners for joint ventures. When he returned home, Weldon blasted the Trade and Development Agency's decision at a news conference and made calls to the State Department on the company's behalf, though to no avail. On Sept. 5 and 6, 2002, Itera paid for Weldon's lodging in New York so he could do an interview with Russian radio about energy, Conallen said. A week later, Itera sent e-mails to Karen Weldon telling her the company would complete the terms of a contract with her firm at an upcoming dinner in Washington that her father was co-hosting to honor Itera's chairman. The dinner took place Sept. 24 at the Library of Congress. That day, Rep. Weldon had introduced a resolution in the House that encouraged U.S.-Russian cooperation on developing energy resources. Two days later, in a floor speech, he gave House colleagues a glowing report on Itera. On Sept. 30, Itera signed the $500,000-a-year contract with Solutions, which agreed to work on creating "good public relations so in the future Itera may sell goods and services to U.S. entities," according to foreign agent disclosure filings. They show the Library of Congress dinner as one of the firm's first efforts on Itera's behalf. When Rep. Weldon led a congressional delegation to Eastern Europe two months later, Itera paid for Karen Weldon to join him. Father and daughter met with the president of Georgia, and the congressman helped Itera resolve a costly commercial dispute with the government. During a stop in Moscow, Rep. Weldon called for increased U.S. imports from Itera and other Russian energy corporations. By January 2003, Itera had enough confidence in its prospects here to open an expanded U.S. headquarters in Jacksonville, Fla. The company flew the congressman down for the gala marking the event, according to his travel records. "I can think of no other company that represents what Russia is today and offers for the future," the congressman said, according to a local news report.

'Flying Saucer'

Karen Weldon said she found her second client, a Russian aerospace company, through a family friend. The friend was Philadelphia lawyer John J. Gallagher, who has worked with her father to foster U.S.-Russian business ties. Gallagher said he introduced Solutions to Saratov Aviation Plant in December 2002, because the company needed help promoting its products in the United States. One of its most promising creations was a drone that could deliver supplies to war zones, a device the company sometimes called its "flying saucer." Karen Weldon, or her partner Sexton, in turn sparked Rep. Weldon's interest in the company's technology, according to chief of staff Conallen. A Saratov official recalled hearing from Rep. Weldon "quite unexpectedly" in early January 2003. The congressman expressed "an acute interest" in the unmanned vehicle, said company director Alexander Ermishin. Weldon visited Saratov's plant later that month, accompanied by his daughter, who by then was negotiating a deal to consult for the company, according to Solutions' disclosure reports. It was an official trip for Weldon, who had congressional business in Russia and Austria. Karen Weldon's travel was paid through Solutions. They each attended meetings with Ermishin and other company officials. The congressman expressed enthusiasm about the saucer technology, Ermishin said. Within weeks, Saratov sealed a contract with Solutions to promote the company's products, according to foreign agent disclosure filings. Ermishin described the congressman's assistance on the project as "really invaluable." He declined to discuss why he hired Karen Weldon's firm. According to the contract that Solutions filed with the Justice Department, Saratov agreed to pay Solutions $20,000 a month with two contingencies: The cash-strapped company did not have to start paying until Solutions attracted new business. And Saratov would pay a 10% finder's fee if the company "strikes a deal from a lead supplied" by Solutions. After the Weldons returned from Russia, the congressman took steps to get a deal going. He contacted the Naval Air Systems Command, or Navair, which is based near Washington, about the Saratov saucer, Conallen said. Robert Carullo, a Navair staff member, said Weldon asked him to arrange for Ermishin to meet with Navair. The meeting took place in March. Solutions' disclosure reports say the firm also helped set up the meeting. Karen Weldon also helped arrange a follow-up meeting between Navair and Saratov in Russia in September, disclosure reports show. At the conclusion of that visit, Navair and Saratov signed a nonbinding letter of intent that called for Navair to seek funding to develop the saucer technology and fly a prototype by 2005. Ermishin said the technology needs between $10 million and $14 million as initial capital. John Fischer, Navair's director of research and engineering sciences, who led the delegation to Saratov, said he was impressed with the company's technology. In an interview, Fischer credited Rep. Weldon for bringing Saratov to Navair's attention, calling him "a very proactive member of Congress." He said Weldon was looking for money for the project. "The money is a sensitive question, but we are confident it will come," Fischer said. Conallen said Weldon had not yet taken steps to get the funding authorized by Congress.

Asked later about Karen Weldon's involvement, Navair provided a written response saying that Fischer met with her twice during the discussions with Saratov but did not realize she worked for the company. "Dr. Fischer was aware that Ms. Weldon was Rep. Weldon's daughter, but he was not aware that she had a business relationship with Saratov," the response said. "She did not identify herself other than by her name, and Dr. Fisher [sic] assumed her to be doing staff work for Congressman Weldon." Solutions' attorney, Joseph M. Fioravanti, on Thursday said the firm's finder's fee was eliminated under a new contract with Saratov signed in November. That contract was transferred to a new firm that Sexton and Karen Weldon formed last year. Fioravanti declined to provide more information on the new firm, Solutions Worldwide Inc. He said Saratov began paying the new firm $20,000 a month in December. At least four laws prohibit companies that receive federal contracts from paying contingency fees to lobbyists, according to Tom Susman, chairman of the ethics committee of the American League of Lobbyists. "We realized that with government contracts you're not supposed to get a percent, so we revised it," Karen Weldon said. "We were worried that it might look inappropriate."

A Family Affair

Clearing the Karic family name in the United States has become something of a crusade for Rep. Weldon. Their relationship dates to 1999, when he led a congressional delegation to Vienna that tried to broker a deal to end the war between Yugoslavia and the province of Kosovo.

By then, Milosevic's record of atrocities had been thoroughly documented. NATO had gone to war with the Belgrade regime, and U.S. bombers had pounded the capital to force the Yugoslav leader to withdraw from Kosovo. In public statements about the trip, Weldon has said that he and his colleagues met Dragomir Karic, who was introduced as a confidant of Milosevic who could negotiate a deal with the United States. His brother, Bogoljub, was a member of Milosevic's cabinet.

Weldon later told Congress that he had received a report on the Karics from U.S. intelligence officials that said a family member had bankrolled Milosevic's election, and that the family's bank had tried to finance a missile sale to his regime. Because of evidence that the Karics had supported Milosevic, the Treasury Department placed them on a list of Serbians banned from doing business in the United States. They all had been removed from the list by last year, as the United States normalized relations with Serbia, but they still cannot get visas. In a written statement, a spokesman for the Karics said, "Regarding the alleged links of the Karic Group or family to the Milosevic regime, we can only reiterate that these allegations are the product of groups or individuals from our country who have been themselves profiting from ties with the former regime."

Rep. Weldon came to adopt the view that the Karics, whose businesses thrived under Milosevic, were being unfairly portrayed as sympathizers of the former leader. "The story we get from the Karics is that Bogoljub was from the pro-democracy side, and Milosevic said your life and business depends on your working with me … and he did," Conallen said. "Curt believes in these guys and that their support for Milosevic was the result of innuendo and threat." On Oct. 8, 2002, Weldon sent a letter to Dragomir Karic inviting him to Washington to discuss the "extensive humanitarian and charity projects" sponsored by the family's Karic Foundation. The letter praised the Karics' business group and commended it to "U.S. companies seeking to establish business relationships in Serbia." Weldon's invitation was signed by 18 colleagues. According to Conallen, it was an effort to pressure the State Department to grant visas to the Karics. In March 2003, the Karic Foundation hired his daughter's firm on a renewable one-year contract paying $240,000. In disclosure forms, Solutions said it would assist the foundation in "establishing and developing a U.S. presence." "I did a proposal for them," Karen Weldon said. "I worked my butt off, and they liked it." The Karics' written statement said that they hired Solutions on the strength of its proposal and that "no American member of Congress" influenced their decision. In August, Weldon led a congressional delegation to Serbia. An association of Serbian businessmen headed by Bogoljub Karic helped plan the trip. In November, Solutions paid for Conallen to travel to Belgrade. He said he went on the invitation of Karen Weldon's partner, who received an honorary degree from a private university owned by the Karics. While there, Conallen said he met with U.S. Embassy officials to discuss the Karics' visa problem. His airfare, lodging and meals came to $2,403.30.

Conallen said he did not know at the time that Solutions represented the Karics. He said he consulted the House Ethics Committee after The Times raised questions about the payment and was told that he needed to reimburse Solutions. He said he has done so.

In December, Conallen said he called State Department officials again about the Karics. He appeals so frequently on behalf of the Karics, he said, that State Department officials know why he's calling without asking. The Karic brothers sent Weldon a letter Jan. 13 to thank him for his support and assure him of their "lasting friendship." The letter requested a meeting with intelligence officials "in the hope that this will finally clear our good name." Weldon delivered the Karics' request to the CIA. Conallen said the congressman has not heard anything from the agency. The CIA declined comment. Weldon invited the Karics to the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5. Since the State Department would not grant them visas, they were unable to attend. The congressman's efforts for the Karics, Conallen said, are "ongoing." So are Karen Weldon's efforts for the Karics and their foundation. "It's one of my main projects," she said two weeks ago.

So, let me get this straight. Curt's daughter had worked for Boeing for six years and over those six I saw him in channel 3, 6, and 10 and also in the Daily Times rallying for Boeing in Washington. Then in 2002, he suddenly feels the need to get buddy buddy with known "Terrorists" Dragomir and Bogoljub Karic, in order to further his daughter's and Charlie's up and coming company. His last update on his website was in February. He snubbed the leauge of women voters hosting a debate because he was "Too Busy". Curt, what have you"ve done for us lately?

To me, Mr. Weldon has only represented his daughter, NOT his constituents here in Delaware County. It's time for people to vote him out.

Paul Scoles is running against him. I strongly feel that he will do more for Delaware County. He has my vote. What about you?

p.s. To Karen and Charlie: Your web site has minimal content, Hire me and I'll work on it for a very reasonable price. One of my first objectives would be to remove the following from your site:

"Solutions North America, Inc. is a professional services company providing business development, lobbying, public relations and other specialized consulting services globally. Our clients and contacts are worldwide."

It's smells of politics.

Addendum:

April 7, 2004 John AshcroftAttorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530-0001 Re: Request for Investigation of Cong. Curt Weldon

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington requests that you have the Department's Public Integrity Section investigate whether Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon violated federal bribery law by using his public office to benefit companies that hired his daughter as a lobbyist. Karen Weldon lobbies extensively for foreign companies on behalf of which Congressman Weldon has used his position to assist. A lengthy Los Angeles Times article detailed the relationship between Mr. Weldon and clients of his daughter's lobbying firm, Solutions North America, Inc. Ken Silverstein, Chuck Neubauer, Richard Cooper, Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics; Karen Weldon whose dad is a Pennsylvania congressmen is a lobbyist for three foreign clients who need his help, and get it, Los Angeles Times, February 20, 2004 (attached as Exhibit A). Mr. Weldon's involvement with three of Ms. Weldon's clients stand out: Ms. Weldon won a $240,000 a year contract with two Serbian brothers after Mr. Weldon urged the State Department to reverse its denial of visas for the brothers who have been linked to Slobodan Milosevic; Ms. Weldon has a $20,000 month plus 10% of any new business generated contract with a Russian aerospace manufacturer on behalf of which Mr. Weldon urged the Navy to purchase the company's flying drone. The Navy has since signed a letter of intent to invest in the company's technology and Mr. Weldon has been working to find funding for the project; and Mr. Weldon co-hosted and arranged for 30 congressmen to attend a September 24, 2002 dinner for a Russian natural gas company whose interests Mr. Weldon had been championing. Less than a week after the dinner, the gas company signed a $500,000 a year contract with Solutions, which called upon the firm to create "good public relations" for the company. As you know, the bribery statute specifically prohibits public officials from accepting anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)(A). Mr. Weldon's activities on behalf of his daughter's clients both shortly before and shortly after Ms. Weldon won contracts from those clients appear to violate the bribery laws. The clear inference to be drawn is that Karen Weldon was highly compensated in return for her father's official assistance. In United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1989) cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052, 109 S.Ct. 1312 (1989), former New York Congressman Mario Biaggi was convicted of accepting bribes in violation of section 201 after he and his girlfriend took several trips paid for by Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Company ("Coastal"), which the Congressman had been assisting. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that Mr. Biaggi's activities: writing letters on behalf of Coastal using official congressional and committee stationary; assigning his administrative assistant, the top aide in his office, to handle issues related to the company; and offering to sit in on meetings between the Mayor of New York and the Navy with respect to issues affecting the company all constituted official action. 853 F.2d at 98. After determining that the Congressman had taken official action to assist Coastal, the Court considered whether the vacations given to and accepted by the Congressman and his girlfriend and paid for by Coastal constituted payment for the Congressman's official assistance. The Court was particularly struck by the timing between the vacations and Mr. Biaggi's assistance to Coastal. Shortly after one of the vacations paid for by Coastal, the Congressman called the Deputy Mayor and sent a follow up letter to the Mayor seeking assistance for the company. Within a few months of a second vacation, the Congressman offered to attend a meeting between the company and the Navy to demonstrate congressional concern. Id. Concluding that the vacations, valued at thousands of dollars, did in fact constitute something of value given in return for official acts, the Court upheld the bribery conviction. Id. at 100. The Second Circuit's consideration of the timing between Mr. Biaggi's assistance to Coastal and the vacations paid for by the company is instructive here. While Mr. Weldon was working to obtain visas for the wealthy Serbian brothers, he introduced the brothers to his daughter, who shortly thereafter, won a consulting contract for $240,000 a year from them. Similarly, shortly after the aerospace manufacturer hired Ms. Weldon's firm for $20,000 a month, Congressman Weldon began lobbying the Navy to do business with the company. Finally, the gas company agreed to pay Mr. Weldon's daughter $500,000 per year to "create good public relations" shortly before Congressman Weldon co-hosted and persuaded 30 congressional colleagues to attend a dinner sponsored by the company. Notably, the gas company told Ms. Weldon that it would complete the terms of her contract at the dinner. Silverstein et. al., Lucrative Deals. In light of the suspicious timing between Congressman Weldon's official assistance and the award of lucrative contracts to his daughter, CREW respectfully suggests that a grand jury investigation into whether Mr. Weldon violated the bribery laws is appropriate. The citizens of the United States need to be assured that Members of Congress are not above the law. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Melanie Sloan Executive DirectorCitizens for Responsibility andEthics in Washington encl. cc: Noel Hillman, Chief, Public Integrity Section

xymphora

xymphora

I Hope Rove Is Outted

Totally Delco News Feeds Rove Testifies in CIA Leak Investigation Oct 15, 02:59 PM WASHINGTON - President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified Friday before a federal grand jury trying to determine who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer. Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel, according to an administration official who spoke only on condition of anonymity because such proceedings are secret. Before testifying, Rove was interviewed at least once by investigators probing the leak. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell also have been interviewed, though none has appeared before the grand jury. White House spokesman Trent Duffy referred questions to the Justice Department. The special prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, declined comment through a spokesman. The investigation concerns whether a crime was committed when someone leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose name was published by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Disclosure of the identity of an undercover intelligence officer can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the leaker knew about the officer's secret status. Novak's column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion article criticizing Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger - a claim the CIA had asked Wilson to check out. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retribution. In a widely quoted remark, Wilson said after a speech in 2003 that it might be "fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Wilson has accused Rove of spreading word of the Novak column to reporters. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign was quick to pounce on news of Rove's appearance, with senior adviser Joe Lockhart issuing a statement calling on Rove and other aides to "come clean about their role in this insidious act." "If the president sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this potential crime, he'd stop the White House foot-dragging and fully cooperate with this investigation," Lockhart said. Bush and his top advisers have repeatedly said they are cooperating in the probe, which began more than a year ago. Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine have been held in contempt by a federal judge for refusing to testify before the grand jury about sources they talked to while following up on Novak's column. Both are appealing those rulings. Associated Press reporter Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

Answer This Mr. President!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101404A.shtml I Thought as much..

Your Boss Is Watching You

To my friends who work for the Government. Be careful what you read, post, or download online. Your Boss Is Watching Thu Oct 7, 3:00 AM ET Daniel Tynan In a recent study on Internet deprivation, people forced to live without Net access for two weeks said they missed the "private space" the Internet provided them at work. Well, I have news for you. That Internet account you have at work is not your private space. It's also your boss's space, and your boss's boss's space, and so on up the line. In fact, if you think you have any real privacy on the job, you're laboring under a delusion. Here are some of the more common myths about Net privacy at work. Myth number one: My company would never spy on its employees. Maybe so, but if that's the case, you're in the minority. According to surveys by the American Management Association, nearly two-thirds of companies actively monitor where their employees go on the Web. Some 52 percent scan e-mail, and around one in five keeps an eye on instant messaging. These companies aren't just being nosy. An employee who accesses objectionable Web sites could expose the employer to lawsuits for fostering a hostile workplace environment. Employees could accidentally (or deliberately) spill confidential corporate information over e-mail or IM, or allow worms to spread throughout a corporate network. And while there are tools that help you get around such employer restrictions--the Electronic Privacy Information Center maintains a page of them--you use them at your own risk. Myth number two: If my company were spying on me, I'd know about it. Not necessarily so, Sherlock. Most monitoring is done at the network level, and most employers are under no legal obligation to tell you if you're being monitored. (Connecticut has a law requiring employers to notify workers; a similar law was passed by the California Assembly earlier this year and awaits Governor Schwarzenegger's signature.) When companies do notify employees, they typically do it with a quickly disappearing splash screen or a sentence buried in the employee handbook that says the company reserves the right to monitor communications. So just because you can get to www.cats-who-love-dogs.com (not a real site) on your work PC doesn't mean someone isn't logging your visits there. You need to ask your boss for the company's written policy on employee monitoring. If the company doesn't have a policy, request that it create one. Myth number three: It's perfectly fine to do a little recreational surfing at work, as long as I don't visit the wrong kind of sites. Maybe it is, but you may want to find out what your boss considers the "wrong kind" of sites. In a study (PDF) by the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College, more than 90 percent of companies allow "reasonable personal usage" of the Web, but only 42 percent define "reasonable." For example, four out of five of businesses surveyed said it was okay for employees to visit news sites, but only about half allowed employees to shop or bank online. Better to ask questions first and surf later. Myth number four: My e-mail conversations are none of my boss's business. That's true, but only if you're using your own computer and your own account. Otherwise companies can and do scan e-mail, even the personal stuff. In one AMA survey, some 60 percent of companies that monitor e-mail use software to scan e-mail for keywords and block sensitive information from going out. A study (PDF) by Forrester Consulting and Proofpoint found that 44 percent of large firms hired people to read corporate e-mail. About half the firms in the Bentley study had created written guidelines telling employees how to perform Internet monitoring, and only a third made monitors sign confidentiality agreements. The next time you send a personal note from work, remember that you might also be sharing this information with the geeks in the IT department. Myth number five: I can use Webmail services to get around my boss's e-mail snooping. Sorry, Bunky. Using services like Yahoo or Hotmail can make it harder for your boss to spy on your e-mail conversations, but they hardly make it impossible. Your company could use Web-monitoring software like Websense or SurfControl to block access to these sites, or log how much time you're spending at them and confront you about it. Network administrators could also install a "sniffer" that reads unencrypted data as it passes down the wires. About one in five firms surveyed by the AMA routinely monitors computer use, for example by installing keystroke loggers that record everything you type, or software that periodically captures what's on your screen. All of that can be used to spy on your Webmail messages, as well as virtually everything else you do on your PC. Myth number six: I use instant messaging for most of my personal communications, so my privacy is secure. I H8 2 disappoint U, but IM isn't as private as you'd like to believe. One-fifth of organizations currently monitor employees' instant messaging, according to Forrester, and many more companies are becoming hip to the potential of IM as a business tool and the dangers it poses. Software like FaceTime Communications' IM Director or Akonix Enforcer can record all your conversations, and/or block certain activities on IM such as file sharing. Federal legislation requires some organizations, like health firms or security brokers, to retain records of certain IM conversations. So even if you're in the clear now, your IM habits are unlikely to go unmonitored for long. Myth number seven: I work at home, so I can do whatever I please. Don't be so sure. It all depends on whose equipment and Internet connection you're using. If your employer supplied the machine, your company can do anything it pleases with the computer, including examining your personal files on the hard drive. If you use your own PC but log in using your employer's Net connection, the company can legally track any of your activity online, unless you have an agreement that states otherwise. So unless you own the gear and the bandwidth, better delete anything you don't want your boss to see. Myth number eight: I can do anything I want, as long as I delete the evidence from my computer. Dream on, Bubba. For one thing, it's likely that the evidence is still sitting there in your Recycle Bin. Even if you empty the bin, files can be easily recovered until they've been overwritten with other data. If you're on a corporate network, forget about it. Your e-mail and the contents of your hard disk are probably archived on backup media, where they can persist for years. And that's assuming your employer doesn't use Web-monitoring software, keyloggers, or other forms of digital surveillance on the network. Paper burns and memories fade, but digital evidence can live forever. Myth number nine: My workplace privacy rights are protected by law. Not as much as you might think. While government employers must follow the U.S. Constitution, restrictions on unlawful search and seizure or self-incrimination don't apply to private companies. A handful of federal employment laws restrict the kinds of information companies can collect about you before you're hired, and some states (like California) extend privacy protections to employees of private entities, but most don't. Mostly you're at your boss's mercy. Myth number ten: Even if my bosses catch me doing something naughty on the Net, they can't fire me for it. I've got bad news for you: Companies can and will fire people over Net naughtiness. According to the AMA, one in four companies surveyed in 2004 had terminated employees for violating their e-mail policies, up from 22 percent in 2003 and 17 percent in 2001 (there was no 2002 survey). So don't say you haven't been warned. PC World Contributing Editor Dan Tynan has written extensively on Internet privacy and security. He is currently hard at work on Privacy Annoyances, which will be published by O'Reilly Media.

Fucking Green Monster

I dug this up off of my Live Journal account. I thought it amusing and if you are snobbish.. Go FUCK yourself. So there was this guy who had a problem pleasing his wife because he could never get an erection. well, his wife got so fed up with her lack of orgasms that she made her husband go to the doctor for his problem. The man told his doctor of the problem and the doctor said, "i have just the thing." after saying this, he pulled out a 7-inch-long green finger-shaped thing and said "this is the 'fucking green monster.' it'll help you with all your sexual problems. just say 'fucking green monster' and then say the object or person that you want it to fuck, and it'll fuck what you tell it to." Eager to try it, the man took the 'fucking green monster' home and tried it on his wife. he said "'fucking green monster,' my wife" and sure enough, it inserted into his wife. they went at it for about three hours until the man realized that the doctor had forgotten to tell him how to stop the thing. So they headed to the doctor's office. the man was speeding because it was really starting to hurt his wife. sure enough, a cop caught them speeding and pulled them over. the cop asked "why are you speeding, sir?" and the man told the cop about the fucking green monster. In disbelief, the cop said "fucking green monster? fucking green monster, my ass!" That is all.

Bill O' Reilly - A cowardly asshole

O'Reilly is an asshole. I remember watching this and found this transcript of it. Self righteous pig headed bastard! If you talked to me like that I'd bust you right in the face and watch the blood come out of your nose! Also, check out the Pepsi deal gone bad. O' Reilly you are scum. and Your NO Republican either, just an ASSHOLE along the likes of Jerry Springer, people who need to do anything for ratings.. Read Below:

Note:Before you read this vile and insulting interview by Bill O'Reilly, let me say I watched this interview two times, this was the single most outrageous interview I have ever seen on any TV news show, anywhere by anyone. This man lost his Father in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and O'Reilly treated him like dirt. He tried to discredit and marginalize everything Mr. Glick said and showed him no respect at all just because he disagreed with O'Reilly. To say it was the most UN-professional interview ever done by a so-called journalist is an under-statement.

 Try to remember if you ever saw a real journalist, anywhere in your life, tell an invited guest to shut up, shut up, and you just shut your mouth. Then tell the audio man to cut off his mic, what happened to free speech o'reilly. After all, these are the same free speech rights O'Reilly just defended the night before in regards to the boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors.

 I guess in the biased, one-sided, conservative, all-spin zone world of Bill O'Reilly it seems you only have free speech rights when you agree with Bill and his conservative political views. The next night on the factor (2-5-03) o'reilly read an e-mail about the Glick interview telling him he should be taken off the air for his treatment of Mr. Glick. The reply to that by o'reilly was "when someone comes into your house and spits on the floor they get no respect and you show them the door." That is a direct quote from Bill O'Reilly. So what Bill is saying is that if you come on the factor and you don't agree with him you do not have free speech rights and you are an UN-American commie who gets no respect from him. If anyone doubts any of this, go buy the transcripts at foxnews.com and read them for yourself, or just watch the factor and see how he treats people who agree with him compared to people that do not agree with him.

 Partial Transcript: "The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03 O'REILLY:" In the Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true. O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement? GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved. O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement. GLICK: As an individual. O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

 GLICK: Maybe...

 O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

 GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

 O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

 GLICK: Well, OK.

 O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

 GLICK: But you do care because you...

 O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

 GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

 O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

 GLICK: ... to rationalize...

 O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

 O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

 GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

 O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

 GLICK: OK.

 O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

 O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

 GLICK: So what about George Bush?

 O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

 GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

 O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

 GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

 O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

 GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

 O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

 GLICK: OK.

 O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

 GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

 O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

 GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

 O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

 O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

 GLICK: ... not the people of America.

 O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

 GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

 O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

 GLICK: That means we're done?

 O'REILLY: We're done. Then this happened right before the commercial break: What you can not see here because it's a text transcript, is right after O'Reilly said "we're done" he made two motions with his hand. He (O'Reilly) waved at someone off camera as to say come here and get him (referring to Jeremy Glick) then he did a move with his thumb, he held his right thumb up and raised it up in a short little motion. It's as if he were hitch-hiking, like get him outta here. I am guessing he was telling someone on his staff or his bodyguard to throw Glick out of the studio. Here's the sickening apology quote O'Reilly gave after the commercials:

 OREILLY: "I have to apologize. If I knew that guy, Jeremy Glick, was going to be like that, I never would have brought him in here, and I feel bad for his family. I really do."

 The truly sad part is that if Mr. Glick were pro-bush and pro-war, and agreed with o'reilly, he would have been allowed to say whatever he wanted to, in the so-called no spin zone, and he would have been treated with total respect. Since he did not hold those positions he was told to shut up and shut your mouth and cut his mic off. I guess it's only a no-spin zone when you agree with o'reilly or his views. This is from the same guy (O'Reilly) who just the night before accused a man from takebackthemedia.com of trying to violate Rush Limbaugh's free speech rights by calling for everyone to boycott his sponsors. Which "as an american" he has the right to do, boycotts are a tradition and a right in america.Yet when Mr. Glick tried to state his views and opinions on the factor, Mr. "free speech" Bill O'Reilly told him to shut up, shut up, you just shut your mouth.

So much for free speech on the factor. -------- Speaking of boycotts, o'reilly called for a boycott of pepsi in august of 2002 because they hired the rapper Ludacris to do a commercial, this is all well documented. August 27, 2002 - http://www.boycottwatch.org - Fox News Channel commentator and host of The O'Reilly Factor urges people to boycott Pepsi after decided to run commercials featuring rapper Ludicrous. The boycott is based on Pepsi hiring a spokesman who is "peddling antisocial behavior" according to O'Reilly.

 Here are a couple quotes from the king of spin Bill O'Reilly: OREILLY: "I'm calling for all responsible Americans to fight back and punish Pepsi for using a man who degrades women, who encourages substance abuse, and does all the things that hurt particularly the poor in our society," I'm calling for all Americans to say, hey, Pepsi, i'm not drinking your stuff. You want to hang around with Ludicrous, you do that, I'm not hanging around with you. Am I wrong to do that? Call me crazy but that looks like calling for a Pepsi boycott to me.

 OREILLY: "So here's the deal, Pepsi. You want to cultivate Ludicrous? Fine. I'm drinking Coke. I'm sending you a message. I don't like your choice of pitchmen, so Dr. Pepper is now on my menu." UPDATE August 28, 2002 - http://www.boycottwatch.org - Pepsi canceled plans to feature rapper Ludicrous as spokesperson after Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly declares a boycott. - Boycott worked in less than 24 hours. According to The O'Reilly Factor, Pepsi was inundated with thousands of phone calls from irate Factor viewers regarding the Ludicrous ads. As a result, Pepsi announced they would not air the ads. The decision to pull the ads came a day after Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," bashed Pepsi as "immoral" for using Ludicrous to promote the soft drink and urged viewers to boycott Pepsi. That looks like a boycott to me.


Then after all that o'reilly told Mr. Stinson from takebackthemedia.com it was unamerican to call for a boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors. It seems that boycotts are ok in o'reilly's world as long as you don't call for one against a conservative. Then in reply to an e-mail sent to the factor (2-4-03) accusing him of being a hypocrite on the two different boycotts o'reilly denied he called for a boycott of Pepsi. He (O'Reilly) claimed it was not a boycott because he did not actually say the word "boycott." I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like an argument a 5 year old would make, not a Harvard graduate with a masters degree. If you doubt any of this just do a google search on o'reilly and Pepsi boycotts. Here is the e-mail to Bill and his reply, this is right from the factor transcript: Lise Rousseau, Lafayette, Colorado, "Mr. O'Reilly, imagine my confusion as I watched you criticize the protester for organizing the Limbaugh boycott. Last August, I heard you tacitly call for a boycott against Pepsi for hiring Ludicrous. There is a lack of consistency in your rhetoric."

OREILLY: No, there isn't, Ms. Rousseau. First of all -- Ms. Rousseau. First of all, I never do anything tacitly. I do things directly. I simply said I wasn't going to drink Pepsi while that guy was on their payroll. No boycott was ever mentioned by me. Bill just lied his ass off folks. His own news network (FOX) even has a story where it reports o'reilly called for a boycott of Pepsi. And as you can see above, the boycott of Pepsi by Bill O'Reilly is well documented. Here is the 1st paragraph of the FOX news story: Pepsi-Cola of North America said Wednesday that it was yanking its 30-second television spot featuring rapper Ludacris off the air -- just a day after Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel's host of The O'Reilly Factor, assailed Pepsi as "immoral" for using the controversial rapper and urged his viewers to boycott the beverage company.


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61589,00.html.

Is he saying his own news network is lying about the Pepsi boycott too ? In the world of Bill O'Reilly and FOX news, you are only allowed to have free speech if you agree with them. This is called fascism, it's a sad day in america when a conservative fascist (O'Reilly) on a conservative fascist fraud of a news network can get away with violating a persons free speech rights. He defends Rush Limbaugh's (Republican) free speech rights one night then violates Jeremy Glicks (Democrat) free speech rights the very next night. Then he has the nerve to claim he is an independent, not a conservative.

If you believe that e-mail me at sss_2333@yahoo.com because I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. He also told Newt Gingrich he was an objective analyst, after you pick yourself up off the floor from laughter remember he was serious.