The oddsmakers at WSX are predicting two new Democratic Congressmen from Kentucky in January. They give Mike Weaver a 47.5% chance to win--two and a half per cent short. They give John Yarmouth a 55.98% chance to win, which looks pretty good. They give Ken Lucas a 51.25% chance to win, which is better than losing. They give Kenneth Stepp a 43.78% chance to win, which means I have to try harder, man. You can click the pages on this yourself:
"HSJOWE06
John Michael Weaver (D) to Win KY 2nd District
W$47.50
HSJOYA06
John A. Yarmuth (D) to Win KY 3rd District
W$54.98
HSJUFE06
Judy Feder (D) to Win VA 10th District
W$29.94
HSKELU06
Ken Lucas (D) to Win KY 4th District
W$51.25
HSKEST06
Kenneth Stepp (D) to Win KY 5th District
W$43.78
Pages: First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Last
On second thought, we'd all better try harder before Nov. 7. Kenneth Stepp.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The Lexington Herald-Leader on that $500,000 parking lot for Hal Rogers' contributor.
The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the following on that Federal-taxpayers-financed $500,000 parking lot that Hal Rogers got for Hal Rogers' contributor.
"Hal Rogers helps backer to pay for a parking lot
"By John Cheves
"HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
"U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers put $500,000 in this year's federal budget to build a parking lot for a private resort on Lake Cumberland that is owned by one of his campaign contributors. Rogers, who represents southeast Kentucky's 5th Congressional District, directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist J.D. Hamilton, who bought the Lee's Ford Marina Resort in 2003 and is promising to make sweeping improvements. The corps oversees most projects at Lake Cumberland, which the federal government created in 1952, but it usually does not use public funds to improve private businesses, said Tom Hale, the corps' operations manager at Lake Cumberland. However, he is working with Hamilton on designs for a hilltop lot to provide more than 200 parking spaces. "The corps did not ask for it (the money). This is something that Hal Rogers put in there," Hale said.Later, he added: "I'm sure all of the other (marina) operators on the lake would love to have something of that nature if they could get it." Hamilton, former president of the Mas-Hamilton Group, a federal defense contractor in Lexington, has given tens of thousands of dollars in recent years to political campaigns -- including $2,000 last year to Rogers -- as well as to the state and national Republican parties. Additionally, Hamilton's resort gave $5,000 last year to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, at a Lexington fund-raising luncheon organized by Rogers. At the time, Rogers was angling for the chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee, on which he is a senior member. Yesterday, Hamilton said he approached Rogers last year to complain about insufficient parking at his resort. At the peak of tourism season, in the summer, visitors often park on the roadside leading to the resort, he said.The next thing he knew, the $388 billion federal appropriations bill, signed by President Bush on Dec. 8, had money earmarked for just that purpose, he said. "That's the American system," Hamilton said. "But this project stands on its own," he said. "I don't think everyone who gives a political donation gets a favor. I honestly think that if someone came here from China and had a deal for Hal Rogers that would benefit his constituents, Hal would help him. "Rogers was not available for personal comment yesterday, an aide said in Washington. He returned to work yesterday after his annual trip to Hawaii to attend a seminar sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives. On the appropriations panel, Rogers has a say on funding for transportation and homeland security. In a written statement, Rogers said the new parking lot is part of his larger strategy to boost the tourism economy around Lake Cumberland. "Lee's Ford, which has grown to be one of the largest entry points for public access to Lake Cumberland, is overwhelmed in the summer months," Rogers wrote. "We would be foolish to turn people away simply because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not have adequate funds to improve parking. "Rogers said he put $400,000 into the 1992 federal budget to improve parking at the resort. At that time, the resort was owned by a Somerset family, two of whose members donated at least $2,000 to Rogers' 1992 election campaign, according to published reports at the time. The resort, near the town of Nancy in Pulaski County, provides docks, a hotel, rental cottages and boats, a restaurant and a store. Hamilton's purchase price in 2003 was not disclosed. On the resort's Web site, Hamilton promises customers several improvements in coming months, including "280 additional (parking) spaces operational before the season begins," as well as renovated hotel rooms, cottages, rest-rooms and a shower house. Hamilton owns the resort's buildings and equipment, but the land beneath it remains the property of the U.S. government, on long-term lease, said Hale of the Army Corps of Engineers. The same arrangement holds for about a dozen other privately operated marinas around the lake, he said. Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen's Congress Watch in Washington, said taxpayer dollars should not be used to improve a business owned by a campaign donor, particularly in a budget with a record $413 billion deficit. But the 3,300-page spending bill, hammered out privately by members of the appropriations committees, surely contains many surprises for the public, Holman said. "It was drafted behind closed doors, with heavy input by lobbyists and congressmen wanting to be sure their own pork-barrel projects were in there, and it was submitted for final approval even as the ink was drying," Holman said. "Nobody had time to read it. There's all kinds of pork-barrel projects in there, and most of them haven't been discovered yet." "Clearly," he said, "what Congressman Rogers did was unethical -- grossly unethical. But in all fairness, a lot of his colleagues did the same for their close friends back home."
Hal Rogers and a lot of his colleagues ought to be turned out of office. Are you one of the cronies? Did you get a government freebie worth fifty times your contibution to the Hal Rogers campaign? Oust the Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05!
"Hal Rogers helps backer to pay for a parking lot
"By John Cheves
"HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
"U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers put $500,000 in this year's federal budget to build a parking lot for a private resort on Lake Cumberland that is owned by one of his campaign contributors. Rogers, who represents southeast Kentucky's 5th Congressional District, directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist J.D. Hamilton, who bought the Lee's Ford Marina Resort in 2003 and is promising to make sweeping improvements. The corps oversees most projects at Lake Cumberland, which the federal government created in 1952, but it usually does not use public funds to improve private businesses, said Tom Hale, the corps' operations manager at Lake Cumberland. However, he is working with Hamilton on designs for a hilltop lot to provide more than 200 parking spaces. "The corps did not ask for it (the money). This is something that Hal Rogers put in there," Hale said.Later, he added: "I'm sure all of the other (marina) operators on the lake would love to have something of that nature if they could get it." Hamilton, former president of the Mas-Hamilton Group, a federal defense contractor in Lexington, has given tens of thousands of dollars in recent years to political campaigns -- including $2,000 last year to Rogers -- as well as to the state and national Republican parties. Additionally, Hamilton's resort gave $5,000 last year to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, at a Lexington fund-raising luncheon organized by Rogers. At the time, Rogers was angling for the chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee, on which he is a senior member. Yesterday, Hamilton said he approached Rogers last year to complain about insufficient parking at his resort. At the peak of tourism season, in the summer, visitors often park on the roadside leading to the resort, he said.The next thing he knew, the $388 billion federal appropriations bill, signed by President Bush on Dec. 8, had money earmarked for just that purpose, he said. "That's the American system," Hamilton said. "But this project stands on its own," he said. "I don't think everyone who gives a political donation gets a favor. I honestly think that if someone came here from China and had a deal for Hal Rogers that would benefit his constituents, Hal would help him. "Rogers was not available for personal comment yesterday, an aide said in Washington. He returned to work yesterday after his annual trip to Hawaii to attend a seminar sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives. On the appropriations panel, Rogers has a say on funding for transportation and homeland security. In a written statement, Rogers said the new parking lot is part of his larger strategy to boost the tourism economy around Lake Cumberland. "Lee's Ford, which has grown to be one of the largest entry points for public access to Lake Cumberland, is overwhelmed in the summer months," Rogers wrote. "We would be foolish to turn people away simply because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not have adequate funds to improve parking. "Rogers said he put $400,000 into the 1992 federal budget to improve parking at the resort. At that time, the resort was owned by a Somerset family, two of whose members donated at least $2,000 to Rogers' 1992 election campaign, according to published reports at the time. The resort, near the town of Nancy in Pulaski County, provides docks, a hotel, rental cottages and boats, a restaurant and a store. Hamilton's purchase price in 2003 was not disclosed. On the resort's Web site, Hamilton promises customers several improvements in coming months, including "280 additional (parking) spaces operational before the season begins," as well as renovated hotel rooms, cottages, rest-rooms and a shower house. Hamilton owns the resort's buildings and equipment, but the land beneath it remains the property of the U.S. government, on long-term lease, said Hale of the Army Corps of Engineers. The same arrangement holds for about a dozen other privately operated marinas around the lake, he said. Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen's Congress Watch in Washington, said taxpayer dollars should not be used to improve a business owned by a campaign donor, particularly in a budget with a record $413 billion deficit. But the 3,300-page spending bill, hammered out privately by members of the appropriations committees, surely contains many surprises for the public, Holman said. "It was drafted behind closed doors, with heavy input by lobbyists and congressmen wanting to be sure their own pork-barrel projects were in there, and it was submitted for final approval even as the ink was drying," Holman said. "Nobody had time to read it. There's all kinds of pork-barrel projects in there, and most of them haven't been discovered yet." "Clearly," he said, "what Congressman Rogers did was unethical -- grossly unethical. But in all fairness, a lot of his colleagues did the same for their close friends back home."
Hal Rogers and a lot of his colleagues ought to be turned out of office. Are you one of the cronies? Did you get a government freebie worth fifty times your contibution to the Hal Rogers campaign? Oust the Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05!
You pay money to the Hal Rogers PAC, you get government contracts.
You pay money to the Hal Rogers PAC, you get government contracts. That's the gist of the following article that was published by the Washington Post:
NEWS OPINIONS SPORTS ARTS & LIVING Discussions Photos & Video City Guide CLASSIFIEDS JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE
"Post-9/11 Rush Mixed Politics With SecurityCongressman Benefits From Homeland Security Spending
"By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott HighamWashington Post Staff Writers
"Sunday, December 25, 2005; A01
"As a small start-up company in Massachusetts sought to become a major player in the business of homeland security, it hired a lobbyist and attended a fundraiser for one of the most powerful members of Congress.
The company was Reveal Imaging Technologies Inc. The congressman was Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers (R-Ky.). The fundraiser, held Oct. 22, 2003, brought in $14,000 from Reveal and was the beginning of a mutually beneficial association.
"Reveal had just received a government grant to develop smaller, cheaper explosives-detection machines to scan baggage at the nation's airports. Rogers, who chairs the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee, said he wanted the machines to improve security while saving taxpayers money.
"In the end, Reveal received a federal contract from the Transportation Security Administration worth up to $463 million. Rogers achieved his goal of launching the next generation of machines. In the process, he received $122,111 in donations to his leadership political action committee from Reveal executives and associates -- and a pledge from the company to move $15 million worth of work to Rogers's poor Appalachian congressional district.
"Reveal's dealings with Rogers illuminate the intersection of politics, money and homeland security in the rush to make the nation safer since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The relationship fits into a long tradition of companies seeking sympathetic ears on Capitol Hill and of lawmakers securing money for their causes and their constituents back home.
"What is different today is that the money at stake is the billions of dollars that the White House and Congress have set aside for homeland security at a time of persistent fear about another terrorist attack.
"A Washington Post review of scores of documents, along with interviews with company executives, government officials and procurement specialists, shows that while Reveal was developing a machine that would receive accolades, it also was donating to Rogers's PAC and hiring two lobbying firms to help smooth the way with the government. Rogers pressed homeland security officials to deploy the Reveal machines and take other measures that he said would make the country safer while his PAC received donations from homeland security contractors, some of which he encouraged to create jobs in his district.
"In an eight-page letter to The Post, Reveal executives said there was no "connection between voluntary political contributions" to Rogers's PAC and the awarding of the contract. The president of the company said Reveal secured the contract strictly on the merits of its technology after a "rigorous and objective" certification process.
"Members of Reveal's management team, and others, make these voluntary contributions to Representative Rogers, and many other elected officials, because they share our concern about improving our Nation's Homeland Security technology, and for no other reason," Reveal president and chief executive Michael P. Ellenbogen said in the letter.
"It is the scientists at the TSA -- not Congress -- who decide what systems meet the government's rigorous requirements," he said.
"TSA officials said Rogers played no role in the contracting process.
"The decision to award the contract to Reveal was based on the source selection team's conclusion that it offered the best value to the government," TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said.
"Rogers said he is working in the interests of the nation and his district. He dismissed any suggestion that campaign money could sway his policymaking.
"It's demeaning," the 13-term congressman said in a recent interview. "Anybody that knows me and knows my record knows that I will go after whoever it is standing in the way of doing the right thing. I'm going to do what I think is best for the country, regardless."
"A Magnet for Money
"After 25 years in Washington, Rogers, 67, is an old-school politician who looks out for his constituents and remains intently focused on reaching the pinnacle of power on Capitol Hill.
"In 2001, Rogers became chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, a post that would give him an important role in directing aviation-security projects after the terrorist attacks. Two years later, he climbed even higher, becoming the first chairman of the Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.
"That put Rogers at the center of the largest restructuring of the federal government in a half-century. His subcommittee holds the purse strings for billions of dollars in homeland security spending, giving him tremendous influence over the 22 agencies that make up the Department of Homeland Security. He can deny them appropriations if they refuse to follow his direction. He can hold public hearings and order investigations to examine how the department spends its money.
"He had our attention," former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge said in a recent interview.
"Like other powerful members of Congress, Rogers has become a magnet for political contributions.
"Three years ago, Rogers made it clear that he wanted to become chairman of the entire House Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful jobs in Congress. Rogers formed Help America's Leaders Political Action Committee, better known as HALPAC. The PAC contributed to the campaigns of Republicans in tight races -- whose support Rogers hoped to draw upon in his quest to become Appropriations chairman. As of October, HALPAC had collected more than $1.8 million and had cash on hand of $545,236.
"Contributors include a number of homeland security contractors. Some firms also moved parts of their operations into Rogers's district. They include Datatrac Information Services Inc., Science Applications International Corp., NucSafe and Reveal, the explosives-detection company.
"With Rogers cheering them on, Datatrac and its corporate partners in 2003 received a 10-year contract renewal worth up to $200 million for border-crossing cards used by Mexicans, even though government investigators had concluded that the cards were not being used properly and were vulnerable to fraud. Many of the cards are manufactured at a government facility run by Datatrac in Rogers's district.
"A Datatrac official declined to discuss the company's ties to Rogers. Campaign finance records show that a Datatrac executive gave $1,000 to HALPAC and $1,000 to Rogers's reelection fund in 2004.
"SAIC, whose political action committee contributed $15,000 to HALPAC, opened an office in a Somerset, Ky., industrial park last year and said it would bring 100 new jobs to Rogers's hometown. SAIC spokesman Jared Adams said in a recent interview that the company moved there because it is inexpensive and close to Rogers.
"Being close to leadership helps us understand trends in government," Adams said.
"Richard Seymour, who runs NucSafe, a radiation-detection company in Oak Ridge, Tenn., said the company moved its manufacturing operations to Corbin, Ky., two years ago after meeting with Rogers, his staff and representatives of a local economic development group started with help from the congressman. "Seymour said members of Rogers's staff put his company in touch with TSA officials, although "nothing ever came of it." He said his company received a $1.8 million grant from a Homeland Security Department agency this year.
"Seymour declined to say whether Rogers "earmarked" or specifically set aside homeland security money for NucSafe, saying his company was a privately held corporation and is under no obligation to disclose the sources of its funding.
"It's no secret we've gotten support from congressman Rogers," Seymour said.
Four NucSafe executives, including Seymour, have donated $9,200 to HALPAC and Rogers. Seymour said the donations were suggested by local Republican representatives, not by Rogers or his staff.
"It's the usual thing. You are made aware that they have these fundraisers, and they generally ask companies who have received any kind of assistance for any help they see fit," Seymour said. "Chairman Rogers has been one of the most ethical political figures I have ever dealt with. If you bring business to his district, that's all he ever cared about."
'A Clear Vision'
"Rogers, other lawmakers and TSA officials were searching for a solution to a vexing homeland security problem when Reveal came on the scene.
"Two months after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress mandated that every checked bag at airports be screened for explosives, setting tight deadlines and authorizing research funding. The TSA eventually hired Boeing Co. to deploy an explosives-detection system that relied on technology similar to that used in a medical CAT scan.
"Under a contract that ballooned to more than $1.2 billion, Boeing deployed minivan-size machines that were widely criticized as too expensive to install and too large for airport lobbies.
"On Feb. 13, 2002, Rogers asked government investigators "to determine if there is a possibility of using smaller, less expensive machines," according to the congressman's office. In October 2002, Rogers proposed giving $100 million toward the TSA's research and development program for explosives-detection machines; $75 million was later appropriated.
"That October, a group of engineers, physicists and entrepreneurs registered Reveal as a corporation in Delaware. In June 2003, the company established its headquarters in Bedford, Mass., and hired a high-powered Washington lobbyist, Van Scoyoc Associates Inc.
"Three months later, Reveal secured $2.4 million under a TSA grant program to study how to develop smaller explosives-detection machines, the company said. Reveal was one of four companies to share in $9.4 million in grants. Also receiving grants were Lockheed Martin Corp., Analogic Corp. and InVision Technologies Inc., one of the firms that made the larger machines installed under the Boeing contract.
"On Oct. 22, 2003, Reveal executives met Rogers at a fundraiser in Washington, "hosted by Van Scoyoc Associates," according to Rogers's office. Eight days later, HALPAC reported that five Reveal executives, five directors and one lobbyist donated $14,000, campaign finance records show.
Rogers's staff said in a statement that the fundraiser marked the first time the congressman met representatives of Reveal. Rogers said he did not recollect the event, and his staff declined to provide details. Company officials also declined to discuss the fundraiser or any of the circumstances surrounding their donations to Rogers.
"I've had a lot of fundraisers," said Rogers, who added that he played "no role whatsoever" in helping Reveal secure its TSA grant. "Campaign contributions mean nothing on my watch."
"Reveal's president said his company made the contributions because Rogers supports the use of emerging technologies for aviation security.
"We contribute to those who we believe have a clear vision," Ellenbogen said in an interview. "We are supporting those who believe there is a place for new technology." Other Reveal executives and board members did not return phone calls seeking comment on their donations.
"Of the other companies participating in the TSA grant program, Analogic contributed $1,000 in 2004, Lockheed Martin's employees' PAC contributed $5,000 in 2004, and GE InVision Inc., formerly known as InVision Technologies, contributed $19,000 between 2002 and September 2005, campaign finance records show.
"In January 2004, three months after the Reveal donations to HALPAC, Rogers and David M. Stone, who was the TSA's chief at the time, attended an aviation industry meeting in Hawaii. Stone recalled that Rogers raised the issue of the Reveal technology and asked about the agency's progress in evaluating the company's machine.
"Throughout 2004, Rogers and his staff continued questioning homeland security officials about Reveal's progress. Ridge recalled that Rogers was a "big supporter" of Reveal's technology.
"He always thought our work at the TSA was too labor-intensive and that the number of workers could be reduced if we developed this technology," Ridge said.
"Before it could be sold to the TSA, Reveal's device needed to be certified by the agency on a series of technical standards. Van Scoyoc, one of Reveal's lobbyists, worked with the company to obtain the certification, according to Steven O. Palmer, a member of the firm.
"We've been helping them through the certification process at the TSA," Palmer said in recent interview.
"On July 14, 2004, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, "expressed concern over when Reveal's CT-80 would be certified and available to the TSA," Reveal noted in its letter to The Post.
"In September 2004, campaign finance records show that Van Scoyoc joined with Reveal officers and others associated with the company in donating an additional $17,250 to HALPAC.
"Nine days after the contributions were reported, a House-Senate conference committee chaired by Rogers on the homeland security appropriations bill submitted a report that mandated that Congress spend $30 million on next-generation explosives-detection devices "that are currently being tested, certified, and piloted."
"Rogers would later announce that a large portion of that money -- $15 million to assemble 100 Reveal machines -- was going to a company called Mid-South Electronics Inc. in Annville, Ky., not far from Somerset. Rogers told local reporters the money would help the company overcome "a potentially devastating blow" from a catastrophic fire several months earlier.
"Solving a Problem
"Toward the end of 2004, Rogers and a staff member met with the TSA's Stone and one of his technology advisers. Rogers brought up Reveal, Stone later told The Post. The congressman said the company offered the potential of increasing security while decreasing costs, and he wanted to know how the certification process was going, Rogers and Stone recalled. The TSA chief told Rogers that Reveal's technology was still being studied.
"I remember talking to Stone about the certification process," Rogers said in a recent interview. "It went on and on and on."
"On Dec. 21, 2004, the TSA certified Reveal's CT-80 machine, the company said. Reveal officials touted their machine as significantly smaller and cheaper, costing $340,000, about one-third of the price of the larger machines, and saving the government significant labor costs.
"Reveal officials also said their golf-cart-sized machines would fit more easily into existing airport spaces, easing passenger flow and minimizing the need for costly construction projects at the ticket counters. But technical documents showed one significant drawback: The machines operated at a quarter of the speed of the larger machines already used at airports.
"The Reveal machine "is slower but it solves particular problems," Ellenbogen, the company's president, said in an interview. "It's a PC as opposed to a mainframe."
"Reveal officials said the machine was designed for use at medium-size and small airports. Government authorities also envisioned using the smaller machines to supplement the bigger machines at larger airports and to replace some older technologies, Stone said.
"In February, Stone briefed a Senate panel about the certification process. He was enthusiastic about the machines, saying the TSA intended to buy and test eight of the devices at three airports as part of a pilot program -- and would then decide how to proceed. At the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked, "When can we expect to see some of that" technology?
"But Rogers was growing frustrated. His irritation became public this year in March, when Stone, a retired admiral, appeared before his subcommittee.
Rogers demanded to know why the agency was taking so long to deploy the Reveal machines. He said they could save taxpayers millions of dollars on labor costs for screeners while making the country safer.
"Admiral, in just a few months, it will have been four years since 9/11 -- the same time, roughly, that we went from Pearl Harbor to absolute victory in World War II," Rogers said, according to a transcript of the hearing.
"And here we are about the same time from 9/11 as we were from Pearl Harbor, and in most of the airports in our country, they are still checking for explosives, trying to mimic a dog, swiping the luggage with a smeller thing to test in a machine," he said. "How can you defend that? Would you admit that that's an absolute, utter failure?"
"Rogers continued: "When are you going to get those machines in those airports?"
"Stone later said he was unaffected by Rogers's criticism.
"I didn't feel pressure from the chairman because I believe we needed to accelerate new technologies into the field," Stone said.
'Everything Is Legal'
"Twelve days after the March hearing, a report appeared that raised questions about the TSA's efforts to deploy explosives-detection machines. The report, which had been requested by Rogers and was issued by the Government Accountability Office, highlighted the potential cost savings but also said it was "unclear" how the TSA would make effective use of the new technology without putting a strategic plan in place.
"On March 18, three days later, HALPAC reported that Reveal executives, board members, a lobbyist and lawyers associated with the firm donated another $25,250.
"Four months later, on July 27, the TSA announced that it was seeking proposals for a "Stand Alone Reduced Size" explosives-detection machine. At the time, Reveal was the only company that manufactured a reduced-size machine that had been certified by the TSA.
"On Aug. 18, HALPAC reported that 11 Reveal executives, board members and lobbyists each contributed for $3,000. That $33,000 was their largest donation to date.
"In its letter to The Post, Reveal said any "allegation" of a connection between the donations and the contract "would constitute a willful disregard of the truth" and was not supported by the record.
"Reveal said in its letter that company executives "have voluntarily contributed to Representative Rogers's Political Action Committee and many other elected officials in connection with fundraising events hosted by members of Reveal's management."
"Campaign finance records show that the majority of contributions by company executives, board members and one spouse went to HALPAC. The records show that of their $114,950 in contributions, more than three-quarters -- $87,500 -- went to HALPAC, making the company by far the biggest donor to the PAC. "The records also show that those same donors gave a total of $27,450 to 11 other candidates and PACs. Reveal executives did not respond to a question about their pattern of giving.
"Rogers said he was surprised to learn that Reveal and its associates were the largest contributors to HALPAC. He said he was not informed about specific fundraisers until sometimes as late as the night before.
"It is true that the first small machine certified by TSA was made by a supporter of mine in my race for Chairman of the Appropriations Committee last year," Rogers said in a statement. "That does not detract from the fact that the company won its contract fair and square in open competition. TSA made its decision based on science and engineering."
"Rogers said the money played no part in his support for the Reveal technology.
"Everything is legal and above-board," Rogers said in an interview. "The fact that these people were coming to my fundraisers, I was pleased about it, but it did not influence me."
"In its letter, Reveal cited two other lawmakers who had voiced support for its machines, Mica and McCain. Campaign finance records show that neither lawmaker received donations from Reveal executives or board members.
"On Oct. 20, Reveal announced in a news release that it had won the TSA contract for the next-generation machines. The company said its CT-80 machine "revolutionizes" baggage screening.
"The current chief of the TSA, Edmund S. "Kip" Hawley, who was in charge of the agency during the contracting process, declined repeated requests for an interview.
"TSA spokeswoman Clark said the agency received other bids for the contract from GE InVision and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. She said technical officials at the agency acknowledged that Reveal was the only company whose machine met the size specifications contained in the request for bids on the contract.
"TSA identified a specific need for a reduced size [explosives-detection system] and set a maximum size specification to meet that need," Clark said. "The Reveal CT-80 was the only certified [explosives-detection system] that met the size specification."
"Database editors Derek Willis and Sarah Cohen and researchers Alice Crites, Bobbye Pratt and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company"
It's time to oust Hal. It's time to bring home that Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05.
NEWS OPINIONS SPORTS ARTS & LIVING Discussions Photos & Video City Guide CLASSIFIEDS JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE
"Post-9/11 Rush Mixed Politics With SecurityCongressman Benefits From Homeland Security Spending
"By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott HighamWashington Post Staff Writers
"Sunday, December 25, 2005; A01
"As a small start-up company in Massachusetts sought to become a major player in the business of homeland security, it hired a lobbyist and attended a fundraiser for one of the most powerful members of Congress.
The company was Reveal Imaging Technologies Inc. The congressman was Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers (R-Ky.). The fundraiser, held Oct. 22, 2003, brought in $14,000 from Reveal and was the beginning of a mutually beneficial association.
"Reveal had just received a government grant to develop smaller, cheaper explosives-detection machines to scan baggage at the nation's airports. Rogers, who chairs the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee, said he wanted the machines to improve security while saving taxpayers money.
"In the end, Reveal received a federal contract from the Transportation Security Administration worth up to $463 million. Rogers achieved his goal of launching the next generation of machines. In the process, he received $122,111 in donations to his leadership political action committee from Reveal executives and associates -- and a pledge from the company to move $15 million worth of work to Rogers's poor Appalachian congressional district.
"Reveal's dealings with Rogers illuminate the intersection of politics, money and homeland security in the rush to make the nation safer since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The relationship fits into a long tradition of companies seeking sympathetic ears on Capitol Hill and of lawmakers securing money for their causes and their constituents back home.
"What is different today is that the money at stake is the billions of dollars that the White House and Congress have set aside for homeland security at a time of persistent fear about another terrorist attack.
"A Washington Post review of scores of documents, along with interviews with company executives, government officials and procurement specialists, shows that while Reveal was developing a machine that would receive accolades, it also was donating to Rogers's PAC and hiring two lobbying firms to help smooth the way with the government. Rogers pressed homeland security officials to deploy the Reveal machines and take other measures that he said would make the country safer while his PAC received donations from homeland security contractors, some of which he encouraged to create jobs in his district.
"In an eight-page letter to The Post, Reveal executives said there was no "connection between voluntary political contributions" to Rogers's PAC and the awarding of the contract. The president of the company said Reveal secured the contract strictly on the merits of its technology after a "rigorous and objective" certification process.
"Members of Reveal's management team, and others, make these voluntary contributions to Representative Rogers, and many other elected officials, because they share our concern about improving our Nation's Homeland Security technology, and for no other reason," Reveal president and chief executive Michael P. Ellenbogen said in the letter.
"It is the scientists at the TSA -- not Congress -- who decide what systems meet the government's rigorous requirements," he said.
"TSA officials said Rogers played no role in the contracting process.
"The decision to award the contract to Reveal was based on the source selection team's conclusion that it offered the best value to the government," TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said.
"Rogers said he is working in the interests of the nation and his district. He dismissed any suggestion that campaign money could sway his policymaking.
"It's demeaning," the 13-term congressman said in a recent interview. "Anybody that knows me and knows my record knows that I will go after whoever it is standing in the way of doing the right thing. I'm going to do what I think is best for the country, regardless."
"A Magnet for Money
"After 25 years in Washington, Rogers, 67, is an old-school politician who looks out for his constituents and remains intently focused on reaching the pinnacle of power on Capitol Hill.
"In 2001, Rogers became chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, a post that would give him an important role in directing aviation-security projects after the terrorist attacks. Two years later, he climbed even higher, becoming the first chairman of the Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.
"That put Rogers at the center of the largest restructuring of the federal government in a half-century. His subcommittee holds the purse strings for billions of dollars in homeland security spending, giving him tremendous influence over the 22 agencies that make up the Department of Homeland Security. He can deny them appropriations if they refuse to follow his direction. He can hold public hearings and order investigations to examine how the department spends its money.
"He had our attention," former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge said in a recent interview.
"Like other powerful members of Congress, Rogers has become a magnet for political contributions.
"Three years ago, Rogers made it clear that he wanted to become chairman of the entire House Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful jobs in Congress. Rogers formed Help America's Leaders Political Action Committee, better known as HALPAC. The PAC contributed to the campaigns of Republicans in tight races -- whose support Rogers hoped to draw upon in his quest to become Appropriations chairman. As of October, HALPAC had collected more than $1.8 million and had cash on hand of $545,236.
"Contributors include a number of homeland security contractors. Some firms also moved parts of their operations into Rogers's district. They include Datatrac Information Services Inc., Science Applications International Corp., NucSafe and Reveal, the explosives-detection company.
"With Rogers cheering them on, Datatrac and its corporate partners in 2003 received a 10-year contract renewal worth up to $200 million for border-crossing cards used by Mexicans, even though government investigators had concluded that the cards were not being used properly and were vulnerable to fraud. Many of the cards are manufactured at a government facility run by Datatrac in Rogers's district.
"A Datatrac official declined to discuss the company's ties to Rogers. Campaign finance records show that a Datatrac executive gave $1,000 to HALPAC and $1,000 to Rogers's reelection fund in 2004.
"SAIC, whose political action committee contributed $15,000 to HALPAC, opened an office in a Somerset, Ky., industrial park last year and said it would bring 100 new jobs to Rogers's hometown. SAIC spokesman Jared Adams said in a recent interview that the company moved there because it is inexpensive and close to Rogers.
"Being close to leadership helps us understand trends in government," Adams said.
"Richard Seymour, who runs NucSafe, a radiation-detection company in Oak Ridge, Tenn., said the company moved its manufacturing operations to Corbin, Ky., two years ago after meeting with Rogers, his staff and representatives of a local economic development group started with help from the congressman. "Seymour said members of Rogers's staff put his company in touch with TSA officials, although "nothing ever came of it." He said his company received a $1.8 million grant from a Homeland Security Department agency this year.
"Seymour declined to say whether Rogers "earmarked" or specifically set aside homeland security money for NucSafe, saying his company was a privately held corporation and is under no obligation to disclose the sources of its funding.
"It's no secret we've gotten support from congressman Rogers," Seymour said.
Four NucSafe executives, including Seymour, have donated $9,200 to HALPAC and Rogers. Seymour said the donations were suggested by local Republican representatives, not by Rogers or his staff.
"It's the usual thing. You are made aware that they have these fundraisers, and they generally ask companies who have received any kind of assistance for any help they see fit," Seymour said. "Chairman Rogers has been one of the most ethical political figures I have ever dealt with. If you bring business to his district, that's all he ever cared about."
'A Clear Vision'
"Rogers, other lawmakers and TSA officials were searching for a solution to a vexing homeland security problem when Reveal came on the scene.
"Two months after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress mandated that every checked bag at airports be screened for explosives, setting tight deadlines and authorizing research funding. The TSA eventually hired Boeing Co. to deploy an explosives-detection system that relied on technology similar to that used in a medical CAT scan.
"Under a contract that ballooned to more than $1.2 billion, Boeing deployed minivan-size machines that were widely criticized as too expensive to install and too large for airport lobbies.
"On Feb. 13, 2002, Rogers asked government investigators "to determine if there is a possibility of using smaller, less expensive machines," according to the congressman's office. In October 2002, Rogers proposed giving $100 million toward the TSA's research and development program for explosives-detection machines; $75 million was later appropriated.
"That October, a group of engineers, physicists and entrepreneurs registered Reveal as a corporation in Delaware. In June 2003, the company established its headquarters in Bedford, Mass., and hired a high-powered Washington lobbyist, Van Scoyoc Associates Inc.
"Three months later, Reveal secured $2.4 million under a TSA grant program to study how to develop smaller explosives-detection machines, the company said. Reveal was one of four companies to share in $9.4 million in grants. Also receiving grants were Lockheed Martin Corp., Analogic Corp. and InVision Technologies Inc., one of the firms that made the larger machines installed under the Boeing contract.
"On Oct. 22, 2003, Reveal executives met Rogers at a fundraiser in Washington, "hosted by Van Scoyoc Associates," according to Rogers's office. Eight days later, HALPAC reported that five Reveal executives, five directors and one lobbyist donated $14,000, campaign finance records show.
Rogers's staff said in a statement that the fundraiser marked the first time the congressman met representatives of Reveal. Rogers said he did not recollect the event, and his staff declined to provide details. Company officials also declined to discuss the fundraiser or any of the circumstances surrounding their donations to Rogers.
"I've had a lot of fundraisers," said Rogers, who added that he played "no role whatsoever" in helping Reveal secure its TSA grant. "Campaign contributions mean nothing on my watch."
"Reveal's president said his company made the contributions because Rogers supports the use of emerging technologies for aviation security.
"We contribute to those who we believe have a clear vision," Ellenbogen said in an interview. "We are supporting those who believe there is a place for new technology." Other Reveal executives and board members did not return phone calls seeking comment on their donations.
"Of the other companies participating in the TSA grant program, Analogic contributed $1,000 in 2004, Lockheed Martin's employees' PAC contributed $5,000 in 2004, and GE InVision Inc., formerly known as InVision Technologies, contributed $19,000 between 2002 and September 2005, campaign finance records show.
"In January 2004, three months after the Reveal donations to HALPAC, Rogers and David M. Stone, who was the TSA's chief at the time, attended an aviation industry meeting in Hawaii. Stone recalled that Rogers raised the issue of the Reveal technology and asked about the agency's progress in evaluating the company's machine.
"Throughout 2004, Rogers and his staff continued questioning homeland security officials about Reveal's progress. Ridge recalled that Rogers was a "big supporter" of Reveal's technology.
"He always thought our work at the TSA was too labor-intensive and that the number of workers could be reduced if we developed this technology," Ridge said.
"Before it could be sold to the TSA, Reveal's device needed to be certified by the agency on a series of technical standards. Van Scoyoc, one of Reveal's lobbyists, worked with the company to obtain the certification, according to Steven O. Palmer, a member of the firm.
"We've been helping them through the certification process at the TSA," Palmer said in recent interview.
"On July 14, 2004, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, "expressed concern over when Reveal's CT-80 would be certified and available to the TSA," Reveal noted in its letter to The Post.
"In September 2004, campaign finance records show that Van Scoyoc joined with Reveal officers and others associated with the company in donating an additional $17,250 to HALPAC.
"Nine days after the contributions were reported, a House-Senate conference committee chaired by Rogers on the homeland security appropriations bill submitted a report that mandated that Congress spend $30 million on next-generation explosives-detection devices "that are currently being tested, certified, and piloted."
"Rogers would later announce that a large portion of that money -- $15 million to assemble 100 Reveal machines -- was going to a company called Mid-South Electronics Inc. in Annville, Ky., not far from Somerset. Rogers told local reporters the money would help the company overcome "a potentially devastating blow" from a catastrophic fire several months earlier.
"Solving a Problem
"Toward the end of 2004, Rogers and a staff member met with the TSA's Stone and one of his technology advisers. Rogers brought up Reveal, Stone later told The Post. The congressman said the company offered the potential of increasing security while decreasing costs, and he wanted to know how the certification process was going, Rogers and Stone recalled. The TSA chief told Rogers that Reveal's technology was still being studied.
"I remember talking to Stone about the certification process," Rogers said in a recent interview. "It went on and on and on."
"On Dec. 21, 2004, the TSA certified Reveal's CT-80 machine, the company said. Reveal officials touted their machine as significantly smaller and cheaper, costing $340,000, about one-third of the price of the larger machines, and saving the government significant labor costs.
"Reveal officials also said their golf-cart-sized machines would fit more easily into existing airport spaces, easing passenger flow and minimizing the need for costly construction projects at the ticket counters. But technical documents showed one significant drawback: The machines operated at a quarter of the speed of the larger machines already used at airports.
"The Reveal machine "is slower but it solves particular problems," Ellenbogen, the company's president, said in an interview. "It's a PC as opposed to a mainframe."
"Reveal officials said the machine was designed for use at medium-size and small airports. Government authorities also envisioned using the smaller machines to supplement the bigger machines at larger airports and to replace some older technologies, Stone said.
"In February, Stone briefed a Senate panel about the certification process. He was enthusiastic about the machines, saying the TSA intended to buy and test eight of the devices at three airports as part of a pilot program -- and would then decide how to proceed. At the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked, "When can we expect to see some of that" technology?
"But Rogers was growing frustrated. His irritation became public this year in March, when Stone, a retired admiral, appeared before his subcommittee.
Rogers demanded to know why the agency was taking so long to deploy the Reveal machines. He said they could save taxpayers millions of dollars on labor costs for screeners while making the country safer.
"Admiral, in just a few months, it will have been four years since 9/11 -- the same time, roughly, that we went from Pearl Harbor to absolute victory in World War II," Rogers said, according to a transcript of the hearing.
"And here we are about the same time from 9/11 as we were from Pearl Harbor, and in most of the airports in our country, they are still checking for explosives, trying to mimic a dog, swiping the luggage with a smeller thing to test in a machine," he said. "How can you defend that? Would you admit that that's an absolute, utter failure?"
"Rogers continued: "When are you going to get those machines in those airports?"
"Stone later said he was unaffected by Rogers's criticism.
"I didn't feel pressure from the chairman because I believe we needed to accelerate new technologies into the field," Stone said.
'Everything Is Legal'
"Twelve days after the March hearing, a report appeared that raised questions about the TSA's efforts to deploy explosives-detection machines. The report, which had been requested by Rogers and was issued by the Government Accountability Office, highlighted the potential cost savings but also said it was "unclear" how the TSA would make effective use of the new technology without putting a strategic plan in place.
"On March 18, three days later, HALPAC reported that Reveal executives, board members, a lobbyist and lawyers associated with the firm donated another $25,250.
"Four months later, on July 27, the TSA announced that it was seeking proposals for a "Stand Alone Reduced Size" explosives-detection machine. At the time, Reveal was the only company that manufactured a reduced-size machine that had been certified by the TSA.
"On Aug. 18, HALPAC reported that 11 Reveal executives, board members and lobbyists each contributed for $3,000. That $33,000 was their largest donation to date.
"In its letter to The Post, Reveal said any "allegation" of a connection between the donations and the contract "would constitute a willful disregard of the truth" and was not supported by the record.
"Reveal said in its letter that company executives "have voluntarily contributed to Representative Rogers's Political Action Committee and many other elected officials in connection with fundraising events hosted by members of Reveal's management."
"Campaign finance records show that the majority of contributions by company executives, board members and one spouse went to HALPAC. The records show that of their $114,950 in contributions, more than three-quarters -- $87,500 -- went to HALPAC, making the company by far the biggest donor to the PAC. "The records also show that those same donors gave a total of $27,450 to 11 other candidates and PACs. Reveal executives did not respond to a question about their pattern of giving.
"Rogers said he was surprised to learn that Reveal and its associates were the largest contributors to HALPAC. He said he was not informed about specific fundraisers until sometimes as late as the night before.
"It is true that the first small machine certified by TSA was made by a supporter of mine in my race for Chairman of the Appropriations Committee last year," Rogers said in a statement. "That does not detract from the fact that the company won its contract fair and square in open competition. TSA made its decision based on science and engineering."
"Rogers said the money played no part in his support for the Reveal technology.
"Everything is legal and above-board," Rogers said in an interview. "The fact that these people were coming to my fundraisers, I was pleased about it, but it did not influence me."
"In its letter, Reveal cited two other lawmakers who had voiced support for its machines, Mica and McCain. Campaign finance records show that neither lawmaker received donations from Reveal executives or board members.
"On Oct. 20, Reveal announced in a news release that it had won the TSA contract for the next-generation machines. The company said its CT-80 machine "revolutionizes" baggage screening.
"The current chief of the TSA, Edmund S. "Kip" Hawley, who was in charge of the agency during the contracting process, declined repeated requests for an interview.
"TSA spokeswoman Clark said the agency received other bids for the contract from GE InVision and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. She said technical officials at the agency acknowledged that Reveal was the only company whose machine met the size specifications contained in the request for bids on the contract.
"TSA identified a specific need for a reduced size [explosives-detection system] and set a maximum size specification to meet that need," Clark said. "The Reveal CT-80 was the only certified [explosives-detection system] that met the size specification."
"Database editors Derek Willis and Sarah Cohen and researchers Alice Crites, Bobbye Pratt and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company"
It's time to oust Hal. It's time to bring home that Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05.
Hal Rogers helps indicted Republicans.
The Lexington Herald notes that Hal Rogers has a history of supporting previously indicted Republicans, including Tom DeLay, in the following editorial on Republican corruption and cronyism:
"Posted on Wed, Nov. 24, 2004
"EDITORIALS Lexington Herald-Leader
"Tom DeLay, victim
"Rogers' aid to House's 'Hammer' oozes irony
" U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers wants to be chairman of the House Appropriations Committee when the new Congress convenes next year.
"Of course, that desire had nothing to do with Rogers helping raise at least $113,000 for the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, known in the House as "The Hammer."
"Shoot, no. Heaven forbid.
" Rogers didn't host a Lexington fund-raiser for DeLay last summer to butter up one of the guys who will be making the call on that committee chairmanship. "As the 5th District congressman said in a statement this week, he hosted the fund-raiser because DeLay "is being maligned as part of a political witch hunt."
"Good. We're glad Rogers has cleared up all this confusion about DeLay.
" Some folks might get the wrong idea about the poor guy from the fact that the House Ethics Committee seems to have made a full-time job this year of citing him for, well, stretching the rules a bit.
"Other folks might look at his three Texas pals who got indicted for allegedly scamming campaign finance laws and wonder if DeLay had a hand in the deal, particularly since it was his political action committee that was involved in the scamming.
"Hard-core cynics might conclude that an indictment of DeLay is expected and even imminent from the fact that the House Republican Caucus recently changed its rules so that DeLay won't have to step down from the floor leader's job if he is indicted.
"So, we're glad Rogers set the record straight.
"Now we know that he was just helping out a colleague who's being victimized by a witch hunt, not currying favor with a powerful House leader who plays fast and loose with the rules.
"But even though Rogers has put to rest our concerns about his fund-raising on behalf of DeLay, one irony about the situation did leap out at us.
"Legal defense funds for members of Congress are governed by the respective houses of Congress, not by federal election laws.
"As a result, it's OK for the funds to accept corporate contributions, which campaign committees and political action committees cannot legally do. Some of the money Rogers helped raise for DeLay's defense fund came from corporations.
"The indictments filed against DeLay's Texas friends -- and eight corporations -- involve an alleged scheme to funnel corporate contributions into political campaigns in violation of Texas law.
"Thus, if DeLay is indicted in this case, he can use corporate contributions to defend himself against charges that involve illegal corporate contributions.
"Maybe that irony would be enough to get the House and Senate to change their rules and prohibit corporate contributions to their members' legal defense funds."
Don't count on any such rules changes with the present Republican rubberstamp Congress. Oust Rogers the Republican rubberstamp! Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05!
"Posted on Wed, Nov. 24, 2004
"EDITORIALS Lexington Herald-Leader
"Tom DeLay, victim
"Rogers' aid to House's 'Hammer' oozes irony
" U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers wants to be chairman of the House Appropriations Committee when the new Congress convenes next year.
"Of course, that desire had nothing to do with Rogers helping raise at least $113,000 for the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, known in the House as "The Hammer."
"Shoot, no. Heaven forbid.
" Rogers didn't host a Lexington fund-raiser for DeLay last summer to butter up one of the guys who will be making the call on that committee chairmanship. "As the 5th District congressman said in a statement this week, he hosted the fund-raiser because DeLay "is being maligned as part of a political witch hunt."
"Good. We're glad Rogers has cleared up all this confusion about DeLay.
" Some folks might get the wrong idea about the poor guy from the fact that the House Ethics Committee seems to have made a full-time job this year of citing him for, well, stretching the rules a bit.
"Other folks might look at his three Texas pals who got indicted for allegedly scamming campaign finance laws and wonder if DeLay had a hand in the deal, particularly since it was his political action committee that was involved in the scamming.
"Hard-core cynics might conclude that an indictment of DeLay is expected and even imminent from the fact that the House Republican Caucus recently changed its rules so that DeLay won't have to step down from the floor leader's job if he is indicted.
"So, we're glad Rogers set the record straight.
"Now we know that he was just helping out a colleague who's being victimized by a witch hunt, not currying favor with a powerful House leader who plays fast and loose with the rules.
"But even though Rogers has put to rest our concerns about his fund-raising on behalf of DeLay, one irony about the situation did leap out at us.
"Legal defense funds for members of Congress are governed by the respective houses of Congress, not by federal election laws.
"As a result, it's OK for the funds to accept corporate contributions, which campaign committees and political action committees cannot legally do. Some of the money Rogers helped raise for DeLay's defense fund came from corporations.
"The indictments filed against DeLay's Texas friends -- and eight corporations -- involve an alleged scheme to funnel corporate contributions into political campaigns in violation of Texas law.
"Thus, if DeLay is indicted in this case, he can use corporate contributions to defend himself against charges that involve illegal corporate contributions.
"Maybe that irony would be enough to get the House and Senate to change their rules and prohibit corporate contributions to their members' legal defense funds."
Don't count on any such rules changes with the present Republican rubberstamp Congress. Oust Rogers the Republican rubberstamp! Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05!
The Oddsmakers give Hal Rogers a 54.98%chance to win.
The WSX oddsmakers give Hal Rogers a 54.98% chance to win re-election. They still give Kenneth Stepp a 43.78% chance to win the election for the U.S. House, KY-05. They currently favor Kenneth Lucas to win his election. Here is some data on the Rogers/Stepp Congressional race:
"HSHARO06: Hal Rogers (R)* to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSHARO06
"Price: W$54.98
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 189
"Status:Active"
"HSKEST06: Kenneth Stepp (D) to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSKEST06
"Price: W$43.78
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 1,229
"Status: Active"
I don't know what odds Jimmy the Greek would give on this race, and I wouldn't bet, but what the oddsmakers say is interesting to watch. Please vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House, KY-05.
"HSHARO06: Hal Rogers (R)* to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSHARO06
"Price: W$54.98
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 189
"Status:Active"
"HSKEST06: Kenneth Stepp (D) to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSKEST06
"Price: W$43.78
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 1,229
"Status: Active"
I don't know what odds Jimmy the Greek would give on this race, and I wouldn't bet, but what the oddsmakers say is interesting to watch. Please vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House, KY-05.
Pew Poll indicates Rogers may be leading by two per cent (2%).
According to an article in The Olympian, the latest Pew Poll indicates that Hal Rogers may be leading Kenneth Stepp in the KY-05 Congressional race by two per cent (2%):
"Poll: Democrats increase leads in House races
"Steven Thomma
"WASHINGTON - In a sign that a major wave could be building against Republicans in the House of Representatives, Democrats have opened double-digit leads in competitive House campaigns around the country in a new poll and are within 2 percentage points in districts once considered safely Republican.
"Democrats lead Republicans by 50 percent to 39 percent in 40 closely contested districts that are most likely to determine control of the House on Election Day, Nov. 7, according to the poll, which was released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
"Potentially more troubling for Republicans: They lead by only 44 percent to 42 percent in all other Republican-held districts that went heavily for President Bush in 2004.
"In House districts that gave Bush between 50 percent and 60 percent of the vote, for example, Democrats lead by 45 percent to 40 percent. The only place where Republicans hold an overall lead is in House districts that gave Bush more than 60 percent of their votes.
"With opinions of Congress growing increasingly negative, even safe Republican districts have been affected," said the Pew report. * * * "
With the election ten days away, Hal Rogers might get voted out of office. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
"Poll: Democrats increase leads in House races
"Steven Thomma
"WASHINGTON - In a sign that a major wave could be building against Republicans in the House of Representatives, Democrats have opened double-digit leads in competitive House campaigns around the country in a new poll and are within 2 percentage points in districts once considered safely Republican.
"Democrats lead Republicans by 50 percent to 39 percent in 40 closely contested districts that are most likely to determine control of the House on Election Day, Nov. 7, according to the poll, which was released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
"Potentially more troubling for Republicans: They lead by only 44 percent to 42 percent in all other Republican-held districts that went heavily for President Bush in 2004.
"In House districts that gave Bush between 50 percent and 60 percent of the vote, for example, Democrats lead by 45 percent to 40 percent. The only place where Republicans hold an overall lead is in House districts that gave Bush more than 60 percent of their votes.
"With opinions of Congress growing increasingly negative, even safe Republican districts have been affected," said the Pew report. * * * "
With the election ten days away, Hal Rogers might get voted out of office. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
"Rolling Stone" calls it 'the worst Congress ever.'
Here it is, the article from "The Rolling Stone" that calls Hal Rogers' Congress 'the worst Congress ever' Note, Kenneth Stepp does not approve of cussin' and does not approve of the cussin' in this article. Anyway, here is the eight page article, unchanged and uncensored. On the 10 Worst Congressmen article, Hal Rogers is Number 9. When you complete a page, click the next page number:
"The Worst Congress Ever
"How our national legislature has become a stable of thieves and perverts -- in five easy steps
"By MATT TAIBBI
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
>> See our picks for the 10 Worst Congressmen and read what people are saying in our politics blog.
"There is very little that sums up the record of the U.S. Congress in the Bush years better than a half-mad boy-addict put in charge of a federal commission on child exploitation. After all, if a hairy-necked, raincoat-clad freak like Rep. Mark Foley can get himself named co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, one can only wonder: What the hell else is going on in the corridors of Capitol Hill these days?
"These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable.
"To be sure, Congress has always been a kind of muddy ideological cemetery, a place where good ideas go to die in a maelstrom of bureaucratic hedging and rank favor-trading. Its whole history is one long love letter to sleaze, idiocy and pigheaded, glacial conservatism. That Congress exists mainly to misspend our money and snore its way through even the direst political crises is something we Americans understand instinctively. "There is no native criminal class except Congress," Mark Twain said -- a joke that still provokes a laugh of recognition a hundred years later.
"But the 109th Congress is no mild departure from the norm, no slight deviation in an already-underwhelming history. No, this is nothing less than a historic shift in how our democracy is run. The Republicans who control this Congress are revolutionaries, and they have brought their revolutionary vision for the House and Senate quite unpleasantly to fruition. In the past six years they have castrated the political minority, abdicated their oversight responsibilities mandated by the Constitution, enacted a conscious policy of massive borrowing and unrestrained spending, and installed a host of semipermanent mechanisms for transferring legislative power to commercial interests. They aimed far lower than any other Congress has ever aimed, and they nailed their target.
"The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School. "I think that if the Framers went to Capitol Hill today, it would shake their confidence in the system they created. Congress has become an exercise of raw power with no principles -- and in that environment corruption has flourished. The Republicans in Congress decided from the outset that their future would be inextricably tied to George Bush and his policies. It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove. Congress became a mere extension of the White House."
"The end result is a Congress that has hijacked the national treasury, frantically ceded power to the executive, and sold off the federal government in a private auction. It all happened before our very eyes. In case you missed it, here's how they did it -- in five easy steps:
"STEP ONE RULE BY CABAL
"If you want to get a sense of how Congress has changed under GOP control, just cruise the basement hallways of storied congressional office buildings like Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon. Here, in the minority offices for the various congressional committees, you will inevitably find exactly the same character -- a Democratic staffer in rumpled khakis staring blankly off into space, nothing but a single lonely "Landscapes of Monticello" calendar on his wall, his eyes wide and full of astonished, impotent rage, like a rape victim. His skin is as white as the belly of a fish; he hasn't seen the sun in seven years.
"It is no big scoop that the majority party in Congress has always found ways of giving the shaft to the minority. But there is a marked difference in the size and the length of the shaft the Republicans have given the Democrats in the past six years. There has been a systematic effort not only to deny the Democrats any kind of power-sharing role in creating or refining legislation but to humiliate them publicly, show them up, pee in their faces. Washington was once a chummy fraternity in which members of both parties golfed together, played in the same pickup basketball games, probably even shared the same mistresses. Now it is a one-party town -- and congressional business is conducted accordingly, as though the half of the country that the Democrats represent simply does not exist.
"American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus -- so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft -- a fact the Republicans don't even bother to conceal.
"I remember one incident very clearly -- I think it was 2001," says Winslow Wheeler, who served for twenty-two years as a Republican staffer in the Senate. "I was working for [New Mexico Republican] Pete Domenici at the time. We were in a Budget Committee hearing and the Democrats were debating what the final result would be. And my boss gets up and he says, 'Why are you saying this? You're not even going to be in the room when the decisions are made.' Just said it right out in the open."
"Wheeler's very career is a symbol of a bipartisan age long passed into the history books; he is the last staffer to have served in the offices of a Republican and a Democrat at the same time, having once worked for both Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum and Arkansas Democrat David Pryor simultaneously. Today, those Democratic staffers trapped in the basement laugh at the idea that such a thing could ever happen again. These days, they consider themselves lucky if they manage to hold a single hearing on a bill before Rove's well-oiled legislative machine delivers it up for Bush's signature.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Home : Music News : Cover Story : COVER STORY: Time to Go! Inside the Worst Congress Ever "
It's time to send the incumbent Republican rubberstamp Hal Rogers home. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05. With Kenneth Stepp replacing Hal Rogers, the next Congress will be better than Hal Rogers' Congress.
"The Worst Congress Ever
"How our national legislature has become a stable of thieves and perverts -- in five easy steps
"By MATT TAIBBI
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
>> See our picks for the 10 Worst Congressmen and read what people are saying in our politics blog.
"There is very little that sums up the record of the U.S. Congress in the Bush years better than a half-mad boy-addict put in charge of a federal commission on child exploitation. After all, if a hairy-necked, raincoat-clad freak like Rep. Mark Foley can get himself named co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, one can only wonder: What the hell else is going on in the corridors of Capitol Hill these days?
"These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable.
"To be sure, Congress has always been a kind of muddy ideological cemetery, a place where good ideas go to die in a maelstrom of bureaucratic hedging and rank favor-trading. Its whole history is one long love letter to sleaze, idiocy and pigheaded, glacial conservatism. That Congress exists mainly to misspend our money and snore its way through even the direst political crises is something we Americans understand instinctively. "There is no native criminal class except Congress," Mark Twain said -- a joke that still provokes a laugh of recognition a hundred years later.
"But the 109th Congress is no mild departure from the norm, no slight deviation in an already-underwhelming history. No, this is nothing less than a historic shift in how our democracy is run. The Republicans who control this Congress are revolutionaries, and they have brought their revolutionary vision for the House and Senate quite unpleasantly to fruition. In the past six years they have castrated the political minority, abdicated their oversight responsibilities mandated by the Constitution, enacted a conscious policy of massive borrowing and unrestrained spending, and installed a host of semipermanent mechanisms for transferring legislative power to commercial interests. They aimed far lower than any other Congress has ever aimed, and they nailed their target.
"The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School. "I think that if the Framers went to Capitol Hill today, it would shake their confidence in the system they created. Congress has become an exercise of raw power with no principles -- and in that environment corruption has flourished. The Republicans in Congress decided from the outset that their future would be inextricably tied to George Bush and his policies. It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove. Congress became a mere extension of the White House."
"The end result is a Congress that has hijacked the national treasury, frantically ceded power to the executive, and sold off the federal government in a private auction. It all happened before our very eyes. In case you missed it, here's how they did it -- in five easy steps:
"STEP ONE RULE BY CABAL
"If you want to get a sense of how Congress has changed under GOP control, just cruise the basement hallways of storied congressional office buildings like Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon. Here, in the minority offices for the various congressional committees, you will inevitably find exactly the same character -- a Democratic staffer in rumpled khakis staring blankly off into space, nothing but a single lonely "Landscapes of Monticello" calendar on his wall, his eyes wide and full of astonished, impotent rage, like a rape victim. His skin is as white as the belly of a fish; he hasn't seen the sun in seven years.
"It is no big scoop that the majority party in Congress has always found ways of giving the shaft to the minority. But there is a marked difference in the size and the length of the shaft the Republicans have given the Democrats in the past six years. There has been a systematic effort not only to deny the Democrats any kind of power-sharing role in creating or refining legislation but to humiliate them publicly, show them up, pee in their faces. Washington was once a chummy fraternity in which members of both parties golfed together, played in the same pickup basketball games, probably even shared the same mistresses. Now it is a one-party town -- and congressional business is conducted accordingly, as though the half of the country that the Democrats represent simply does not exist.
"American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus -- so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft -- a fact the Republicans don't even bother to conceal.
"I remember one incident very clearly -- I think it was 2001," says Winslow Wheeler, who served for twenty-two years as a Republican staffer in the Senate. "I was working for [New Mexico Republican] Pete Domenici at the time. We were in a Budget Committee hearing and the Democrats were debating what the final result would be. And my boss gets up and he says, 'Why are you saying this? You're not even going to be in the room when the decisions are made.' Just said it right out in the open."
"Wheeler's very career is a symbol of a bipartisan age long passed into the history books; he is the last staffer to have served in the offices of a Republican and a Democrat at the same time, having once worked for both Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum and Arkansas Democrat David Pryor simultaneously. Today, those Democratic staffers trapped in the basement laugh at the idea that such a thing could ever happen again. These days, they consider themselves lucky if they manage to hold a single hearing on a bill before Rove's well-oiled legislative machine delivers it up for Bush's signature.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Home : Music News : Cover Story : COVER STORY: Time to Go! Inside the Worst Congress Ever "
It's time to send the incumbent Republican rubberstamp Hal Rogers home. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05. With Kenneth Stepp replacing Hal Rogers, the next Congress will be better than Hal Rogers' Congress.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Angelo State University editorial blasts Hal Rogers.
The following was a portion of an editorial published at Angelo State University, concerning Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers:
"Oct 27, 2006 Front Page News Views Features
Sports Homecoming 2006 Staff ASU Home Archives
"Views
"Republicans becoming oppressors
"by ROBERT STILES, Contributing Columnist
"October 27, 2006
"In 1994, the Republican Party took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, espousing a new direction for American politics.
" Their vision of the future was built on, among other things, traditional values, fiscal restraint and high ethical standards in government. Only 12 later, the Gingrich Revolution seems to have its greatest days behind it with many of its core values long since left by the wayside in the name of maintaining power. The revolutionaries who carried out a political earthquake have long since become as corrupt and heavy-handed as the politicos they threw out, if not more so.
"For most of the past six years, America has received a lesson in the grim results that always stem from one-party government. The U.S. Congress, under Republican leadership, has all but abdicated its oversight responsibilities and given the executive branch ever-increasing power, disrupting the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers. The litany of corruption that has ensued is as lengthy as it is disheartening. * * *
"Not even national security is safe from the influence of our leaders' corruption. The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Hal Rogers, R-Ky., has placed the interests of his own district ahead of the nation, turning production of an airport security system to a factory in Kentucky that lacked proper security and steered a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a trade group with no relevant experience -- after the group paid for seven trips abroad for the congressman.
"Indeed, after a slew of egregious scandals, a war in Iraq that seems to have no end in sight and a spate of runaway spending, the Republican Party seems to have finally exhausted its goodwill with the American electorate. Indeed, the discussion among pundits has shifted from which party will lose seats to how many the Republicans will lose. And according to many polls, one-party rule might very well come to an end after Nov. 7.
"Experts say that the Democrats could pick up as many as 25 seats in the coming midterm elections. * * * "
Oust the Republican rubberstamp Hal Rogers. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05.
"Oct 27, 2006 Front Page News Views Features
Sports Homecoming 2006 Staff ASU Home Archives
"Views
"Republicans becoming oppressors
"by ROBERT STILES, Contributing Columnist
"October 27, 2006
"In 1994, the Republican Party took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, espousing a new direction for American politics.
" Their vision of the future was built on, among other things, traditional values, fiscal restraint and high ethical standards in government. Only 12 later, the Gingrich Revolution seems to have its greatest days behind it with many of its core values long since left by the wayside in the name of maintaining power. The revolutionaries who carried out a political earthquake have long since become as corrupt and heavy-handed as the politicos they threw out, if not more so.
"For most of the past six years, America has received a lesson in the grim results that always stem from one-party government. The U.S. Congress, under Republican leadership, has all but abdicated its oversight responsibilities and given the executive branch ever-increasing power, disrupting the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers. The litany of corruption that has ensued is as lengthy as it is disheartening. * * *
"Not even national security is safe from the influence of our leaders' corruption. The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Hal Rogers, R-Ky., has placed the interests of his own district ahead of the nation, turning production of an airport security system to a factory in Kentucky that lacked proper security and steered a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a trade group with no relevant experience -- after the group paid for seven trips abroad for the congressman.
"Indeed, after a slew of egregious scandals, a war in Iraq that seems to have no end in sight and a spate of runaway spending, the Republican Party seems to have finally exhausted its goodwill with the American electorate. Indeed, the discussion among pundits has shifted from which party will lose seats to how many the Republicans will lose. And according to many polls, one-party rule might very well come to an end after Nov. 7.
"Experts say that the Democrats could pick up as many as 25 seats in the coming midterm elections. * * * "
Oust the Republican rubberstamp Hal Rogers. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05.
ipsos poll results.
The latest nationwide ipsos poll results show that, for the generic candidate, the average voter would vote for the generic Democrat 54%, but for the generic Republican 37%.
Torture may be worse now in Iraq, than before U.S. invasion.
How much progress has been made in eliminating torture in Iraq, and bringing civilization to that former brutal military dictatorship? The following BBC report says that torture may be worse in Iraq, under the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers military occupation of Iraq, than it was under Saddam Hussein:
"Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'
"Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.
"Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.
"Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.
"The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.
"He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.
"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.
"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.
"Brutal methods
"The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.
"Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".
"Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.
"Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.
"The most brutal torture methods were employed by private militias, Mr Nowak told journalists.
"The report also says the frequency of sectarian bloodletting means bodies are often found which "bear signs indicating that the victims have been brutally tortured before their extra-judicial execution".
"It concludes that torture threatens "the very fabric of the country" as victims exact their own revenge and fuel further violence.
"Mr Nowak said he would like to visit Iraq in person, but the current situation would not allow him to prepare an accurate report, because it would not be safe to leave Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and US leadership are situated.
"Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stmPublished: 2006/09/21 16:27:31 GMT"
Torture should be banned. An anti-torture bill was before the U.S. House, but Hal Rogers voted against it. Oust the Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Fifth District of Kentucky.
"Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'
"Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.
"Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.
"Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.
"The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.
"He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.
"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.
"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.
"Brutal methods
"The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.
"Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".
"Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.
"Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.
"The most brutal torture methods were employed by private militias, Mr Nowak told journalists.
"The report also says the frequency of sectarian bloodletting means bodies are often found which "bear signs indicating that the victims have been brutally tortured before their extra-judicial execution".
"It concludes that torture threatens "the very fabric of the country" as victims exact their own revenge and fuel further violence.
"Mr Nowak said he would like to visit Iraq in person, but the current situation would not allow him to prepare an accurate report, because it would not be safe to leave Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and US leadership are situated.
"Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stmPublished: 2006/09/21 16:27:31 GMT"
Torture should be banned. An anti-torture bill was before the U.S. House, but Hal Rogers voted against it. Oust the Republican rubberstamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Fifth District of Kentucky.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Louisville Rally, Tuesday, October 24.
Pictured are Kenneth and Wilma Stepp, and the fundraisers in the background entering the Bill Clinton rally, all at the Bill Clinton Democratic political rally in Louisville on Tuesday, October 24. We stood at a table and greeted the ticket-buyers as they entered the fundraising event. Representatives from the various Kentucky Congressional campaigns manned the tables by the doors leading to the auditorium. Kenneth Stepp was pleased to see several Democratic supporters from the Kentucky Fifth District at the Clinton speech rally. Distributed to the Democratic fundraisers were campaign cards, and copies of the Rolling Stone magazine article branding Republican Congressman Hal Rogers, KY-5 as one of the ten worst Congressmen in the U.S. Congress. Thousands of dollars were raised for the Kentucky Democratic Party. Kenneth Stepp, Wilma Stepp, and Carson Stepp were all there supporting the State Democratic Party and encouraging the fundraisers. Next, we all went to the meet-the-candidates rally at Morehead.
The Oddsmakers say Stepp has a 43% chance to win.
The oddsmakers are at it again. If you check WSX on your web pages, you can see what the players make of the elections. They give Arnold Schwarzenegger a 90% chance to win as Governor of California. Back East, they have some odds on the local races. They give Kenneth Stepp a 43% chance to win the Kentucky District 5 Congressional race; and they give Congressman Hal Rogers a 58% chance to get re-elected to the Kentucky District 5 Congressional seat. Here is a copy of some of the data I downloaded from that site:
"HSKEST06: Kenneth Stepp (D) to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSKEST06
"Price: W$43.78
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 1,326
"Status: Active"
Also, here is some of the information about Hal Rogers:
"HSHARO06: Hal Rogers (R)* to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSHARO06
"Price: W$58.66
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 119
"Status:Active"
I think they just gamble with play money. Don't gamble on your future, or your family's future; Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
"HSKEST06: Kenneth Stepp (D) to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSKEST06
"Price: W$43.78
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 1,326
"Status: Active"
Also, here is some of the information about Hal Rogers:
"HSHARO06: Hal Rogers (R)* to Win KY 5th District
"Symbol: HSHARO06
"Price: W$58.66
"Judge Date: 2006/11/08
"Avg Volume: 119
"Status:Active"
I think they just gamble with play money. Don't gamble on your future, or your family's future; Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Vote for Stepp.
Voters should not 'stay the course' with congressman
By Kenneth Stepp
This responds to the endorsement of the Republican candidate for Congress, Kentucky 5th District.
Hal Rogers was recognized as one of the 10 worst congressmen by Rolling Stone magazine, along with that Louisiana Democratic congressman caught with $90,000 cash in his refrigerator.
To refute the paper's allegation that "Stepp has been a member of three political parties in recent years":
Stepp has been a member of only two political parties -- Democrat and Republican.
In 1976, I voted for Jimmy Carter for President. In 1980, as a member of the Democratic Party, I voted again for Carter.
Later, I switched to the Republican Party. In Knox County, I registered as an independent (small "i"). There is no "Independent Party" registered in Kentucky, so I have been a member of only two political parties. I am a Democrat.
All United States troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, but Rogers has voted to "stay the course" and keep American troops in Iraq.
Torture should be banned, but Rogers voted against a U.S. House bill that would have banned torture.
Warrantless wiretaps should be stopped, but Rogers has voted to allow federal warrantless wiretaps.
Federal funding of education should not be reduced, but Rogers has voted to cut federal funding of education.
Kenneth Stepp is in favor of gun owners' rights, the right to life and the $7.25 minimum wage.
Please vote for Democrat Stepp for Congress, Kentucky 5th District.
By Kenneth Stepp
This responds to the endorsement of the Republican candidate for Congress, Kentucky 5th District.
Hal Rogers was recognized as one of the 10 worst congressmen by Rolling Stone magazine, along with that Louisiana Democratic congressman caught with $90,000 cash in his refrigerator.
To refute the paper's allegation that "Stepp has been a member of three political parties in recent years":
Stepp has been a member of only two political parties -- Democrat and Republican.
In 1976, I voted for Jimmy Carter for President. In 1980, as a member of the Democratic Party, I voted again for Carter.
Later, I switched to the Republican Party. In Knox County, I registered as an independent (small "i"). There is no "Independent Party" registered in Kentucky, so I have been a member of only two political parties. I am a Democrat.
All United States troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, but Rogers has voted to "stay the course" and keep American troops in Iraq.
Torture should be banned, but Rogers voted against a U.S. House bill that would have banned torture.
Warrantless wiretaps should be stopped, but Rogers has voted to allow federal warrantless wiretaps.
Federal funding of education should not be reduced, but Rogers has voted to cut federal funding of education.
Kenneth Stepp is in favor of gun owners' rights, the right to life and the $7.25 minimum wage.
Please vote for Democrat Stepp for Congress, Kentucky 5th District.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Hal Rogers wants warrantless wiretaps.
How do you feel about Federal snoops tapping your telephone lines and listening in on your phone conversations without warrants? Hal Rogers wants that done to you. More specifically in "How They Voted" the New American magazine explained:
"40 Electronic Surveillance. The warrantless electronic surveillance bill (H.R. 5825) would allow electronic surveillance of communications with suspected terrorists without first obtaining approval from the secret courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Furthermore, the bill would authorize unwarranted surveillance for up to 90 days in some instances if a threat was considered 'imminent.' Intelligence agencies would be allowed to conduct warrantless surveillance for seven days prior to gaining court approval if the threat was considered an 'emergency situation.' This controversial bill had full support of the Bush administration as a means to provide greater national security in a post-9/11 world.
"The House passed H.R. 5825 on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 232-191 (Roll Call 502) We have assigned pluses to the "nays" because such a law would violaate the Fourth Amendment by subjecting U.S. citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures."
Hal Rogers voted "yea" in favor of these illegal Federal warrantless wiretaps; Ben Chandler (D-KY) voted "nay" in favor of striking down the Unconstitutional Federal warrantless wiretapping bill, and Kenneth Stepp would have voted "nay" also. Oust Rogers, the Republican rubber stamp. Ben Chandler (D-KY) and the other Democrats need more help in stopping the trashing of the Constitution by the Republican rubberstamps. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05, because that is a vote for restoring Constitutional government.
"40 Electronic Surveillance. The warrantless electronic surveillance bill (H.R. 5825) would allow electronic surveillance of communications with suspected terrorists without first obtaining approval from the secret courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Furthermore, the bill would authorize unwarranted surveillance for up to 90 days in some instances if a threat was considered 'imminent.' Intelligence agencies would be allowed to conduct warrantless surveillance for seven days prior to gaining court approval if the threat was considered an 'emergency situation.' This controversial bill had full support of the Bush administration as a means to provide greater national security in a post-9/11 world.
"The House passed H.R. 5825 on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 232-191 (Roll Call 502) We have assigned pluses to the "nays" because such a law would violaate the Fourth Amendment by subjecting U.S. citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures."
Hal Rogers voted "yea" in favor of these illegal Federal warrantless wiretaps; Ben Chandler (D-KY) voted "nay" in favor of striking down the Unconstitutional Federal warrantless wiretapping bill, and Kenneth Stepp would have voted "nay" also. Oust Rogers, the Republican rubber stamp. Ben Chandler (D-KY) and the other Democrats need more help in stopping the trashing of the Constitution by the Republican rubberstamps. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05, because that is a vote for restoring Constitutional government.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Hal Rogers is one of the Ten Worst Congressmen, says Rolling Stone.
You can click: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12054520/the_10_worst_congressmen if you want to see the article with Hal Rogers' picture in it.
Hal Rogers had gained national recognition in Rolling Stone magazine. Maybe we will see Hal Rogers' face on the front of the Rolling Stone. Anyway, Rolling Stone had a special article on the Ten Worst Congressman, and your own incumbent Republican Hal Rogers was rated'Number 9. BIN LADEN'S BEST FRIEND HAL ROGERS (R-KY.)
The Article is reprinted here:
"Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
"9. BIN LADEN'S BEST FRIEND HAL ROGERS (R-KY.)
"No congressman has single-handedly put America at greater risk than Rogers. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, he has placed the interests of his own district ahead of defending the nation from Al Qaeda, prompting even the archconservative National Review to call him a "congressional disgrace."
"Since the 9/11 attacks, Rogers has abused his position to steer production of a system designed to enhance airport security to a factory in Corbin, Kentucky. The trouble is, the factory wasn't equipped to produce the tamperproof biometric ID cards favored by security experts. So Rogers forced the government to spend $4 million to test the factory's technology -- steering some of the work to a tiny company that hired his son. When the factory flunked the test, Rogers delayed the process again, demanding that prototypes for new cards be built in Kentucky.
"Rogers also steered a no-bid contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a trade group with no relevant experience in airport security -- after the group paid for Rogers to take six trips to Hawaii and one to Ireland. "It's as if he grabbed people off the street and said, 'Hey, would you manage a critical homeland-security program? No experience required,' ? says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.
"Complaints by experienced contractors ultimately forced Rogers to open the project to competitive bidding -- further delaying the improvements to airport security until next year at the earliest.
"TIM DICKINSON"
That is a bi-partisan article. It has that picture and name of the Democratic Congressman that was caught with $90,000 cash in his office refrigerator. Rolling Stone recognizes "worst Congressmen" on both sides of the aisle. The question is why do the people of Eastern Kentucky want to project that type of image for yourselves. It's worst that the Beverly Hillbillies, or the "New Beverly Hillbillies". You have a choice November 7, you can vote to re-elect one of the "10 worst Congressman" or you can vote for change, vote against the status quo, and vote for new leadership for the twenty-first century. Vote for the best, not the worst. Elect Kenneth Stepp U.S. Congressman for the Kentucky Fifth District.
Hal Rogers had gained national recognition in Rolling Stone magazine. Maybe we will see Hal Rogers' face on the front of the Rolling Stone. Anyway, Rolling Stone had a special article on the Ten Worst Congressman, and your own incumbent Republican Hal Rogers was rated'Number 9. BIN LADEN'S BEST FRIEND HAL ROGERS (R-KY.)
The Article is reprinted here:
"Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
"9. BIN LADEN'S BEST FRIEND HAL ROGERS (R-KY.)
"No congressman has single-handedly put America at greater risk than Rogers. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, he has placed the interests of his own district ahead of defending the nation from Al Qaeda, prompting even the archconservative National Review to call him a "congressional disgrace."
"Since the 9/11 attacks, Rogers has abused his position to steer production of a system designed to enhance airport security to a factory in Corbin, Kentucky. The trouble is, the factory wasn't equipped to produce the tamperproof biometric ID cards favored by security experts. So Rogers forced the government to spend $4 million to test the factory's technology -- steering some of the work to a tiny company that hired his son. When the factory flunked the test, Rogers delayed the process again, demanding that prototypes for new cards be built in Kentucky.
"Rogers also steered a no-bid contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a trade group with no relevant experience in airport security -- after the group paid for Rogers to take six trips to Hawaii and one to Ireland. "It's as if he grabbed people off the street and said, 'Hey, would you manage a critical homeland-security program? No experience required,' ? says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.
"Complaints by experienced contractors ultimately forced Rogers to open the project to competitive bidding -- further delaying the improvements to airport security until next year at the earliest.
"TIM DICKINSON"
That is a bi-partisan article. It has that picture and name of the Democratic Congressman that was caught with $90,000 cash in his office refrigerator. Rolling Stone recognizes "worst Congressmen" on both sides of the aisle. The question is why do the people of Eastern Kentucky want to project that type of image for yourselves. It's worst that the Beverly Hillbillies, or the "New Beverly Hillbillies". You have a choice November 7, you can vote to re-elect one of the "10 worst Congressman" or you can vote for change, vote against the status quo, and vote for new leadership for the twenty-first century. Vote for the best, not the worst. Elect Kenneth Stepp U.S. Congressman for the Kentucky Fifth District.
Where do you stand on attacking Iran?
Where do you stand on attacking Iran and starting a new war with Iran? Hal Rogers voted against preventing the President from attacking Iran and starting a new war with Iran, but Ben Chandler voted against allowing the President to attack Iran and start a new war with Iran. Kenneth Stepp would have voted with Ben Chandler to bar any funds to initiate military operations in Iran.
More specifically, in "How They Voted" the New American explained: "32 Iran Military Operations. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) offered this amendment to the 2007 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5631). The amendment would bar any funds to initiate military operations in Iran unless it is in accordance with Aritcle I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress alone the power to declare war.
"The House rejected Hinchey's amendment by a vote of 158-262 on June 20, 2006 (Roll Call 300). We have assigned pluses to the "yeas" because the power to declare war belongs to Congress, not to the president, and that much power should not be in the hands of one man."
Ben Chandler (D-KY) voted "yea", Hal Rogers (R-KY, Dist.5) voted "nay", but Kenneth Stepp would have voted "yea" to the amendment preventing Federal funding to initiate military operations in Iran. Hal Rogers is already on board for any invasion or carpet bombing of Iran that President Bush may start, now that the resistance in Iraq to American invasion and military occupation seems to have subsided. The choice is simple, a vote for Hal Rogers is a vote for the neverending war with no goals, no reasons, no plans, and no end in sight; but a vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote not to waste any more American lives on foolhardy military adventures in the Middle East, Iraq, or Iran. More Americans will die each week in Iraq, and maybe Iran in the neverending war against people that don't appreciate having armies of a different religion from their own, and from the opposite end of the globe invading their country and militarily occupying it. If you vote for the Democrats, these pointless and useless wars will probably end in January 2007. If you re-elect the Republicans, then you are voting for more military occupation, more bloodshed, more dead Iraqis and more dead American National Guardsmen as the violence and killing keeps escalating. The bloodthirsty Republicans will exact their toll in human suffering and human death in Iraq through December, but the choice is yours whether this senseless, and goal-less war continues into January. Kenneth Stepp.
More specifically, in "How They Voted" the New American explained: "32 Iran Military Operations. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) offered this amendment to the 2007 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5631). The amendment would bar any funds to initiate military operations in Iran unless it is in accordance with Aritcle I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress alone the power to declare war.
"The House rejected Hinchey's amendment by a vote of 158-262 on June 20, 2006 (Roll Call 300). We have assigned pluses to the "yeas" because the power to declare war belongs to Congress, not to the president, and that much power should not be in the hands of one man."
Ben Chandler (D-KY) voted "yea", Hal Rogers (R-KY, Dist.5) voted "nay", but Kenneth Stepp would have voted "yea" to the amendment preventing Federal funding to initiate military operations in Iran. Hal Rogers is already on board for any invasion or carpet bombing of Iran that President Bush may start, now that the resistance in Iraq to American invasion and military occupation seems to have subsided. The choice is simple, a vote for Hal Rogers is a vote for the neverending war with no goals, no reasons, no plans, and no end in sight; but a vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote not to waste any more American lives on foolhardy military adventures in the Middle East, Iraq, or Iran. More Americans will die each week in Iraq, and maybe Iran in the neverending war against people that don't appreciate having armies of a different religion from their own, and from the opposite end of the globe invading their country and militarily occupying it. If you vote for the Democrats, these pointless and useless wars will probably end in January 2007. If you re-elect the Republicans, then you are voting for more military occupation, more bloodshed, more dead Iraqis and more dead American National Guardsmen as the violence and killing keeps escalating. The bloodthirsty Republicans will exact their toll in human suffering and human death in Iraq through December, but the choice is yours whether this senseless, and goal-less war continues into January. Kenneth Stepp.
Lexington Herald-Leader reports Hal Rogers tourism deal didn't comply with the law.
The newspaper Lexington Herald-Leader reports that the Hal Rogers tourism deal didn't comply with the law. A portion of that report follows:
"Posted on Fri, Oct. 20, 2006 email this print this
"Report: Tourism deal didn't comply with law
"ROGERS SET ASIDE MONEY FOR 511 SERVICE IN E. KY.
"By Bill Estep And Beth Musgrave
"HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITERS
"A state contract for a tourism initiative funded with several million dollars earmarked by Republican U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers did not comply with procurement laws, the state auditor's office has concluded.
Rogers set aside the money beginning in fiscal year 2002 to develop in southern and Eastern Kentucky an enhanced version of the 511 service, through which callers can get information on attractions, lodging and other services.
"The federal money came to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, but the "congressional intent" was for much of the money to go to the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association to expand 511 service in its area, according to letters to the cabinet from Rogers' district administrator, Bob Mitchell.
"The cabinet followed the directive, signing a "sole source" contract to pass on much of the money to the tourism association, according to a report issued yesterday by Auditor Crit Luallen. But then the association turned around and took bids from private companies for a contract to actually run the call center. Owners of the company that won the bid are long-time Rogers supporters.
"Mitchell's letter saying it was the intent of Congress to send most of the money to the tourism association did not have the force of federal law, but the state Transportation and Finance cabinets nonetheless allowed the letter to control federal money appropriated to the state, the audit said.
"That was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the state's procurement laws, or the responsibility of state agencies to make sure tax dollars are used fairly and responsibly, the audit said. That contract meant the Transportation Cabinet didn't take bids from other potential vendors for the 511 project.
"The contract at issue in the audit was signed in July 2004, to forward $2.9 million to the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association. It updated previous 511 contracts between the agencies. * * *
". . . Luallen said in an interview. "If you make the case that it's a sole-source contract and then that contractor gives a significant amount to a for-profit vendor, that vendor is clearly in the marketplace and could have competed to do that service," she said. * * *
"Senture is owned by the family of Bill Deaton. The Deaton family has donated several thousand dollars to Rogers' campaign coffers, according to federal campaign finance reports. Rogers has helped get millions in funding for federal work at Deaton companies to create jobs such as data-entry in the congressman's district. Senture hired Rogers' son, John, sometime in 2004. Bill Deaton was recently fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission for securities fraud. * * *
"Reach Bill Estep in the Somerset bureau at (606) 678-4655 or bestep@herald-leader.com. "
Vote to end no-bid contracts and illegal contracts. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05. Vote Democratic for the U.S. House.
"Posted on Fri, Oct. 20, 2006 email this print this
"Report: Tourism deal didn't comply with law
"ROGERS SET ASIDE MONEY FOR 511 SERVICE IN E. KY.
"By Bill Estep And Beth Musgrave
"HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITERS
"A state contract for a tourism initiative funded with several million dollars earmarked by Republican U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers did not comply with procurement laws, the state auditor's office has concluded.
Rogers set aside the money beginning in fiscal year 2002 to develop in southern and Eastern Kentucky an enhanced version of the 511 service, through which callers can get information on attractions, lodging and other services.
"The federal money came to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, but the "congressional intent" was for much of the money to go to the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association to expand 511 service in its area, according to letters to the cabinet from Rogers' district administrator, Bob Mitchell.
"The cabinet followed the directive, signing a "sole source" contract to pass on much of the money to the tourism association, according to a report issued yesterday by Auditor Crit Luallen. But then the association turned around and took bids from private companies for a contract to actually run the call center. Owners of the company that won the bid are long-time Rogers supporters.
"Mitchell's letter saying it was the intent of Congress to send most of the money to the tourism association did not have the force of federal law, but the state Transportation and Finance cabinets nonetheless allowed the letter to control federal money appropriated to the state, the audit said.
"That was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the state's procurement laws, or the responsibility of state agencies to make sure tax dollars are used fairly and responsibly, the audit said. That contract meant the Transportation Cabinet didn't take bids from other potential vendors for the 511 project.
"The contract at issue in the audit was signed in July 2004, to forward $2.9 million to the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association. It updated previous 511 contracts between the agencies. * * *
". . . Luallen said in an interview. "If you make the case that it's a sole-source contract and then that contractor gives a significant amount to a for-profit vendor, that vendor is clearly in the marketplace and could have competed to do that service," she said. * * *
"Senture is owned by the family of Bill Deaton. The Deaton family has donated several thousand dollars to Rogers' campaign coffers, according to federal campaign finance reports. Rogers has helped get millions in funding for federal work at Deaton companies to create jobs such as data-entry in the congressman's district. Senture hired Rogers' son, John, sometime in 2004. Bill Deaton was recently fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission for securities fraud. * * *
"Reach Bill Estep in the Somerset bureau at (606) 678-4655 or bestep@herald-leader.com. "
Vote to end no-bid contracts and illegal contracts. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-05. Vote Democratic for the U.S. House.
The New American blasts vote #40 which Hal Rogers voted for.
The New American blasts vote #40 which Hal Rogers voted for. If the conservatives don't like Hal Rogers, and the liberals don't like Hal Rogers, then who does like Hal Rogers? Who will vote to trample upon the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by voting for Hal Rogers? Will you? Vote for Stepp for U.S. House. The following article is published in the October 30 edition of The New American:
"Expanding Surveillance Authority
"by William F. Jasper
"October 30, 2006 Email this article Printer friendly page
"The surveillance power demanded by President Bush would not necessarily provide any better protection from terrorism, but it would certainly expand executive branch power.
"On December 17 of last year, during his weekly radio address, President Bush confirmed reports by the New York Times and CNN that, following the 9/11 attacks, he had given the National Security Agency (NSA) authorization to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas. The president said that ordering such electronic surveillance without judicial warrants is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities," and charged that the media exposure of this secret program is illegal and "damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
"The NSA, which eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide, is barred from domestic spying without a warrant, as required in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Justice Department can get warrants from a special court called the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court, a 10-judge panel established in 1978 expressly for that purpose. In emergencies, the NSA may even conduct domestic surveillance for 72 hours without a warrant. "But by the end of that three-day period, it must obtain a warrant. Over the past nearly 30 years, the FISA Court has denied only a handful of the thousands of warrant requests. And there is no indication that the 72-hour emergency provision has been inadequate to deal with serious terrorist threats.
"On August 17 of this year, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the president's warrantless searches are unconstitutional. The administration immediately appealed the decision and on October 4, a three-judge panel ruled that the NSA may continue its eavesdropping while awaiting a final ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Interestingly, during the December 17, 2005 radio address, President Bush cited the case of 9/11 hijackers Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi as a prime example of the need for warrantless surveillance. This duo, he said, "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas, but we didn't know they were here until it was too late." It would be difficult for the president to come up with a worse example to make his point.
"The various official 9/11 investigations showed that the FBI, CIA, and NSA all were monitoring Hazmi and Mihdhar. In San Diego, the duo even lived with Abdussattar Shaikh, an acknowledged undercover asset of the FBI. The two also had regular contacts with San Diego area militant jihadists under FBI surveillance, such as Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Mustafa. FBI Agent Stephen Butler made repeated efforts to have them arrested, but he was overruled from above.
"Moreover, a review of the 9/11 hijackers' visa applications by a panel of former consular officials revealed that all 15 of the publicly available applications, including Mihdhar's, had been issued in violation of existing law, despite blatant red flags that should have disqualified all of them. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the kind of extraordinary power demanded by President Bush would have provided any more needed intelligence or that it would have been acted on any better than the abundant data that was already available.
"The House and Senate GOP leadership cynically adopted the White House strategy of using the issue before the November elections to paint the Democrats as weak on national security if they didn't vote for legislation to gut our Fourth Amendment. However, although the House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 5825) on September 28 (see House vote #40 in the "Conservative Index," page 26), the Senate did not vote on its version (S. 3931) prior to adjournment. It is very likely that Congress will try to enact some kind of expansion of executive surveillance authority, in line with what the White House is demanding, during the lame-duck session. "
Liberals and conservatives agree, it's time to Dump Hal! Vote for the Democrat Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House. That is a vote for Constitutional government. Elect more Democrats this November.
"Expanding Surveillance Authority
"by William F. Jasper
"October 30, 2006 Email this article Printer friendly page
"The surveillance power demanded by President Bush would not necessarily provide any better protection from terrorism, but it would certainly expand executive branch power.
"On December 17 of last year, during his weekly radio address, President Bush confirmed reports by the New York Times and CNN that, following the 9/11 attacks, he had given the National Security Agency (NSA) authorization to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas. The president said that ordering such electronic surveillance without judicial warrants is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities," and charged that the media exposure of this secret program is illegal and "damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
"The NSA, which eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide, is barred from domestic spying without a warrant, as required in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Justice Department can get warrants from a special court called the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court, a 10-judge panel established in 1978 expressly for that purpose. In emergencies, the NSA may even conduct domestic surveillance for 72 hours without a warrant. "But by the end of that three-day period, it must obtain a warrant. Over the past nearly 30 years, the FISA Court has denied only a handful of the thousands of warrant requests. And there is no indication that the 72-hour emergency provision has been inadequate to deal with serious terrorist threats.
"On August 17 of this year, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the president's warrantless searches are unconstitutional. The administration immediately appealed the decision and on October 4, a three-judge panel ruled that the NSA may continue its eavesdropping while awaiting a final ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Interestingly, during the December 17, 2005 radio address, President Bush cited the case of 9/11 hijackers Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi as a prime example of the need for warrantless surveillance. This duo, he said, "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas, but we didn't know they were here until it was too late." It would be difficult for the president to come up with a worse example to make his point.
"The various official 9/11 investigations showed that the FBI, CIA, and NSA all were monitoring Hazmi and Mihdhar. In San Diego, the duo even lived with Abdussattar Shaikh, an acknowledged undercover asset of the FBI. The two also had regular contacts with San Diego area militant jihadists under FBI surveillance, such as Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Mustafa. FBI Agent Stephen Butler made repeated efforts to have them arrested, but he was overruled from above.
"Moreover, a review of the 9/11 hijackers' visa applications by a panel of former consular officials revealed that all 15 of the publicly available applications, including Mihdhar's, had been issued in violation of existing law, despite blatant red flags that should have disqualified all of them. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the kind of extraordinary power demanded by President Bush would have provided any more needed intelligence or that it would have been acted on any better than the abundant data that was already available.
"The House and Senate GOP leadership cynically adopted the White House strategy of using the issue before the November elections to paint the Democrats as weak on national security if they didn't vote for legislation to gut our Fourth Amendment. However, although the House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 5825) on September 28 (see House vote #40 in the "Conservative Index," page 26), the Senate did not vote on its version (S. 3931) prior to adjournment. It is very likely that Congress will try to enact some kind of expansion of executive surveillance authority, in line with what the White House is demanding, during the lame-duck session. "
Liberals and conservatives agree, it's time to Dump Hal! Vote for the Democrat Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House. That is a vote for Constitutional government. Elect more Democrats this November.
The "New American Magazine" and the "Rolling Stone" magazine can't both be wrong.
The "New American Magazine" and the "Rolling Stone" magazine can't both be wrong. In the following blogs, both of them give Hal Rogers poor ratings. What is Hal Rogers? He is not a Liberal. He is not a Conservative. He is not a Progressive. He is a George Bush and Dick Cheney rubberstamp that you should vote out of office. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House in November.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The New American Magazine explains Hal Rogers' Position on the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
"Hal Rogers voted to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and it was passed into law. This new law that Hal Rogers (R-KY5) helped to pass is explained in the following article published in The New American magazine:
"Are YOU the Enemy?
"by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.
"October 30, 2006
Email this article Printer friendly page
"Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you could be.The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all Americans, not just terrorists.
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, and the affixing of the president's signature is now a formality.* "This legislation is being highlighted by the Bush administration and most Republicans as a get-tough-on-terrorists measure that allows "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading. Moreover, the bill allows "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" and "statements ... obtained by coercion" — think administration-approved methods of torture. We are being told that this action is preventive medicine to heal a world gone wrong. Question now: with this fix in place, what's the prognosis for the patient?
"To begin answering that question, imagine the following scenario: your son Michael (or daughter Michelle) is in Florida on vacation; you speak to him via cellphone when he arrives at the airport and he is waiting in line to check his bags. You go to your local airport at arrival time to pick him up and he never appears. You call all the relevant authorities, including the police, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security, and no one acknowledges having any information on your son. You go almost out of your mind; you go to the airport in Florida, interview security guards, concession stand workers, and cabbies. You learn nothing. After six months of never-ending worry gnawing at your gut, your son is dropped at your house. You learn that he was mistaken for a known terrorist by the CIA, flown to Cuba, and interrogated by being repeatedly put in a giant freezer and chilled to within an inch of his life and by being painfully deprived of sleep.
"All of this would be allowed under the new act. Worse yet, imagine that the government never figures out that your son is innocent of all charges, and he never returns.
"Habeas Corpus
"In effect, one could say that the sick world is being given potent poison to bring about the cure sponsored by President Bush. Granted, the bill does not apparently treat citizens and foreigners equally, and the harshest treatment would generally be doled out to foreigners, but is the bill something we want to inflict on ourselves or others? Can we justify it by saying that the majority of those scooped up will be terrorist killers who deserve what they get? Let's look at what the bill would do.
"A component of this bill that has attracted the attention of legal commentators and civil libertarians alike is that part which authorizes the president to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is Latin for "you have the body." It grants prisoners the right to request from a judge the reasons for his incarceration. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution plainly states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
"Despite the Constitution's clear restriction on the suspension of this bulwark of liberty, the bill states:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or case of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement.
"Torture
"The act gives President Bush the power to define for American interrogators behavior that does or does not constitute torture, physical and mental pain, or serious coercion. Admittedly, according to the black letter of the Military Commissions Act, evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible against the suspects. But what constitutes torture?
"The legislation leaves it up to the military judge to decide whether or not the coercive methods used to elicit evidence from detainees constitutes torture. The act instructs the judge to weigh the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the garnering of the prisoner's testimony in making this crucial determination. This sort of ad hoc determination of what is and is not torture is unsettling and capricious. Remarkably, these parameters will be the only binding guidelines for the CIA and others responsible for gathering intelligence from detainees, regardless of principles of the Geneva Convention, rulings of the Supreme Court, or constitutional prohibitions to the contrary.
"Geneva Convention
"This act dismisses outright the limitations and guarantees provided by the Geneva Convention, as well. After the vote, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tried to make the act sound as if it never comes close to skirting the line in the area of personal legal protections: "America can be proud. Not only did she adhere to the Geneva Conventions, she went further than she had to, because we're better than the terrorists." But his statement didn't even hold water with the military lawyers who would be charged with operating the tribunals. Several commented on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Article 3 (called "Common Article 3" because it is common to all four of the conventions) proscribes the "passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
"In addressing this issue before a Senate committee, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, lamented: "I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without, and convicted without seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the United States needs to become first in that scenario."
"This new law clearly ignores General Walker's concern. Specifically, the law declares: "It generally is neither practicable nor appropriate for combatants like al-Qaeda terrorists to be tried before tribunals that included all of the procedures associated with courts-martial."
"Brigadier General Walker's warning voice was but one in a respectable chorus of credible opponents harmonizing in their condemnation of the unconstitutional and unjust aspects of the new law. None of the parts of this song sound as persuasive as that of the officers of the armed forces justice system, known as the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. "These uniquely interested and informed military legal experts adamantly oppose several key aspects of this new legislation.
"Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him, Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer, echoes his colleague's sentiments: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government's evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused was not able to see any of it."
"Not to be left out of the battle, the Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives, flew into the fray and dropped a bomb on the MCA, declaring that the commissions established by the act do "not comport with my ideas of due process."
"Are You an Enemy Combatant?
"Americans would be forgiven for naively believing that while the threats to liberty in the MCA tip-toe toward tyranny, they will only be used toward that end against those with at least diaphanous ties to terrorism. Namely, they would be employed to protect Americans from that group of n'er-do-wells known as "unlawful enemy combatants." In language that is sure to shake your sense of safety, the following is the MCA's definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant":
"The term "unlawful enemy combatant" means: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word "person" rather than "alien." Jose Padilla found this out firsthand.
Jose Padilla is an American — born in New York and raised in Chicago. On May 8, 2002, he was arrested in Chicago after returning from Pakistan upon suspicion of being linked to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Padilla's attorney immediately filed a habeas corpus petition with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to invoke his client's constitutionally guaranteed right to be informed as to the justification for his confinement. The court denied Padilla's petition citing the president's authority to designate any person, citizen or alien, an "enemy combatant" and to detain such person indefinitely.
"Padilla appealed this decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the president had no such authority. The administration then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, where the justices were called to consider the legitimacy of the president's power to suspend the constitutional protections of the due process of law from an American citizen. The court meekly dodged this issue, however, and remanded the case back to the district court for dismissal without prejudice. Admittedly, Jose Padilla has a history of criminal behavior, and he was no poster boy for the law-abiding, but the rights set out in the Constitution are designed to protect all Americans, likeable and detestable.
"Another character ensnared in the "illegal enemy combatant" net was Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Saudi Arabian parents. In 2001, Hamdi was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and subsequently handed over to the U.S. military. Hamdi was accused of being a member of the Taliban regime, but he and his family argued that he was in Afghanistan as an aid worker and had been erroneously detained.
"Undeterred by his parents' testimony, Hamdi was shipped to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Later, he was transferred to a brig in South Carolina. In June of 2002, a petition of habeas corpus was filed on Hamdi's behalf by his father. The court ruled that the petition was proper and granted Hamdi's father standing to act in the place of his son. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, however, ruling that the "security interests" of the country outweighed Hamdi's right to file a habeas corpus petition. Upon remand, the lower court denied the government's motion to dismiss Hamdi's petition. The court requested evidence from the government that would prove Hamdi's alliance with the Taliban and his designation as an "unlawful enemy combatant."
"The government refused to comply with the court's order, and appealed the request to the Fourth Circuit. Remarkably, the Court of Appeals held that the president's power to make war (is this not a power delegated in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution exclusively to the Congress?) prohibited a court from interfering in matters of national security. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
"Although the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdi is diffuse and complicated, eight of the nine justices agreed that the Constitution proscribes the Executive Branch's attempt to hold indefinitely an American citizen and to deny him the protections of the Bill of Rights with regard to the due process of law.
"Could a completely innocent person also be ensnared? Yes. Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen, was abducted in 2003 while he was on vacation, taken to Afghanistan, and interrogated and tortured for five months before the CIA figured out that they had abducted a completely innocent man who just happened to have the same name as a wanted terrorist. (Why the CIA thought that a well-known terrorist would have been traveling and vacationing using his own name is anybody's guess.)
"Passage of the MCA was pushed by the current administration in a bid to get congressional approval of all the illegal actions that they had already been taking, obviously banking on the idea that if they could get congressional approval, they would also get Supreme Court approval.
"Prognosis: Long-term Suffering
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an eradication of the most basic protections of liberty enshrined for over 200 years in our sacred Constitution. The all-encompassing powers granted to the president by this law potentially forbid any man, woman, or child deemed an enemy of the administration or its policies from seeking judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment. Most terrifying of all, this law enthrones President Bush — and his successors, whether Democrat or Republican — as the ultimate arbiters of justice to those suspected of being America's enemies. You can only hope that that person is not you.
"Those who fail to see the dire gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?
"This law, as well as other recently chronicled usurpations, sacrifices the due process of law on the altar of absolutism. There can be but one final obstacle to complete executive power — the people of the United States of America. We must hold every member of Congress accountable who voted for this unprecedented and unconscionable breach of our constitutional rule of law, and we must seek out and support men and women determined to uphold the federal oath of office and courageously defend the Constitution against all enemies — foreign or domestic. If we do not do this, are we really better than the terrorists?
"* To see how your U.S. representative and senators voted, see House vote #39 and the Senate vote #39 in the "Conservative Index," pages 22-31."
Hal Rogers voted for that bill because he is nothing but a Republican rubberstamp. It is time to send Hal home! It is time to send Hal to the showers. It is time to send Hal into retirement. Elect Kenneth Stepp, the Democratic candidate to the U.S. House because Kenneth Stepp will help put an end to these Republican foolhardy actions of trampling upon the Bill of Rights and trampling upon the United States Constitution. Votes for the Democrats for Congress this November.
"Are YOU the Enemy?
"by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.
"October 30, 2006
Email this article Printer friendly page
"Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you could be.The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all Americans, not just terrorists.
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, and the affixing of the president's signature is now a formality.* "This legislation is being highlighted by the Bush administration and most Republicans as a get-tough-on-terrorists measure that allows "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading. Moreover, the bill allows "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" and "statements ... obtained by coercion" — think administration-approved methods of torture. We are being told that this action is preventive medicine to heal a world gone wrong. Question now: with this fix in place, what's the prognosis for the patient?
"To begin answering that question, imagine the following scenario: your son Michael (or daughter Michelle) is in Florida on vacation; you speak to him via cellphone when he arrives at the airport and he is waiting in line to check his bags. You go to your local airport at arrival time to pick him up and he never appears. You call all the relevant authorities, including the police, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security, and no one acknowledges having any information on your son. You go almost out of your mind; you go to the airport in Florida, interview security guards, concession stand workers, and cabbies. You learn nothing. After six months of never-ending worry gnawing at your gut, your son is dropped at your house. You learn that he was mistaken for a known terrorist by the CIA, flown to Cuba, and interrogated by being repeatedly put in a giant freezer and chilled to within an inch of his life and by being painfully deprived of sleep.
"All of this would be allowed under the new act. Worse yet, imagine that the government never figures out that your son is innocent of all charges, and he never returns.
"Habeas Corpus
"In effect, one could say that the sick world is being given potent poison to bring about the cure sponsored by President Bush. Granted, the bill does not apparently treat citizens and foreigners equally, and the harshest treatment would generally be doled out to foreigners, but is the bill something we want to inflict on ourselves or others? Can we justify it by saying that the majority of those scooped up will be terrorist killers who deserve what they get? Let's look at what the bill would do.
"A component of this bill that has attracted the attention of legal commentators and civil libertarians alike is that part which authorizes the president to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is Latin for "you have the body." It grants prisoners the right to request from a judge the reasons for his incarceration. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution plainly states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
"Despite the Constitution's clear restriction on the suspension of this bulwark of liberty, the bill states:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or case of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement.
"Torture
"The act gives President Bush the power to define for American interrogators behavior that does or does not constitute torture, physical and mental pain, or serious coercion. Admittedly, according to the black letter of the Military Commissions Act, evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible against the suspects. But what constitutes torture?
"The legislation leaves it up to the military judge to decide whether or not the coercive methods used to elicit evidence from detainees constitutes torture. The act instructs the judge to weigh the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the garnering of the prisoner's testimony in making this crucial determination. This sort of ad hoc determination of what is and is not torture is unsettling and capricious. Remarkably, these parameters will be the only binding guidelines for the CIA and others responsible for gathering intelligence from detainees, regardless of principles of the Geneva Convention, rulings of the Supreme Court, or constitutional prohibitions to the contrary.
"Geneva Convention
"This act dismisses outright the limitations and guarantees provided by the Geneva Convention, as well. After the vote, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tried to make the act sound as if it never comes close to skirting the line in the area of personal legal protections: "America can be proud. Not only did she adhere to the Geneva Conventions, she went further than she had to, because we're better than the terrorists." But his statement didn't even hold water with the military lawyers who would be charged with operating the tribunals. Several commented on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Article 3 (called "Common Article 3" because it is common to all four of the conventions) proscribes the "passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
"In addressing this issue before a Senate committee, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, lamented: "I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without, and convicted without seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the United States needs to become first in that scenario."
"This new law clearly ignores General Walker's concern. Specifically, the law declares: "It generally is neither practicable nor appropriate for combatants like al-Qaeda terrorists to be tried before tribunals that included all of the procedures associated with courts-martial."
"Brigadier General Walker's warning voice was but one in a respectable chorus of credible opponents harmonizing in their condemnation of the unconstitutional and unjust aspects of the new law. None of the parts of this song sound as persuasive as that of the officers of the armed forces justice system, known as the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. "These uniquely interested and informed military legal experts adamantly oppose several key aspects of this new legislation.
"Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him, Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer, echoes his colleague's sentiments: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government's evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused was not able to see any of it."
"Not to be left out of the battle, the Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives, flew into the fray and dropped a bomb on the MCA, declaring that the commissions established by the act do "not comport with my ideas of due process."
"Are You an Enemy Combatant?
"Americans would be forgiven for naively believing that while the threats to liberty in the MCA tip-toe toward tyranny, they will only be used toward that end against those with at least diaphanous ties to terrorism. Namely, they would be employed to protect Americans from that group of n'er-do-wells known as "unlawful enemy combatants." In language that is sure to shake your sense of safety, the following is the MCA's definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant":
"The term "unlawful enemy combatant" means: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word "person" rather than "alien." Jose Padilla found this out firsthand.
Jose Padilla is an American — born in New York and raised in Chicago. On May 8, 2002, he was arrested in Chicago after returning from Pakistan upon suspicion of being linked to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Padilla's attorney immediately filed a habeas corpus petition with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to invoke his client's constitutionally guaranteed right to be informed as to the justification for his confinement. The court denied Padilla's petition citing the president's authority to designate any person, citizen or alien, an "enemy combatant" and to detain such person indefinitely.
"Padilla appealed this decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the president had no such authority. The administration then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, where the justices were called to consider the legitimacy of the president's power to suspend the constitutional protections of the due process of law from an American citizen. The court meekly dodged this issue, however, and remanded the case back to the district court for dismissal without prejudice. Admittedly, Jose Padilla has a history of criminal behavior, and he was no poster boy for the law-abiding, but the rights set out in the Constitution are designed to protect all Americans, likeable and detestable.
"Another character ensnared in the "illegal enemy combatant" net was Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Saudi Arabian parents. In 2001, Hamdi was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and subsequently handed over to the U.S. military. Hamdi was accused of being a member of the Taliban regime, but he and his family argued that he was in Afghanistan as an aid worker and had been erroneously detained.
"Undeterred by his parents' testimony, Hamdi was shipped to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Later, he was transferred to a brig in South Carolina. In June of 2002, a petition of habeas corpus was filed on Hamdi's behalf by his father. The court ruled that the petition was proper and granted Hamdi's father standing to act in the place of his son. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, however, ruling that the "security interests" of the country outweighed Hamdi's right to file a habeas corpus petition. Upon remand, the lower court denied the government's motion to dismiss Hamdi's petition. The court requested evidence from the government that would prove Hamdi's alliance with the Taliban and his designation as an "unlawful enemy combatant."
"The government refused to comply with the court's order, and appealed the request to the Fourth Circuit. Remarkably, the Court of Appeals held that the president's power to make war (is this not a power delegated in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution exclusively to the Congress?) prohibited a court from interfering in matters of national security. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
"Although the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdi is diffuse and complicated, eight of the nine justices agreed that the Constitution proscribes the Executive Branch's attempt to hold indefinitely an American citizen and to deny him the protections of the Bill of Rights with regard to the due process of law.
"Could a completely innocent person also be ensnared? Yes. Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen, was abducted in 2003 while he was on vacation, taken to Afghanistan, and interrogated and tortured for five months before the CIA figured out that they had abducted a completely innocent man who just happened to have the same name as a wanted terrorist. (Why the CIA thought that a well-known terrorist would have been traveling and vacationing using his own name is anybody's guess.)
"Passage of the MCA was pushed by the current administration in a bid to get congressional approval of all the illegal actions that they had already been taking, obviously banking on the idea that if they could get congressional approval, they would also get Supreme Court approval.
"Prognosis: Long-term Suffering
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an eradication of the most basic protections of liberty enshrined for over 200 years in our sacred Constitution. The all-encompassing powers granted to the president by this law potentially forbid any man, woman, or child deemed an enemy of the administration or its policies from seeking judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment. Most terrifying of all, this law enthrones President Bush — and his successors, whether Democrat or Republican — as the ultimate arbiters of justice to those suspected of being America's enemies. You can only hope that that person is not you.
"Those who fail to see the dire gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?
"This law, as well as other recently chronicled usurpations, sacrifices the due process of law on the altar of absolutism. There can be but one final obstacle to complete executive power — the people of the United States of America. We must hold every member of Congress accountable who voted for this unprecedented and unconscionable breach of our constitutional rule of law, and we must seek out and support men and women determined to uphold the federal oath of office and courageously defend the Constitution against all enemies — foreign or domestic. If we do not do this, are we really better than the terrorists?
"* To see how your U.S. representative and senators voted, see House vote #39 and the Senate vote #39 in the "Conservative Index," pages 22-31."
Hal Rogers voted for that bill because he is nothing but a Republican rubberstamp. It is time to send Hal home! It is time to send Hal to the showers. It is time to send Hal into retirement. Elect Kenneth Stepp, the Democratic candidate to the U.S. House because Kenneth Stepp will help put an end to these Republican foolhardy actions of trampling upon the Bill of Rights and trampling upon the United States Constitution. Votes for the Democrats for Congress this November.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Now Hal Rogers is getting "no bid contracts" from the State government, too.
Now Hal Rogers is getting "no bid" contracts from the State government, too. That is not "free money" from taxpayers in Montana and Hawaii, that is hard-earned dollars coming out of the pockets of Kentucky Fifth District taxpayers.
"courier-journal.com > Local News
"Local News Headline: Rogers' role in tourism contract draws scrutiny (20061019)";
"UPDATED: 11:37 PM Rogers' role in tourism contract draws scrutiny Association sent money to firm employing son
"By Deborah Yetter
"dyetter@courier-journal.com
"The Courier-Journal
"U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers' office steered $2.9 million in federal money through the state to a nonprofit tourism group in his district, which then sent part of it to a company that employs the Kentucky congressman's son.
"One of Rogers' staff members is board vice president of the nonprofit group, according to a new state audit, which detailed the transaction.
"The 2004 contract — awarded through the state Transportation Cabinet — did not appear to violate any Kentucky laws, according to a 100-page report that state Auditor Crit Luallen released yesterday.
But in an interview with The Courier-Journal, Luallen said the transaction stood out among the 57 sample contracts her office reviewed.
""This one pointed out some unique problems we didn't see elsewhere," Luallen said.
"Luallen's office recommends tighter controls on all state contracts awarded to outside parties to eliminate loopholes and abuses.
"Rogers, a Somerset Republican, said in a statement yesterday that he is proud to have secured funds for projects for the 5th District in southeastern Kentucky, including $2.9million for a tourism information service.
"From what I understand, this arrangement was adequately agreed upon and reviewed by several agencies including the Finance Cabinet and Transportation Cabinet prior to release of the funds," Rogers' statement said.
"He contended past outside audits show the contract has been managed "prudently and effectively."
"Steve Ellis, an official with Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, said the contract reflects "shady dealings going on here that certainly deserve more scrutiny."
"Ellis said he's concerned that Rogers had a staff member on the board of the group that received the money and part of it ended up with a company that employs Rogers' son.
"The transaction
"According to Luallen's report, the transaction began after Rogers obtained $2million in 2002 as an "earmark" or an anonymous allocation in the federal budget.
"On Aug. 22, 2002, Rogers' district administrator, Bob Mitchell, wrote a letter to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, advising it Rogers had obtained $2million for a 511 call center to provide information to tourists.
"The "congressional intent" of the allocation was for the service to be operated by the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association, or SEKTDA, according to the letter cited in the audit.
"It said the Transportation Cabinet was to be the applicant for the funds.
"In 2003, Mitchell wrote a second letter to the Transportation Cabinet advising officials that Rogers had obtained additional funds to continue to contract with the tourism group.
"Mitchell is listed as vice president of the tourism group's executive board on the group's Web site.
"He did not return calls yesterday seeking comment.
"State awards no-bid contract
"In 2004, the Transportation Cabinet entered a "sole source" contract with the tourism group, meaning it did not seek bids because it had determined the work was specialized and another vendor would not be able to do it.
"State contract documents said the sole source contract was necessary because the tourism group was already operating the center, and another group could not open a similar one without significant start-up costs, Luallen's audit said.
"Once the $2.9million was awarded to the tourism group, it awarded a $1.2million subcontract to Senture, a London, Ky., call center company, to operate the information system, according to the audit and Luallen's staff. The company employs Rogers' son, John Rogers, as a computer systems administrator.
"John Rogers could not be reached for comment yesterday. Senture officials did not return a call seeking comment.
"Former state Transportation Secretary Maxwell Clayton Bailey, now director of state Disaster and Emergency Services, who wrote a 2004 memo requesting that the Finance Cabinet approve the contract, said in an interview that he did not recall the matter.
"I'd tell you if I could, but I have no recollection," he said.
"The New York Times reported in May that Rogers helped arrange a $4million contract in 2004 with Senture. Rogers' son told the newspaper, "It had nothing to do with who my father is."
"No-bid law too lax
"Luallen said the tourism group transaction is disturbing because the Transportation Cabinet's main reason for pushing the sole source contract was its claim that no one else could do the work.
"If you receive a sole source contract, you shouldn't be able to turn around and hand that money to another party," Luallen said.
The auditors also found it disturbing that Kentucky officials would rely solely on letters from a congressional staffer citing "congressional intent" as grounds for directing the money to a specific association.
"This is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the state's sole source procurement laws or the responsibility of state agencies to ensure state dollars are used in a fair and justified manner," the audit said."
End the no-bid contracts. No bid contracts of state money is ripping off you, it is not just ripping off taxpayers in other states. Oust the Republican rubber-stamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
"courier-journal.com > Local News
"Local News Headline: Rogers' role in tourism contract draws scrutiny (20061019)";
"UPDATED: 11:37 PM Rogers' role in tourism contract draws scrutiny Association sent money to firm employing son
"By Deborah Yetter
"dyetter@courier-journal.com
"The Courier-Journal
"U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers' office steered $2.9 million in federal money through the state to a nonprofit tourism group in his district, which then sent part of it to a company that employs the Kentucky congressman's son.
"One of Rogers' staff members is board vice president of the nonprofit group, according to a new state audit, which detailed the transaction.
"The 2004 contract — awarded through the state Transportation Cabinet — did not appear to violate any Kentucky laws, according to a 100-page report that state Auditor Crit Luallen released yesterday.
But in an interview with The Courier-Journal, Luallen said the transaction stood out among the 57 sample contracts her office reviewed.
""This one pointed out some unique problems we didn't see elsewhere," Luallen said.
"Luallen's office recommends tighter controls on all state contracts awarded to outside parties to eliminate loopholes and abuses.
"Rogers, a Somerset Republican, said in a statement yesterday that he is proud to have secured funds for projects for the 5th District in southeastern Kentucky, including $2.9million for a tourism information service.
"From what I understand, this arrangement was adequately agreed upon and reviewed by several agencies including the Finance Cabinet and Transportation Cabinet prior to release of the funds," Rogers' statement said.
"He contended past outside audits show the contract has been managed "prudently and effectively."
"Steve Ellis, an official with Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, said the contract reflects "shady dealings going on here that certainly deserve more scrutiny."
"Ellis said he's concerned that Rogers had a staff member on the board of the group that received the money and part of it ended up with a company that employs Rogers' son.
"The transaction
"According to Luallen's report, the transaction began after Rogers obtained $2million in 2002 as an "earmark" or an anonymous allocation in the federal budget.
"On Aug. 22, 2002, Rogers' district administrator, Bob Mitchell, wrote a letter to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, advising it Rogers had obtained $2million for a 511 call center to provide information to tourists.
"The "congressional intent" of the allocation was for the service to be operated by the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association, or SEKTDA, according to the letter cited in the audit.
"It said the Transportation Cabinet was to be the applicant for the funds.
"In 2003, Mitchell wrote a second letter to the Transportation Cabinet advising officials that Rogers had obtained additional funds to continue to contract with the tourism group.
"Mitchell is listed as vice president of the tourism group's executive board on the group's Web site.
"He did not return calls yesterday seeking comment.
"State awards no-bid contract
"In 2004, the Transportation Cabinet entered a "sole source" contract with the tourism group, meaning it did not seek bids because it had determined the work was specialized and another vendor would not be able to do it.
"State contract documents said the sole source contract was necessary because the tourism group was already operating the center, and another group could not open a similar one without significant start-up costs, Luallen's audit said.
"Once the $2.9million was awarded to the tourism group, it awarded a $1.2million subcontract to Senture, a London, Ky., call center company, to operate the information system, according to the audit and Luallen's staff. The company employs Rogers' son, John Rogers, as a computer systems administrator.
"John Rogers could not be reached for comment yesterday. Senture officials did not return a call seeking comment.
"Former state Transportation Secretary Maxwell Clayton Bailey, now director of state Disaster and Emergency Services, who wrote a 2004 memo requesting that the Finance Cabinet approve the contract, said in an interview that he did not recall the matter.
"I'd tell you if I could, but I have no recollection," he said.
"The New York Times reported in May that Rogers helped arrange a $4million contract in 2004 with Senture. Rogers' son told the newspaper, "It had nothing to do with who my father is."
"No-bid law too lax
"Luallen said the tourism group transaction is disturbing because the Transportation Cabinet's main reason for pushing the sole source contract was its claim that no one else could do the work.
"If you receive a sole source contract, you shouldn't be able to turn around and hand that money to another party," Luallen said.
The auditors also found it disturbing that Kentucky officials would rely solely on letters from a congressional staffer citing "congressional intent" as grounds for directing the money to a specific association.
"This is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the state's sole source procurement laws or the responsibility of state agencies to ensure state dollars are used in a fair and justified manner," the audit said."
End the no-bid contracts. No bid contracts of state money is ripping off you, it is not just ripping off taxpayers in other states. Oust the Republican rubber-stamp. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05.
More on the out of control spending supervised by Hal Rogers.
PBS Radio will have a special on the abuses in the Homeland Security Systems:
October 20, 2006 03:24 PM Eastern Time
Out-of-Control Federal Spending on Deficient Homeland Security Systems Made Headlines in the Washington Post, and AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS Chronicles the Work of the Two Reporters Who Followed the Money to Break the Story
Nice Work If You Can Get It Premieres Friday, October 27 on PBS
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--“Contracting Rush for Security Led to Waste, Abuse * * *
"Nice Work If You Can Get It premieres Friday, October 27 at 10 p.m. (ET) on PBS (check local listings). Award-winning broadcast journalist Sylvia Chase narrates. The program is produced and written by Joe Rubin. * * *
"With the audit in hand, the reporters had a virtual roadmap of abuse of the federal contracting system. It also became clear to them that Homeland Security, in its effort to meet Congress’s demand for anti-terrorism measures in the chaotic weeks after 9/11, provided little if any oversight of the projects on which it had spent millions.
"A company called Eclipse Event, Inc., for example, was contracted to provide logistics for the hiring of airport screeners. The Post reported that, according to auditors, “$15 million in expenses submitted by Eclipse could not be substantiated.” The paper also revealed that Eclipse’s owner paid herself over $5 million for nine months’ work before taking a $270,000 pension. The major global consulting firm Accenture and its subcontractors were awarded a 10-year deal worth up to $10 billion to develop “a ‘virtual border’ that would electronically screen millions of foreign travelers.” The system, the Post reported, is marred by obsolete technology and “a fingerprint system that does not use the government’s state-of-the-art biometrics standard.”
"Higham and O’Harrow arranged to meet with Michael P. Jackson, Deputy Secretary of DHS, to get the agency’s response to the allegation that it was authorizing rampant spending of tax dollars with little oversight. The Post reported that “Jackson praised government employees and said their efforts have made the country safer. But Jackson acknowledged that ‘there were problems, and significant ones,’ with some contracts.”
"The Post team also discovered a web of connections between Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY) – the powerful leader of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security – and businesses that bid for federal contracts. In one case, a company moved part of its business into Rogers’ district and was later awarded a lucrative government contract.
Funders for AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS include Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Park Foundation, The Popplestone Foundation, The Jacob Burns Foundation, The Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation, Tracy and Eric Semler, and Scripps Howard Foundation.
AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS is a production of Thirteen/WNET New York in association with the Center for Investigative Reporting. Stephen Segaller, director of news and public affairs programming at Thirteen, is executive-in-charge of AIR. Tom Casciato is executive producer; Scott Davis is senior producer."
Vote to end the abuses in Homeland Security. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-5.
October 20, 2006 03:24 PM Eastern Time
Out-of-Control Federal Spending on Deficient Homeland Security Systems Made Headlines in the Washington Post, and AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS Chronicles the Work of the Two Reporters Who Followed the Money to Break the Story
Nice Work If You Can Get It Premieres Friday, October 27 on PBS
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--“Contracting Rush for Security Led to Waste, Abuse * * *
"Nice Work If You Can Get It premieres Friday, October 27 at 10 p.m. (ET) on PBS (check local listings). Award-winning broadcast journalist Sylvia Chase narrates. The program is produced and written by Joe Rubin. * * *
"With the audit in hand, the reporters had a virtual roadmap of abuse of the federal contracting system. It also became clear to them that Homeland Security, in its effort to meet Congress’s demand for anti-terrorism measures in the chaotic weeks after 9/11, provided little if any oversight of the projects on which it had spent millions.
"A company called Eclipse Event, Inc., for example, was contracted to provide logistics for the hiring of airport screeners. The Post reported that, according to auditors, “$15 million in expenses submitted by Eclipse could not be substantiated.” The paper also revealed that Eclipse’s owner paid herself over $5 million for nine months’ work before taking a $270,000 pension. The major global consulting firm Accenture and its subcontractors were awarded a 10-year deal worth up to $10 billion to develop “a ‘virtual border’ that would electronically screen millions of foreign travelers.” The system, the Post reported, is marred by obsolete technology and “a fingerprint system that does not use the government’s state-of-the-art biometrics standard.”
"Higham and O’Harrow arranged to meet with Michael P. Jackson, Deputy Secretary of DHS, to get the agency’s response to the allegation that it was authorizing rampant spending of tax dollars with little oversight. The Post reported that “Jackson praised government employees and said their efforts have made the country safer. But Jackson acknowledged that ‘there were problems, and significant ones,’ with some contracts.”
"The Post team also discovered a web of connections between Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY) – the powerful leader of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security – and businesses that bid for federal contracts. In one case, a company moved part of its business into Rogers’ district and was later awarded a lucrative government contract.
Funders for AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS include Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Park Foundation, The Popplestone Foundation, The Jacob Burns Foundation, The Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation, Tracy and Eric Semler, and Scripps Howard Foundation.
AIR: AMERICA’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS is a production of Thirteen/WNET New York in association with the Center for Investigative Reporting. Stephen Segaller, director of news and public affairs programming at Thirteen, is executive-in-charge of AIR. Tom Casciato is executive producer; Scott Davis is senior producer."
Vote to end the abuses in Homeland Security. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House KY-5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
