Los Angeles Free Press Issue 2.07

Issue 2.07

The Editorial We

Colbertly Legal

We once wrote a joke for the LA Weekly about there being a love-in at Griffith Park that Sunday. Between the Thursday of publication and the weekend, it snowballed, and there actually WAS a love-in in Griffith Park that Sunday, we went there ourselves, a journalistic dream realized under sunny skies and calliope music from the merry-go-round.

Sometimes it actually works that way, like the Rocky Horror Show says, "Don't dream it, be it." The love-in wouldn't have happened if we hadn't lied and said it was happening, and now we are forced to conclude that Barack Obama sabotaged Stephen Colbert's presidential campaign in South Carolina because we lied the day before and said Hillary did it.

According to the New York Times:

Those lobbying against Mr. Colbert included Don Fowler, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the husband of Carol Fowler, the current chairwoman of the state party.

Mr. Fowler distributed a letter to council members saying that Mr. Colbert "seeks to make a travesty of our primary." In his letter, he raised the specter of the 2000 presidential campaign, saying that if Ralph Nader had not drained votes from Al Gore, Mr. Gore could have been president.

Might we point you can't make a travesty unless the ingredients are there.

Are we the only ones brought up to believe anyone can be president? There's no excuse for leaving ANYONE off the ballot because the position is open to ANYONE. It's not up to a committee of motivation police to judge the worthiness of your purpose. You pay your $2,5000, you get your signatures, and you're on the ballot. That's the America we want to live in. Give us more choices, not less. The politics played by the South Carolina Democratic Committee were dirty and they should all have their souls washed out with industrial strength partisan remover.

We personally want a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul or Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. With Stephen Colbert as press secretary, of course.

Take Our Poll

NEW THIS WEEK

Violations of the public trust by government agencies have always been a dime a dozen, but we think you'll be particularly disturbed by the outrageous tale of Laurie Jessop, who cured her son of cancer and got arrested for it. We thank angryscientist for reporting Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma.

Who's The Asshole of the Year? I don't know. You don't know. Paul Krassner knows.

Robin Menken was married to Country Joe back in the Woodstock days, so she's no stranger to political activism. This week she interviews filmmaker Bill Haney, who's documentary The Price of Sugar exposes the slave labor underlying the Dominican Republic's Sugar industry.

If we were Democrats, we'd vote for Dennis Kucinich, and if we were Republicans, we'd vote for Ron Paul. We've got interesting news about both from David Swanson and R.S. Janes.

Jane Stillwater's an American grandmother who's been traveling the mid-east on her own dime. She recently investigated what's happening with the most important of the Five Pillars of Islam, the Hajj, in Pilgrims' progress?: Do Iraqis feel safe enough to go on Hajj this year?

We all know the price of gas has gone up, but it's not the dollars that are important, it's the lives, as pointed out by Michael O'McCarthy in What Price A Gallon of Gas America?

Did you know Gene Autry wrote a Ten Commandments for Cowboys? Neither did we. Did you know George W. Bush has broken every single one of them? Now you know.

Lanny Swerdlow is one of the most erudite and rational marijuana activists around, and we're proud to announce the premiere of his new radio show.

COLUMNISTS: David Schoen, Lynette Sheffield, and zEN mAN.

CONTRIBUTORS: BartCop Entertainment, Justin Bilicki, Dave Brice, William J. Brink, The Creative Commons, Barry Crimmins, Jeff Crook, Cory Doctorow, Janis R. England, Daniel Ellsberg, Thomas Good, John Kapelos, Paul Krassner, Art Kunkin, Ira Miller, Ironic Times, mizzima.com, oldamericancentury.org, Michael O'McCarthy, Tony Ortega, Sam Pizzigati, Pravda, Baron Dave Romm, Satan, David Swanson, tbhpolitoon, wrapped-in-the-flag.com.

All copyrights reserved by original writers or artists.

Michael Dare
michael@dareland.com

Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma

Crystal, Chad, and Laurie Jessop

An unholy alliance of California Child Protective Services (CPS) with a hostile doctor and judge is attempting to railroad Laurie Jessop, framed as a threat to her son and the establishment for finding a way to cure him of malignant melanoma. She is now on trial, under a gag order, since she had gone to the press. When she was arrested, she was put in maximum security, solitary confinement, in the Orange County, CA jail. They claim that everything about. her says anti-Establishment, so she was told, as she was considered a threat in starting a riot.

On the morning of Sept. 12, Gary Null read on KPFK, a Pacifica station in Los Angeles, an e-mail from Ron Miller, who had met Ms. Jessop at the Cancer Control Society annual convention during the Labor Day weekend. They had discussed this persecution by Big Brother in the guise of saving her son from this evil mother who has failed to protect him! She disobeyed doctors orders and found a natural way to cure her son. These forces arrayed against her and insisted he must have the cancer removed surgically and attacked with the standard chemical fare. The cancer is gone, but nobody in authority will accept that because her doctor doesn't believe that's possible.

The initial biopsy of the mole was done in February. Their regular doctor was on leave when test results came in. A nurse informed them of the bad news. On May 8, Chad Jessop had a follow up appointment with a medical group doctor, by the name of Dr. Masciana, who insisted he needed surgery to excise the site within a week, or he could die any day now! This doctor is a general practitioner, not an oncologist or qualified to do cancer diagnosis or surgery. Chad and his mom decided to pursue holistic treatment for him. Incensed, the doctor reported her to Child Protective Services on the grounds of gross negligent child endangerment. She yelled at Laurie all of you Jehovah's Witnesses are all the same, never mind Laurie and Chad are not Jehovah's witnesses. Dr. Masciana also told Laurie, with her son present, that his death was imminent. At the close of the appointment, Dr. Masciana informed Laurie that she was referring the case to Social Services. In further investigation, Child Protective Social Services is a misnamed government agency whose employees get paid bonuses every time they take children away from their parents.

That evening Laurie called an attorney who advised her that she had 48 hours or less before Social Services showed up. If she could not prove she was following doctors orders, they'd take her son. Since Dr. Masciana had created such a traumatic experience for Chad, he feared the doctors and threatened to run away. In honoring Chad's wishes for continued holistic care, Laurie took her son to San Diego to continue holistic care using a number of various alternative treatments such as: ozone, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, hydrogen peroxide, energy work, Rife, nutritional supplements, and deep emotional work. Laurie also used black salve that she purchased from Canada to remove the mole tissue. Black salve was developed by Native American Indians more than 200 years ago, and used in the treatment of skin lesions, cancers, warts, and moles. Figures our FDA banned it, because it works.

When Chad insisted on hitting the road to continue alternative therapies and getting further diagnostics, that left a question as to where Laurie's daughter Crystal would go. A close friend of the family and Crystals best friend agreed, and this felt like a perfect fit under the circumstances, so Laurie legally signed Crystal over to the family and gave them all the necessary medical insurance information. On May 22, the local sheriff and CPS had taken her daughter out of class, interrogating her mercilessly, telling her lies about her mother, trying to force her to reveal where Laurie and Chad had gone, and then forced her to go on a police joy ride and show them where they reside. All of this was done against her will and carried on for six hours!

Children's Protective Services

They applied Black Salve directly to the area in question, thus giving Chad a holistic version of a large border excision. It took about two and a half weeks for the wound to heal. When it was healed Laurie took Chad to a Del Mar dermatologist for a biopsy. The test results were negative of any signs of melanoma! The next two weeks were concentrated on once again healing the tissue to get another biopsy. Upon the wound site being healed, a melanoma specialist did a punch biopsy and a complete lab analysis on Friday, June 15. Again, no sign of cancer could be found in the biopsy and the blood work was in healthy ranges with no distinguishing markers that would otherwise be present in a patient that would have advanced stage four melanoma, as had been previously reported! Was it a miracle, or an activated immune system in a healthy young man, with some useful help, that healed the melanoma?

The following Monday, June 18th, Laurie and Chad turned themselves in to the San Diego Social Services office, with all of their documentation. They were detained for 4 hours, then told that arrest warrants for Laurie and Chad were issued from Orange County. Chad was locked up at the Palenskie Center in San Diego for one night. He had 2 guards watching him around the clock, since he was considered a flight risk. When Laurie went to visit Chad they could not have any privacy, as both guards listened to every word that was said. Laurie spent over nine thousand bucks in San Diego for the treatments done over the five week period of time, and has all the receipts as proof. A new social worker, David Harper, was put on the case. He picked Chad up in San Diego transporting him to Orangewood Children's Home in Orange County for the next two weeks, where he got fed spaghetti and meat balls, food not fitting one healing from cancer. One aspect of Chad's treatment was a healthy diet of living foods, but Ms. Jessup's requests of this social worker that Chad get proper food fell on deaf ears. He did tell her she was allowed to see her daughter graduate from Junior High School. She told him nobody could keep her away without a court order, and that she would be there! The social worker informed Laurie that he completed the paper work to lift the warrant order on her.

After her daughters graduation, on June 21st Laurie went to make academic arrangements for her son, having missed five weeks of school. Laurie showed the documentation to the principal and vice principal. The Vice Principal knew Chad well, as Chad did his Eagle Scout project for him at the high school. Chad is now an advanced Eagle Scout. No matter, the VP called police to arrest Laurie at the school and haul her off to the county jail. The arresting deputy harassed her. When Laurie protested, the officer told her she didn't have to like her or be nice to her. After arriving at the county jail, her first telephone call had been to the social worker, David Harper, although he did nothing to get her out of jail, nor was he willing to help correct the record. Laurie was physically abused, they spread her legs twisting her knee, when she complained they called out "Resisting...Resisting" then they pushed her violently to a cell wall (behind the cameras) causing her to twist her neck, shoulder and arm. After being worked over, they took away her jacket, shoes, socks, and toilet paper, and locked her up. Her holding cell was extremely cold and she was deliberately denied toilet paper. She asked for toilet paper, only to be answered it must have been taken for good reason and she was not getting any. She was denied toilet paper from approximately 3:30pm until 11:00pm. One has to wonder, what was she going to do with the toilet paper, hang herself? By 11:00 pm Laurie got taken to be assessed. She asked is this a madhouse run by animals, who is running this place? Laurie told this officer her story for half an hour. He let her talk, then said he sees all kinds of characters, his job is to ascertain threats. He told her she has the fire, the spirit and the power to overturn the system and create a riot. He informed her shed be put in solitary confinement, but she might get a roommate, probably a drug offender. She was forced to take a chest X-ray against her will, without any explanation and ridicule from the officers. Laurie and her two children have never been in any type of trouble with the law, but were treated like hardened criminals. She was shocked to learn women taking showers have no privacy, that male guards are watching. The next night she got a 58-year old roommate charged with kidnapping her children from her husband 20 years ago, after being extradited from Tennessee on outdated bogus charges tagged with 200 thousand bail. It would appear that Orange County is desperately trying to maintain job security at the expense of the innocent!

The Judge

Laurie was released on the streets of Santa Ana after midnight, in an unsafe area of Southern California for a woman, after five days of incarceration. Upon Laurie's arrest, officers impounded her van and turned it upside down looking for drugs. She had to pay over 300 dollars in impound fees to get the van back.

Social Services approved the foster families that Laurie had arranged for Chad and Crystal. Now Laurie is on trial, forbidden to speak under a gag order, by the very judge that had issued the bench warrant for her arrest, because she refused to go along with orthodox medicine. The dermatologist, appointed by Social Services, testified in court that the melanoma is playing hide and go seek, that they'd have to subject Chad to unnecessary and dangerous further biopsies and medical procedures to find where it migrated to. The dermatologist further stated that the melanoma had become even more deadly, claiming it has now traveled to different organs. The prescription for surgery is a large border excision to the skullbone. Chad says he is old enough to defend this country's freedoms, but he is denied that same freedom of choice when it comes to his own health and he is also under gag order. Ms. Jessop intends to sue anyone who touches her son against their wishes. All Chad's blood tests are consistent with a healthy 17 year old 6'2" young man. They refuse to tolerate anyone trying to clear their conscience at his expense. Laurie says her record stands, she will not back down, and she wants parents to know they do not have to be intimidated by this system! The judge has stated twice that she doesn't want Chad to die while she is on the bench; which sounds like she has bias in the case! Surgery and chemotherapy had been intended for the following week. The doctor is still of the mind Chad could die any day now. When giving testimony, the dermatologist was asked if he could perform surgery on Chad, knowing that Chad would not cooperate with any Western medical butchery. His answer was emphatic No, he could not perform an operation on anyone against their will.

What Big Brother has been doing to Ms. Jessop and her children is unconscionable, beyond outrageous, a gross miscarriage of justice and an abuse of authority. Many families have been torn apart by lesser abuses of CPS and modern medicine. The Jessop family is very united and strong in their convictions, very aware of their constitutional rights, and will not give up to our corrupt system. Being a single parent for the last 11 years, Laurie has done herself proud raising her children and is extremely close to both of them. Laurie and her children have stood the test and this hellish ordeal has brought them closer together as a family. She said at the press conference, I am a mama bear and no one is messing with my cubs!

The Husband

Laurie's deadbeat ex-husband, Marcus, has never voluntarily paid for child support or any of the children's medical bills, even though he is legally bound to pay for half according to their divorce agreement. She has had to drag him into court to get a judgment and garnish his wages in order to collect on past due medical bills. It so happens Marcus is in agreement with the state, he wants his son, (having had no contact for the last 10 years) to be butchered and drugged to eliminate this incredible cancer, that refuses to carry out its death sentence and is too clever to show up on tests. Marcus is in court with his own public defender, pushing for this even though he has no legal or physical custody, not even any visitation rights. If he was in agreement with Laurie's medical beliefs, this court probably wouldn't allow him in the courtroom. Our tax dollars, hard at work!

In the state of Virginia, a brilliant 17 year old young man went through a very similar ordeal, but won his battle with CPS. Once his case was over, he was instrumental in passing a new law in the state of Virginia. Abrahams Law, that gives a minor the right to make their own medical decisions when they are bright and understand their choices. Laurie wants to get her story out and push through a similar bill in California, called Chad's Law, so that other families do not have to go through the abusive nature of a department that is supposed to be protecting our children. As Roy of Hollywood stated on KPFK recently, who is protecting us from the Child Protective Social Services Department? Pushing through a bill like this may be very expensive, but once Laurie makes up her mind that she is doing something, she is all steel, determined, and will persevere to find a way to make this happen. If you can help her in any way, please contact me via e-mail.

The AMA

Orthodox medicine is unwilling to admit it does not know everything, and it hates competition. Its methods of treating cancer are not the only ways that can work. Ms. Jessop believed she could find another way, and her son, given a diagnosis of imminent death, is now free of cancer. Never mind, the doctor is sure it's still there, so Big Brother intends to make an example of her as an unfit mother for disobeying her doctor, putting her son in mortal danger. That's not happening, but truth often doesn't matter to Big Brother, as is apparent in most government policy. If Chad were actually endangered by not getting conventional treatment, the authorities might have a leg to stand on, but in this case, it's not his mother putting him in jeopardy, its the system! The doctor has egg on her face, because she was sure Chad would die quickly without aggressive conventional treatment, and she has been proven wrong! Instead of learning from her error, she wants to make Ms. Jessop and her son pay for showing her up!

I'm helping her get her story out. One newspaper did a story, but in general, very little has been reported so far. I tried to find the story online, but no luck. A press conference was held on Sept. 6th, just before court. Two of the major TV news stations and one of the largest AM radio all news stations showed up. KFWB radio ran the story immediately that day. As soon as court started the judge announced that there was a gag order on this case and threatened jail time and contempt of court to anyone (including the minor in question), that spoke to the press or anyone else for that matter. One of the TV news stations didn't want to run the story without interviewing Chad and getting his viewpoints. The judge denied a continuance six different times, ignoring all six times valid reasons for the requests. The judge also denied Laurie the right to hire her own attorney! She retained a law firm with her own money, but the judge insisted she has to keep her Public Defender, presumably as a public servant easier to control than a private attorney not so dependent on the system.

If anyone reading this wants to help get the story out, feel free to blog away. I could give out phone numbers for Ms. Jessop or Mr. Miller if you send me a note at alexwren@pacbell.net This blog is angryscientist.wordpress.com. Laurie can't risk violating the gag order, but she'd appreciate your prayers and support in her very difficult time of fighting our corrupt system in order to keep her family together. Thanks for taking the time to read this long story. Now that you know what sort of injustice masquerades as protecting children, you can do something to help wake up sleepwalking friends and neighbors, trusting The System to know what's best for the children, and adults too.

- angryscientist -

LATEST: The day after this article appeared in the Free Press, Laurie Jessop and Ron Miller started a non-profit organization called CHAD (Choosing Health Alternatives Deliberately) to help cover legal expenses and for reform of the California legal system. It's Laurie's aim to pass a bill in California similar to Abraham's Law in Virginia.

Send tax deductible donation to:

CHAD Foundation
c/o Laurie Jessop
P.O. Box 808
Lake Forest, CA. 92609

Asshole of the Year

by Paul Krassner

It’s Tim Russert. The moment he said to Dennis Kucinich at a “debate” among Democratic presidential candidates, “This is a serious question,” you knew it wouldn’t be. A responsible journalist might have asked, “Why do think that Dick Cheney should be impeached rather than George Bush?” But Russert wanted to further marginalize Kucinich--to ridicule him in a flying saucer kind of way - and, like a trial lawyer who already knows what a defendant’s answer will be - his “serious question” was “Did you see a UFO?”

Kucinich tried to explain that the U in UFO means “unidentified” flying object. He joked, “I’m moving my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico and Exeter, New Hampshire.” He pointed out that Jimmy Carter had seen a UFO, and “More people...” Russert interrupted him with a statistic: 14% of Americans had seen UFOs. Kucinich asked him to repeat that number, as if to thank him for inadvertently providing him with the UFO sighters vote. Russert repeated the number and, with the smug satisfaction of having generated a guaranteed sound bite, he said, “I want to ask Senator Obama...”

There was a predictable trickle-down effect. Even Bill Maher mocked Kucinich, though Maher’s real target should’ve been Russert. A few days later, I met a woman who asked me who my ideal candidate is. “Dennis Kucinich,” I said. She responded, “Isn’t he the one who said he saw some Martians?” Of course, there’s a video of that encounter in the secret government implied-blackmail lock-box, along with the video of a threesome - Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and a billy goat - and the video of Rudy Guliani performing an abortion on Pat Robertson’s mistress.

Ironically, Russert’s co-moderator, Brian Williams - in his capacity as host of Saturday Night Live - referred to the mainstream media’s proactive assumption that Hillary Clinton will win in the primaries and then in the general election. Fundraising is the name of that particular political game, because the candidates with the most money will buy the most TV commercials and print ads. Tim Russert gives a claymation face to that open conspiracy. And in the process, that old saying and song, “There’s no business like show business,” lands in the outdated metaphors graveyard. There is indeed a business like show business. It’s the news.

Kucinich's Resolution Timetable

by David Swanson

Eighty-six Congress Members showed a level of support for impeachment today by voting against tabling Congressman Kucinich's resolution. That indicates the strength of constituent pressure in opposition to the leadership's position. The resolution is back in the same committee but with more momentum now. The media is more aware. The public is more aware. Congressman Kucinich is fired up and ready to introduce new resolutions on both Cheney and Bush. Congress heard from the public in massive numbers - the phones on the hill were jammed. And the public is energized. The intense lobbying that a day like this one inspires may combine with the polling results to begin to open the Democratic leadership's eyes to the electoral danger of not backing impeachment. I think we should urge all the talk shows to give the Republicans the impeachment debate they wanted.

4:41 The motion to send it to the Judiciary Committee passed with only about 5 Dems voting No and 3 Republicans voting Yes.

Presumably the 86 Dems who voted No on tabling believed that to be enough to appease their constituents, while 5 Dems actually had integrity enough to put the Constitution ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer. There was no discussion of a time limit for the Judiciary Committee to report back (even though there are precedents for insisting on one with impeachment resolutions). This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.

You'd think if offense (rather than defense) ever entered Pelosi and Hoyer's heads, they'd want to put an hour of Cheney-bashing debate on TV. But they want at all costs to avoid impeachment, and you can't debate the substance of the charges against Cheney without making an obvious case for impeachment.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Towns.

4:19 p.m. There is now a 5-min vote underway on whether to refer to the House Judiciary Committee.

4:18 p.m. The procedural vote passed just barely (218-194). Of the 218, 3 were Republicans.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Watson.

4:14 p.m. The motion to table having failed, Hoyer moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Kucinich tried to avoid that and get a vote on the resolution, but - unable to do that - asked for a vote on the decision to refer to committee. Hoyer withdrew his motion and then unwithdrew his motion. Boehner asked for 40 minutes of debate. Serrano as chair seemed clueless for a while, and then ordered a procedural vote on whether to vote on sending to committee. If this new 15-min vote passes, then they will vote on whether to send to committee.

4:02 p.m. Over an hour into this 15 min vote, 78 Dems are voting Nay on tabling, joined by 164 Republicans in an apparent stunt to surprise the Dems and bring the issue to the floor -- which the Republicans will regret if the Democrats actually debate it and debate it well (admittedly a remote possibility). They will say over and over and over that this has divided the Democrats. Not outside the Beltway it hasn't. Over 3/4 of Dems want Cheney impeached.

Currently 142 Dems to table, 78 not to [or was it 84??], 13 not voting; 28 Repubs to table, 164 not to, and 9 not voting. Most of the Republicans switched their votes, and for some reason the leadership kept the vote open for over an hour, allowing them to do so. No doubt the Republicans want to get the Dem leaders on tape on the floor defending Cheney against impeachment. But how smart is it of them to allow the topic to gain attention? The evidence, after all, is overwhelming that Cheney has committed impeachable offenses.

Roll call. It turns out 86 Democrats voted the right way:

Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Baldwin, Braley (IA), Capps, Capuano, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Green, Al; Green, Gene; Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, Meeks (NY), Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price (NC), Rangel, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Schakowsky, Scott (VA), Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Watt, Weiner, Welch (VT), Wexler, Woolsey, Wu, Wynn

There's a lot of overlap between the above list and the list of cosponsors in 2005 of H Res 635. These are congress members with medium grade willingness to put their constituents ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer.

As Linda Boyd points out, several members of the Judiciary Committee who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Conyers, Scott, Watt, Wexler, Gutierrez, Sherman, Weiner, Davis.

And 65 Democrats who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Braley, Capps, Capuano, CONYERS, Crowley, Cummings, DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Al Green, Gene, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kapptur, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney, mcCollum, Meeks, Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price, Rangel, RICHARDSON, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Scott, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, thompson, Tierney, Towns, Valazquez, Watt, Weiner, Welch, Wexler, Wu.

2:54 p.m. Hoyer moves to table.

Kucinich asks for Yays and Nays.
15 minute recorded vote begins.
C-Span quotes sentence from Tribune with lie about impeachment dividing the Dems' base.
C-Span brings on Sabrina Eaton from the Plain Dealer to talk some more trash.

Reprinted with permission from afterdowningstreet.org.

Media Bias and Ron Paul

by R.S. Janes

MSNBC reported on Nov. 6, 2007, that Ron Paul raised $4.2 million in a one day, breaking the single-day fundraising record of any Republican presidential candidate, including Ronald Reagan. This hardly makes Paul a candidate who can be easily dismissed by the Big Media, yet the attempts to do so have been as obvious as they are rancorous. Here is a brief sketch of just such an attempt by NBC cable outlet CNBC:
As small potatoes as this is, it reflects the larger corporate media bias against any candidate they haven't anointed as acceptable. Whatever flaws Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) may have, he is the only GOP candidate for president who embodies classic Goldwater libertarian conservativism, as opposed to the other Republican candidates who are all committed, in varying degrees, to the prevailing Bush neoconservative 'Unitary Executive' ideology. Paul is sadly unique in this group in that he actually cites the US Constitution the other Republican candidates routinely ignore, especially in the area of making war and defending individual civil liberties. As a commenter at Common Dreams [1] recently noted, a President Ron Paul would end three of our most needless and wasteful wars, that being the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Drugs, and honor his oath of office to protect and uphold the rights of the individual against the excesses of a bloated and intrusive government, as required by the Constitution.

Even though I'm cognizant of the many issues on which Paul and I disagree -- abortion rights and universal health care being just two -- and I'm not likely to vote for him in the general election, I think it's appalling that he has been discounted and all but ignored by the Big Media while I encounter people regularly who agree wholeheartedly with his brand of classic conservatism.

Following the recent Republican debate on economic policy in Dearborn, Michigan, CNBC ran a flash poll where Ron Paul was named the winner with 75 percent of the vote. As CNBC Managing Editor Allan Wastler wrote in his patronizing "An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful," the poll was taken down because Wastler hadn't "seen him pull those kind of numbers in any 'legit' poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

Just a brief note about those 'legit' polls: Most of them are phone polls and their methods haven't changed since the 1950s; they depend for accuracy upon receiving a good representative cross-section of respondents who will answer the caller's questions honestly.

In the '50s, in a more 'innocent' technological era, most people in this country had one land-line phone in the house, answered their calls, and were happy to give their opinions to Gallup or Harris. Today, however, the world has changed: many Americans, especially younger voters, have cell phones that are unreachable by pollsters; most have voice mail, and many screen their calls; moreover, 21st century Americans are much less likely to answer questions over the phone than were their parents and grandparents. Fifty years ago it might have been considered somewhat rude not to respond; today, that's not the case.

And herein lies the dirty little secret of the current polling industry, and why today's 'legit' polls are a less than reliable gauge of what Americans are thinking and for whom they plan to vote: The people answering the pollsters these days tend to be older, retired, white, and more conservative than the majority. They are willing to hang on the phone and answer questions, which means they aren't very busy, contrary to the way most Americans live today, and they are inclined to pick a 'name brand' they recognize -- why do you think Clinton and Giuliani are doing as well as they are in the current polls? Those responding to pollsters in this frenetic age also tend to be less well-educated than average and, frankly, dumber, particularly when it comes to the web and email. (Their profound ignorance in this area rivals managing editors at certain cable news channels.)

Meanwhile, as did Howard Dean in 2004, Ron Paul is exploding all over the Internet, collecting nearly as much money from his website as Mitt Romney is from conventional contributors, and attracting people who buy and use the latest technology and are beyond the reach of the phone pollsters. The Paul supporters are generally smart, well-educated people with higher than average incomes in the 18-34 age group most coveted by advertisers. It isn't the old land-line fogies who are purchasing the latest wireless laptops, iPhones, DVDs, and video game systems -- those crustaceans are still trying to figure out how to set the clock on their VCR.

In his letter, Wastler fumed, "Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed 'few' can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of 'the many,' I get a little worried. I'd take it down again."

Paul got 7,000 votes in a small-bore poll -- that's a 'few'? Why couldn't his better-funded competitors for the GOP nomination with much larger national organizations come up with more votes to counter Paul's 'few,' and why has Wastler appointed himself as protector of the interests of the leading candidates according to the results of the flawed 'legit' polls?

Does this mean that any of these 'unscientific' instant polls the media are addicted to running can be edited to reflect what a managing editor thinks they should say? That's hardly being fair to the viewer or the stated reason for conducting the poll. Wastler compares his CNBC poll to a roomful of people being asked for a show of hands, "In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question."

Paul's supporters raised their cyber hands and the backers of the other candidates did not, but Wastler had to step out of the room to consult other polls and then decided not to allow their hands to be counted. Apparently it never occurred to Wastler that this might be a indication of the lethargy of the public for the top of the GOP field, or that more Paul supporters happened to watch the debate than supporters of the other candidates.

Whatever Wastler's motives or politics, by removing the poll entirely he invites suspicion -- why didn't he simply post his concerns but leave the results of the poll up?

If you feel motivated by this blatant, albeit relatively petty, example of censorship, email Allen Wastler, Managing Editor, CNBC.com, at politicalcapital@cnbc.com to object. Also send a CC to Wastler's boss, CNBC President Mark Hoffman to mark.hoffman@cnbc.com and info@cnbc.com.

Read the complete text of Wastler's letter here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Kucinich Offering Articles of Impeachment Against
Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Pilgrims' progress?: Do Iraqis feel safe enough to go on Hajj this year?

By Jane Stillwater

When I was in Iraq last month, I came up with this brilliant idea for determining a barometer of just how stable the situation in Iraq is by checking out how many people actually felt safe and comfortable enough to attempt to go on Hajj this year.

For those of you who are asking yourselves, "What in the world is Hajj?" it is a holy pilgrimage to the city of Mecca at a certain time each year wherein perspective Hajjis follow the footsteps of the Prophet (PBUH) by circling around the Kaabah, spending a day on the Plain of Arafat, spending a night at Muzdalifah, camping out at Mina and throwing stones at the devil at the Jammarat. To be considered a Hajji or a Hajja, one has to complete all these tasks during a specific time in the twelfth month of the Islamic calendar. Completing Hajj is one of the five sacred requirements of Islam. This year's Hajj, if I have interpreted Google correctly, is scheduled to take place between approximately December 8 and December 29, 2007.

Two years ago, there were hardly any Iraqis going on Hajj. According to one Iraqi Hajja I talked with, "Iraq at that time was a nightmare. We couldn't even leave our houses - let alone go all the way to Mecca. When I went that year, there were very few other Iraqis on Hajj. It just wasn't safe."

Last year, Hajjis from Iraq had a really hard time of it too. According to Reuters, "Gunmen opened fire on two buses of Iraqi pilgrims returning to the Shi'ite city of Kerbala from the haj at Mecca in neighboring Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, killing 11 and wounding 14, officials said. The governor of the mainly Shi'ite province of Kerbala, Aqeel al-Khazali, blamed the apparently sectarian attack in the Nukhaib district of mainly Sunni Anbar province on 'false' reports on Tuesday by Sunni community leaders that returning Sunni pilgrims had been kidnapped in the desert." Going on Hajj was still a pretty iffy proposition last year.

But what about this year? Did Iraqis think it might be safe enough now to give it a try? I asked around - and opened a whole new can of worms!

The first people I asked were the neighbors of an Iraqi police lieutenant whose home had been destroyed by a suicide bomber. "We can't go on Hajj! We are just poor farmers and do not have any money. We can barely feed our families as it is. But even if we did have the money, we would give it to the lieutenant's family to help them have something to live on instead." Can they do that? Apparently they can. Later on, someone told me that giving the same amout of money to charity as it would take you to go on Hajj is an acceptable substitute to fulfill one's Hajj obligation when going on Hajj presents too difficult a challenge. And apparently these people had a whole BUNCH of challenges. Poverty, danger, grief. God was obviously going to write a note giving them an excuse on this one!

Another Iraqi said that he just wasn't all that religious. "I'd rather go to Baghdad - or America." America as the new Mecca? Not! The guy obviously hasn't been there lately. He would probably end up working at a McDonalds doing double-shifts-plus in order to be able to come up with the rent for an apartment in East Oakland that he would still have to share with ten other guys.

The next person I asked about Hajj clarified things for me even more. "Jane, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world," he told me, "and if all of them descended on Mecca at one time - even if only the adults came - it would be chaos." I could see his point. The whole country would probably start to tilt to the west. There are already three to five million pilgrims arriving there each year as it is now.

"So the Saudi government is forced to limit the amount of visas it issues to each country, based on their population. I think the amount is 10%. So America is issued visas for 10% of its population - so that every American Muslim has a solid chance of going on Hajj. But for we Iraqis? 10% is not very much, considering maybe 60% of the population would like to go. So. A visa to Mecca is a very important commodity."

"So how does the government of Iraq decide on how to give the visas out?"

"Theoretically, they are supposed to only be distributed to people over 50 years of age -- assuming that the younger Muslims will have a chance to go later, when they are older. But in actuality, Jane, most of the visas are given to Shias. We Sunnis don't really stand a chance. My father has applied for a visa every year for the last five years and he's got nothing. If you are connected, you get a visa. If you aren't, you don't."

"But what exactly happens next, once you DO get a visa? How do you get there? Is it safe?"

"Once you get your visa, you go to a travel agency and buy a package tour. Most tours get there by air. There are a few buses across the desert but most pilgrims prefer to fly. But there again you have the same problem. Most travel agencies are run by Shia." Hummm....

Then I interviewed the Lion of Al Ambar, my favorite go-to guy. "To me," he said, "it doesn't matter if we are Sunnis or Shia. We are all Iraqis. And that is the most important thing to me. We must all work hard to restore the rule of law to Iraq."

And finally, last but not least, I heard from one man who had already been on Hajj -- and he was truly outspoken. He did NOT mince words. "9-11 was done by the American government but Saudis were accused of it and Afghanis, Iraqis and all Muslims are being punished for it.," he stated emphatically. "Two countries and two peoples have been destroyed and the freedom of all Muslims have been curtailed even in their own homes for 9-11, a crime America has committed and it's been blamed on the Muslims. Yet all the guilt the 'good people' see is the loss of American boys and girls and the loss of the American tax money. Hey, you do not need Ahmadinejad to make Americans afraid. If you really are worried about another 9-11 happening, all you need is to make the American government feel that the American public is waking up or there is a slim chance that could it could happen; then the government will do it again to keep them busy enough not to think about the government crimes inside and outside the USA! So please stop trying to waken the Americans. Let them keep hating everybody for crimes that they, the Americans themselves, have committed. They are not all that naive or stupid, but they enjoy thinking that they are superior and hating the others for being their victims. At any rate, please stop trying to wake them up and save us, the Muslims, the pain of yet another crime or set of crimes against us for no wrong we did other than having oil and being Muslims. Please, Jane, please!"

Whew. That's a tall order. Maybe we could start by making every candidate in the 2008 presidential race and all members of Congress go on Hajj this year so that they could get more insights about Islam and how the vast majority of Muslims are upright and moral; people you would be proud to know; definitely not terrorists. I can see it all now - Jeb Bush and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, all camping out at Mina and throwing stones at the devil. Works for me. But I digress.

Getting back to my original question, "Do Iraqis finally feel safe enough to go on Hajj this year?" I wish I could offer a more concrete answer but my core sample just wasn't adequate enough to clearly say yes or no. But I did learn that many Iraqis are worried about corruption as an issue, that the poverty level in rural Iraq is high and that many Iraqis seem to have other things to worry about rather than Hajj right now - clean water, functioning schools, sewage treatment, rebuilding their communities, etc. But it still will be interesting to see how this year's Hajj journey plays out in Iraq.

And perhaps the Saudis could make an exception to their visa limitations and issue more visas to Iraqis, especially Sunnis. God knows that Iraq can use all the help it can get.

What Price A Gallon of Gas America?

by Michael O'McCarthy

The time has come America: What Price for that gallon of gas?

Three Dollars? Three thirty five? Four? How much?

The Private First Class was in her first tour of duty. She was 23. The IED tore off her right leg. H doubts she will ever dance again. Her favorite thing was dancing.