MaxedOutMama

Before I quit eBay I made some fine purchases. These are among my best:

A vintage 1965 Airstream travel trailer in mint condition with all original interior, including pink Formica counter tops. She lived her entire life parked in Estes , CO until I got her on a Buy It Now listing that started at 2:38 AM. Having never even considered a travel trailer and with no knowledge of them whatsoever, I bought her at 2:39 AM for 4800.00 because the price seemed right (It was; I've since been offered 11,000. and up). At 2:42 AM I went back to bed and the next morning I thought I had dreamed that I bought an Airstream. This was during the phase where I was having blackouts. Imagine my horror when I read that the buyer had to retrieve her from Estes Park, cash in hand, within 7 days.

75 million years ago, Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as Teegeeack. The planets were overpopulated, each having on average 178 billion people. The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with people "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth.

Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions of people to paralyse them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections."

In the latest riot on Sunday, in the poor eastern province of Anhui, armed police who tried to quell the disturbance were driven back by rocks and firecrackers. Later, power to the police station was cut and fireworks thrown inside.

Protests are becoming increasingly common in China, fuelled by corruption and a growing gap between rich and poor, but such brazen attacks on authority are bound to worry a leadership bent on maintaining stability in the vast country of 1.3 billion.

In another riot in the western municipality of Chongqing last October, thousands took to the streets burning police cars and looting government buildings after a man passed himself off as an official during a quarrel between residents, enraging bystanders with the attempted abuse of power.

“People are always ‘unidentified bad persons.’ Marches are always ‘illegal assemblies.’ Troubles are always created by ‘persons with ulterior motives.’ The governing authorities are always ‘glorious and correct.’ ”

“In this oppressive society, there are rarely courageous revolutionary heroes. In the end, who is always hiding the truth or even manipulating the truth?”

“Mobs are created by tyranny.”

“Dictatorship is just like a person sitting on the volcano, it may have been dozens of years, but when it erupts, it will eliminate all the sin and evil on this planet, and give everyone justice!”

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

KS: I gave a presentation yesterday in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, in Jane Christiansen’s class. She is a political science professor at North Carolina Wesleyan College. She is the only professor I’m aware of, I’m sure there are others out there, but she’s the one that’s been out front, kind of like you and I have, John. She teaching a class in political science on 9/11.

JS: And using Alex Jones’ tapes and DVDs and other collected information. By the way, Robbie Noel is going to have this woman on his program next Wednesday. So you are not going to want to miss that. And here is the case and this issue, Karl, really cuts across political lines. You know we’ve had people that were, they think the best approach to this is to invite the liberal mindset into the conservative camp. And I’m not going to tag the conservative thought process connected to the Republican Party. Folks, I’m not that stupid. Nor am I willing to throw my hat into the ring with the now, I think, taken over Libertarian Party. No, I’m a free and independent thinking American – as well as everybody should be. But this woman was a dyed in the wool, self-professed liberal, who looked at this information and was absolutely aghast. And she is now, as you said, teaching her class using materials that our groups have produced. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. Jun Li is currently Vice Dean of the School of Information Science and Technology at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He is also President and CEO of Tsinghua Unisplendour (USA) Co. Ltd. in Fremont, California, where he has worked since 2001. In addition, Mr. Li is a Co-founder and Managing Director of Versatile Venture Capital I and II in Fremont California, where he has worked since 2000. From 2001 to April 2003 he held various positions, including General Manager, at ServGate Technologies, Inc. a company that he co-founded in 1999. Dr. Li holds a PhD degree in Computer Science from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and MS and BS degrees in Control and Information from Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Mr. Nesti is currently Director of Technical Evaluation for Paradigm Ventures, LLC where he has consulted since January 2002. Paradigm Ventures, LLC is part of the Paradigm Group, which has invested significantly in XML Global in the last year. Before joining Paradigm Group, Mr. Nesti worked at Autonomy, Inc., as Technical Consultant and Trainer from January 2002 until January 2003. From 2000 until 2001, he worked as an Executive in Technology and Services for Brience, Inc. From 1999 until 2000 he worked for Click-n-Done, LLC, as Chief Technology Officer. Mr. Nesti worked at Inverse Network Technology/Visual Networks as Vice President Technology Services from 1998 until 1999. Mr. Nesti holds a Masters Degree (MS) in Information Technology from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Illinois.

As previously reported, XML Global's independent auditor's report
stated that XML's consolidated financial statements for the year
ending June 30, 2002 have been prepared assuming that the Company
will continue as a going concern. However, the Company has
incurred losses since inception and has an accumulated deficit.
These conditions raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern.

It has incurred costs to design, develop and implement search
engine and electronic commerce applications and to grow its
business. As a result, it has incurred operating losses and
negative cash flows from operations in each quarter since
commencing operations. As of September 30, 2002 the Company had an
accumulated deficit of $12,860,900.

At September 30, 2002 XML's cash funds are insufficient to fund
operations through the end of fiscal 2003 based on historical
operating performance. In order for the Company to maintain its
operations it will have to seek additional funding, generate
additional sales or reduce its operating expenses, or some
combination of these. At current and planned expenditure rates,
taking into consideration cash received from the first part of the
Paradigm financing, current reserves are sufficient to fund
operations only through December 2002.

Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street Journal,
about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in studies by Dr. Michael Mann and
co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We understand that these
studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.) formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding – that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” – has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of the public debate surrounding climate change policy.

However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature histories – and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented – cannot besupported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14 Journal and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according to the January 2005 Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies has not een made fully available to researchers upon request.

The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of federally funded research and of the IPCC review process – two matters of particular interest to the Committee. For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently robust and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the studies in question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported this very same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors to the same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent use of this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data quality of key IPCC studies.

In light of the Committee’s jurisdiction over energy policy and certain environmental issues in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee must have full and accurate information when considering matters relating to climate change policy. We open this review because the dispute surrounding these studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of analyses used to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to produce a fourth assessment report, addressing questions of quality and transparency in the underlying analyses supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost importance if Congress is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing from this work.

To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or before July 11, 2005:

1. Explain the IPCC process for preparing and writing its assessment reports, including, but not limited to: (a) how referenced studies are reviewed and assessed by the relevant Working Group; (b) the steps taken by lead authors, reviewers, and others to ensure the data underlying the studies forming the basis for key findings – particularly proxy and temperature data – are accurate and up to date; and (c) the IPCC requirements governing the quality of data used in reports.

2. What specifically did IPCC do to check the quality of the Mann et. al. studies and underlying data, cited in the TAR? Did IPCC seek to ensure the studies could be replicated?

3. What is your position with regard to: (a) the recent challenges to the quality of the Mann et. al. data, (b) related questions surrounding the sharing of methods and research for others to test the validity of these studies, and (c) what this controversy indicates about the data quality of key IPCC studies?

4. What did IPCC do to ensure the quality of data for other prominent historical temperature or proxy studies cited in the IPCC, including the Folland et. al. and Jones et. al. studies that were sources for the graphic accompanying the Mann et. al. graphic in the Summary for Policy Makers? Are the data and methodologies for such works complete and available for other researchers to test and replicate?

5. Explain (a) the facts and circumstances by which Dr. Michael Mann served as a lead author of the very chapter that prominently featured his work and (b) by which his work became a finding and graphical feature of the TAR Summary for Policymakers.

6. Explain (a) how IPCC ensures objectivity and independence among section contributors and reviewers, (b) how they are chosen, and (c) how the chapters, summaries, and the full report are approved and what any such approval signifies about the quality and acceptance of particular research therein.

7. Identify the people who wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record portions of the TAR, particularly Section 2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?” and explain all their roles in the preparation of the TAR, including, but not limited to, the specific roles in the writing and review process.

8. Given the questions about Mann et. al. data, has the Working Group I or the IPCC made any changes to specific procedures or policies, including policies for checking the quality of data, for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report? If so, explain in detail any such changes, and why they were made.

9. Does the IPCC or Working Group I have policies or procedures regarding the disclosure and dissemination of scientific data referenced in the reports? If so, explain in detail any such policies and what happens when they are violated.

Our two-party system, whatever its ills, works well only when two relatively robust parties serve to balance and moderate each other. The way things are going now, the Democratic Party is going to continue to be ineffective, and that worries me....

Democratic partisans seem to be a lot more interested in airing extremist views, criticizing and obstructing the Republican majority, and in some cases promoting their individual self-interest than they are in winning elections. The American people understand this, and they can see clearly that the Democratic Party has no coherent policy stance.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."...

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see....

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward and are now training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.

Next week, our nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a Web site, AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

A Bill to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005".

Section 2. Findings.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principel and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.
(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is "the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it".
(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation".
(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only "for public use".
(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.
(6) As the Court acknowledged, "it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B", and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only "for public use".
(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that the government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.
(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has "effectively . . . delete[d] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment" and thereby "refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution".
(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, "[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory".
(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, "[a]ny property may not be taken for the benefit of another private party", and "the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result".
(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, "[a]bsent a true public use requirement the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly".
(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.
(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power".

Section 3. Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Other Private Property Rights.
(a) In General. - The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
(b) Public Use. - In this Act, the term "public use" shall not be construed to include economic development.
(c) Application. - This Act shall apply to -
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

This is too good to be true. Logan Darrow Clements has just filed an application in the City of Weare, NH. to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road. There is already a house sitting on this land, but by the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London, the city selectmen can condemn the property under eminent domain.

You may ask why is this any more special than any other lot of privately owned land being stolen the government? Because the house belongs to none other than Justice Souter. Mr. Clements argues that the hotel will bring in more tax revenue and be a bigger benefit to the town than Justice Souter's house will ever be.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

I don't think it's for real,YET....
...but let enough support roll in and it sure could become real...Think about the number of citizens pissed over the erosion of personal property rights-(left and right, incidentally)-and divide that number by 9-(the number of supreme court justices) and consider the divine justice of each of us investing 10 or 20 dollars and buying ancestral homes out from under their asses for motels, hotels 7-11's and other more economically viable uses....Though we MUST have at least one converted to a "The Peoples Court" motel and museum...Darrow (this other Darrow is leading the legal way-anyone else like the irony of that name?)and I pray other citizens follow.If you have an idea to get this to freepervillle,go for it....on this one we are united....

When can I make a reservation?

A total of 5,000 birds have died on an island in northwest Qinghai province, according to officials from the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization just back in Beijing from visiting the area.

``This is the first time we've seen large numbers of migratory birds dying from bird flu,'' said Julie Hall, the WHO's official in charge of communicable diseases in China, Tuesday.

``So the virus has obviously changed to be more pathogenic to animals. What it means to humans we don't know,'' she said.

Efforts to monitor avian influenza in Asia continue to be hampered by a lack of viral sequence data from China, a World Health Organization (WHO) expert told The Scientist today (June 28). Without appropriate data, she said, it is impossible to compare Chinese virus with the strain circulating in Vietnam or to confirm the sensitivity of the PCR primers being used in China and elsewhere.

Julie Hall, WHO coordinator for communicable disease surveillance and response in China, was among 17 experts from WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Chinese government who visited remote Qinghai province last week to investigate the deaths of more than 1,000 wild birds at a nature reserve.

Hall told The Scientist that while WHO had received data from poultry outbreaks in 2004, none had been passed on yet this year. Last week FAO sent a request to ministries of health in all H5N1-afflicted countries requesting that they share samples and send them to FAO/World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) reference laboratories in Australia for further testing.

The Kelo case pitted elected government against property, and elected government won. Whom would a victory for property have helped more, big corporations or ordinary working people?

Liberal opponents of the decision are siding with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor. Might the five Justices in the majority know something very important that's a mystery to most Liberals?

Yes.

Thank you for posting this.

We need to eliminate corporate control over government decisions, not the regulatory power of government.

This is about property redistribution.

If America is to be controlled by corporations, then yes, of course we should be destroying the governments power to regulate everything because the government isnt legitimate, but that is an entirely seperate issue.

The constitution assumes that we have a legitimate government, and thus as long as due process and compensation are followed that government can sieze property. You are completely fabricating the rule that government cannot use this power to take land and redistribute it. And seriously, it is the right that wants the power of government to redistribute property gone, not the left.

The main opposition Movement for Democratic Change has accused the 81-year-old Mugabe of imitating Cambodia's former Pol Pot regime by driving pro-MDC urban voters back to rural areas for "re-education."

It alleges food access is being used as a weapon of political reprisal following March 31 parliamentary elections won by Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front.

Anna Tibaijuka, the executive director of UN-HABITAT, the global body's housing agency, will spend several days observing the results of "Operation Restore Order," a clean-up campaign that has demolished tens of thousands of homes and shops and left as many as 300,000 people homeless.

"I'm here at the request of the secretary-general to assess the situation here and to see how we can work together to put everything in the way that everybody would like to have them," Ms Tibaijuka, of Tanzania, told reporters.

"We are basically looking at the operation ... and to see the impact and how we can work together to assist all those affected. The secretary-general is of course following the situation with keen interest."

It doesn't matter who appointed who...the right wing feels that the only good judges are ones like Scalia and Thomas. They are using this to argue that we need more judges like Scalia and Thomas.

Any attempt by the Dems to capitalize on this will backfire because we are siding with Scalia and Thomas on this issue. If we were to use this issue as evidence that we need to remake the SC we are saying that we need to remake it in the form of Scalia and Thomas.

This is a no-win for us.

That is really how I feel - this was a tool to get the 'liberal activist judges' to look bad with a nice kick back to developers and corporations on the side. People just don't pay enough attention to smell the obvious skunk when normally pro-business justices voted against it. They had the votes they needed, so they could get the "See? We need more like Scalia and Thomas" line out there. Masterful. Brilliant. Evil.

Scalia Showed His Pro-Business Colors Again The decision is an outrage and the Democrats definitely can get some mileage out of it. While the vote never should have been so close (true Republicans oppose the decision, too), Scalia showed his pro-business colors once again by granting even more power to corporations who are treated as citizens more and more under the law.

Do you think this decision is a viable Democratic issue for 2008? I think it is, and I think we must start right away saying why this decision is more of the Republican way of doing things, i.e., robbing the poor and middle class to make the rich richer.

When my Republican brother called to complain of the "liberals" on the court, my response was, this was more of a fascist approach. If you don't like the law, change the law to make illegal concepts perfectly legal. The liberal approach is to take a little more from the well to do and give to the less fortunate. This opinion in no way reflects that concept, quite the opposite.