In light of Fox's possible exclusion of Ron Paul, NH GOP fights back

Due to Fox's previous ruling that all candidate's whom will be participating in this weekends GOP debate must be polling within the state with at least %10 of the vote, Ron Paul will be excluded. The fact is though, Ron Paul has likely outraised avery GOP member for the 4th quarter, and rivaled that of the front runners in the Democratic Party. The NH GOP is fighting back though, because the first of the nations' primary state New Hampshire should include all serious candidates to level the playing field, they say that the likes of Ron Paul should be included.

Read the story HERE from the Baltimore Sun.

"Tancredo expected to drop out of presidential race"

See the story here.

Update: He did drop out, see that story here

Transcript of the Fox News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate

Find the transcripts HERE

Ohio Rep. Gillmor found dead

Published: Sept. 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (UPI) -- Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, died suddenly in Washington at age 68, his office reported Wednesday.

When Gillmor did not show up at his office Wednesday morning, his staff went to his apartment to check on him and found him dead, an e-mail obtained by The Hill said. Gillmor's staff indicated he died sometime Tuesday night.

The Capitol Police were investigating, but sources told The Hill they believe the 10-term lawmaker may have had a heart attack.

Gillmor won his district with 57 percent of the vote in the November election. He represented the Fifth Congressional District, the second largest in the state, which includes Bowling Green and most of Toledo's suburbs.

Gillmor served on the Financial Services Committee, and was the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, his Web Site said. He was a member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity

He is survived by his wife, Karen; two daughters, Linda and Julie, and three sons, Paul Michael, and twins, Connor and Adam.

Democracy Index 2006

Worldwide press freedom index

Yearly worldwide press freedom ranking of countries
published by Reporters Without Borders
Rank Country Index

Learn more about this here.




2006 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
1 Finland 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1 Iceland 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1 Ireland 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.83 1.00
1 Netherlands 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
5 Czech Republic 0.75 1.00 3.50 2.50 11.25
6 Estonia 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
6 Norway 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
8 Slovakia 2.50 0.75 0.50 2.50
8 Switzerland 2.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 4.25
10 Hungary 3.00 2.00 6.00 3.33 6.50
10 Latvia 3.00 2.50 1.00 2.25
10 Portugal 3.00 4.83 4.50 5.17 1.50
10 Slovenia 3.00 1.00 2.25 3.00 4.00
14 Belgium 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.17 3.50
14 Sweden 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50
16 Austria 4.50 2.50 3.25 2.75 7.50
16 Bolivia 4.50 9.67 20.00 9.67 14.50
16 Canada 4.50 4.50 3.33 1.83 0.75
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina 5.00 7.00 3.67 6.83 12.50
19 Denmark 5.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.00
19 New Zealand 5.00 2.00 0.67 2.83
19 Trinidad and Tobago 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
23 Benin 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.25 6.00
23 Germany 5.50 4.00 2.00 1.33 1.50
23 Jamaica 5.50 7.50 4.17 3.33
26 Namibia 6.00 5.50 10.00 11.00 8.00
27 Lithuania 6.50 4.50 3.00 2.83
27 United Kingdom 6.50 5.17 6.00 4.25 6.00
29 Costa Rica 6.67 8.50 7.63 3.83 4.25
30 Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus) 7.50 5.50 22.00 20.83
31 South Korea 7.75 7.50 11.13 9.17 10.50
32 Greece 8.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 5.00
32 Mauritius 8.00 7.50 10.50 7.25 9.50
34 Ghana 8.50 15.00 13.50 8.75 23.00
35 Australia 9.00 6.50 9.50 9.25 3.50
35 Bulgaria 9.00 10.25 8.00 6.50 9.75
35 France 9.00 6.25 3.50 4.17 3.25
35 Mali 9.00 8.00 12.83 11.00 12.50
39 Panama 9.50 15.00 14.50 9.75 15.50
40 Italy 9.90 8.67 9.00 9.75 11.00
41 El Salvador 10.00 5.75 6.00 6.83 8.75
41 Spain 10.00 8.33 9.00 7.67 7.75
43 Republic of China (Taiwan) 10.50 12.25 14.25 12.00 9.00
44 South Africa 11.25 6.50 5.00 3.33 7.50
45 Cape Verde 11.50 6.00 8.75 8.25 13.75
45 Republic of Macedonia 11.50 8.75 11.25 9.67
45 Mozambique 11.50 10.50 16.25 14.00 23.50
45 Serbia and Montenegro 11.50 14.83 20.13 21.33 20.75
49 Chile 11.63 11.75 10.00 6.83 6.50
50 Israel 12.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 30.00
Grenada 12.00
51 Japan 12.50 8.00 10.00 8.00 7.50
52 Dominican Republic 12.75 12.25 6.75 17.00
53 Botswana 13.00 14.00 11.50 13.00
53 Croatia 13.00 12.83 11.83 16.50 8.75
53 Tonga 13.00 14.50 38.17
53 United States (American territory) 13.00 9.50 4.00 6.00 4.75
57 Uruguay 13.75 9.75 10.00 4.00 6.00
58 Fiji 14.00 14.00 16.00 11.50
58 Hong Kong 14.00 8.25 7.50 11.00 4.83
58 Poland 14.00 12.50 6.83 6.17 7.75
58 Romania 14.00 16.17 17.83 11.50 13.25
62 Central African Republic 14.50 19.75 32.50 32.75 21.50
62 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 14.50 12.50
62 Guinea-Bissau 14.50 17.00 23.50 35.25 30.25
62 Honduras 14.50 18.00 11.75 14.17
66 Madagascar 15.00 24.50 18.50 8.17 22.75
66 Togo 15.00 23.75 19.50 27.50 31.50
68 Ecuador 15.25 21.75 16.50 7.67 5.50
69 Nicaragua 15.50 15.25 11.67 6.50
70 Burkina Faso 16.00 19.00 16.25 18.00 27.75
70 Kosovo 16.00 25.75
70 Lesotho 16.00 19.50 29.50 17.75
73 Republic of the Congo 17.00 17.00 17.50 14.00 23.17
73 Kuwait 17.00 21.25 31.67 31.33 25.50
75 Brazil 17.17 14.50 16.50 16.75 18.75
76 Argentina 17.30 13.67 21.33 15.17 12.00
77 Mauritania 17.50 40.00 51.00 36.67 41.33
77 Senegal 17.50 19.00 21.50 14.50 14.00
77 United Arab Emirates 17.50 25.75 50.25 37.00
80 Albania 18.00 14.17 11.50 6.50
80 Qatar 18.00 23.00 32.50 35.00
82 Paraguay 18.25 15.50 10.50 7.17 8.50
83 Timor-Leste 18.50 13.50 13.50 5.50
84 Liberia 19.00 20.50 40.00 40.00 37.75
85 Moldova 19.17 17.50 20.50 27.00
86 Mongolia 19.25 12.50 19.00 18.25 24.50
87 Haiti 19.50 33.50 42.13 31.00 36.50
88 Tanzania 19.82 17.50 14.50 16.50 21.25
89 Georgia 21.00 25.17 27.50 17.33
90 Guatemala 21.25 21.50 16.50 30.83 27.25
91 Angola 21.50 18.00 26.50 28.00 30.17
92 Malaysia 22.25 33.00 39.83 32.00 37.83
93 Comoros 22.50 22.00 26.50 18.50 20.50
93 Zambia 22.50 23.00 29.75 23.25 26.75
95 Niger 24.50 13.00 18.33 15.75 18.50
95 Seychelles 24.50 17.00 23.50 26.75 20.75
97 Morocco 24.83 36.17 43.00 39.67 29.00
98 Bhutan 25.00 51.50 55.83 77.33 90.75
98 Côte d'Ivoire 25.00 52.25 60.38 42.17 19.00
98 Turkey 25.00 25.00 37.25 35.00 33.50
101 Armenia 25.50 26.00 23.50 25.17
101 Malawi 25.50 22.75 31.00 21.00 27.67
103 Indonesia 26.00 26.00 37.75 34.25 20.00
103 Sierra Leone 26.00 39.50 24.50 23.50 24.50
105 India 26.50 27.00 38.50 39.00 26.50
105 Ukraine 26.50 32.50 51.00 40.00 40.00
107 Lebanon 27.00 28.25 24.38 32.50 19.67
108 Cambodia 27.25 23.00 36.50 19.50 24.25
109 Guinea 27.50 26.00 24.50 33.17 26.00
109 Jordan 27.50 24.00 39.13 37.00 33.50
111 Bahrain 28.00 38.75 52.50 35.17 23.00
112 Cameroon 28.25 20.50 27.00 30.50 28.83
112 Peru 28.25 33.33 40.00 10.25 9.50
114 Gabon 28.50 26.00 37.50 31.25 20.50
115 Venezuela 29.00 23.00 24.63 27.83 25.00
116 Uganda 29.83 19.25 24.00 25.75 17.00
117 Tajikistan 30.00 33.00 27.75 34.50 28.25
118 Kenya 30.25 30.00 22.25 18.50 24.75
119 United States (extra-territorial) 31.50 48.50 36.00 41.00
120 Nigeria 32.23 38.75 37.75 31.50 15.50
121 Djibouti 33.00 37.00 55.00 35.50 31.25
122 Thailand 33.50 28.00 14.00 19.67 22.75
123 Kyrgyzstan 34.00 32.00 35.25 32.00 31.75
124 Chad 35.50 30.00 33.25 24.00 28.75
Brunei 38.00
125 Burundi 39.83
126 Algeria 40.00 40.33 43.50 33.00 31.00
127 Swaziland 40.50 35.00 31.00 37.50 29.00
128 Kazakhstan 41.00 36.17 44.17 42.50 42.00
128 Rwanda 41.00 38.00 37.25 34.25 37.50
130 Afghanistan 44.25 39.17 28.25 40.17 35.50
131 Colombia 44.75 40.17 47.38 49.17 40.83
132 Mexico 45.83 45.50 27.83 17.67 24.75
133 Egypt 46.25 52.00 43.50 34.25 34.50
134 Palestinian Authority 46.75 42.50 43.17 39.25 27.00
135 Azerbaijan 47.00 51.00 49.67 34.50 34.50
135 Israel (extra-territorial) 47.00 37.50 49.00
137 Bangladesh 48.00 61.25 62.50 46.50 43.75
137 Equatorial Guinea 48.00 44.00 46.25 44.75 42.75
139 Sudan 48.13 44.00 44.25 45.75 36.00
140 Zimbabwe 50.00 64.25 67.50 45.50 48.25
141 Sri Lanka 50.75 33.25 36.50 24.83 15.75
142 Democratic Republic of the Congo 51.00 57.33 51.50 38.50 40.75
142 Philippines 51.00 50.00 36.63 35.25 29.00
144 Maldives 51.25 58.50 69.17 47.50
144 Somalia 51.25 59.00 43.50 45.00
146 Singapore 51.50 50.67 57.00 47.33
147 Russia 52.50 48.67 51.38 49.50 48.00
148 Tunisia 53.75 57.50 62.67 50.83 67.75
149 Gambia 54.00 41.00 29.50 18.25 22.50
149 Yemen 54.00 46.25 48.00 41.83 34.75
151 Belarus 57.00 61.33 54.10 52.00 52.17
Oman 57.75
152 Libya 62.50 88.75 65.00 60.00 72.50
153 Syria 63.00 55.00 67.50 67.50 62.83
154 Iraq 66.83 67.00 58.50 37.50 79.00
155 Vietnam 67.25 73.25 86.88 89.17 81.25
156 Laos 67.50 66.50 64.33 94.83 89.00
157 Pakistan 70.33 60.75 61.75 39.00 44.67
158 Uzbekistan 71.00 66.50 52.13 61.50 45.00
159 Nepal 73.50 86.75 84.00 51.50 63.00
160 Ethiopia 75.00 42.00 37.00 37.50 37.50
161 Saudi Arabia 76.00 66.00 79.17 71.50 62.50
162 Iran 90.88 89.17 78.30 89.33 48.25
163 People's Republic of China (mainland only) 94.00 83.00 92.33 91.25 97.00
164 Myanmar 94.75 88.83 103.63 95.50 96.83
165 Cuba 95.00 87.00 106.83 97.83 90.25
166 Eritrea 97.50 99.75 93.25 91.50 83.67
167 Turkmenistan 98.50 93.50 99.83 82.83 91.50
168 North Korea 109.00 109.00 107.50 99.50 97.50

The moral of the story as you see the USA ranks 53rd, don't trust the national media for your news. Be diligent, try and seek multiple sources for your information.

Presidential candidates on healthcare

"Presidential candidates in both parties are promising to overhaul the nation's health care system and cover more — if not all — of the nation's uninsured. In 2005, 44.8 million people — 15.3 percent of the population — were without health insurance, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau in March. The leading Democrats are competing among themselves over who has the better plan to control costs and approach universal coverage. The Republicans, for the most part, are promising to expand coverage without increasing the role of the federal government, and reduce cost through tax incentives. Most of the candidates have not presented a detailed outline of their health care plans, but here is what they have said so far." - FARHANA HOSSAIN

Here is a list of all the presidential candidate's position on health care.


What's more? A nifty spot that provides several comparison's of most of the candidates health plan.

Only in America, The Nelson Mail

"The next general election in New Zealand is still more than a year away, even if, especially since John Key took over the leadership of the National Party, it seems as if the two main parties already have their eyes on the prize in word and deed, the Nelson Mail said in an editorial on Thursday.

Even so, national political campaigning in New Zealand pales in comparison, thankfully, to the political process in the US to just elect presidential candidates. The next US presidential election is November 4, 2008, but the horse race of aspiring presidential candidates has already begun; indeed, in the race for either the Democrat or Republican nomination, decided at conventions in late August and early September next year, the candidates are heading down the back straight. Labour Day in the US, the first Monday in September, traditionally marks the beginning of the presidential nomination campaign before an election year, but most candidates have been campaigning for the past six months.

Such campaigning is foreign to New Zealand. The battle to win a party's presidential nomination is a public display of internecine warfare, in which members of the same party suddenly treat colleagues as enemies - just ask John McCain who suffered at the hands of George W Bush's campaign crew in 2000. The process is a complicated one, but basically candidates try to win support through a series of state primaries and caucuses. Traditionally, New Hampshire holds the first state primary and Iowa the first state caucus, but several states are now jockeying to be the first primary/caucus, or among the first ones, in order to attract more attention and be more influential. The Wyoming Republican caucus has leapfrogged the pack to January 5, making it likely that the organisers of the Iowa caucus (January 14) and the New Hampshire primary (January 22) will move their dates in front of Wyoming.

The result is the longest general election campaign in US history - and the likely winners of each party's nomination should be known earlier than ever before, unless a contest is so tight that no single candidate emerges until the party's nominating convention. At this stage, however, most political pundits see the Democrats winning the White House in November 2008. In four of the five times since World War 2, the party having held power for two consecutive terms, as Republicans have since 2000, has failed to win a third. Add to that the plummeting public approval ratings for the war in Iraq, plus the results of the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections (won by the Democrats). The only question is who will be the party's candidate.

In polls matching leading candidates from each party against the others, the Democrats win each time. However, the Democratic favourite at the moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, fares the worst, making former Bush administration strategist Karl Rove's stated belief that she is the inevitable Democrat candidate an interesting remark. Does he want Clinton to be chosen because she tends to polarise voters and he sees her as being the most vulnerable to a Republican victory? Or does he hope Barack Obama, her closest challenger, or John Edwards, who was John Kerry's running mate for the presidency in 2004, is chosen because the Republicans have a better chance against them than Clinton?

The saga that is the race for victory in the 2008 US presidency election will once again be about money (the first $1 billion election) and power brokerage in the hands of a few. But the stakes are high, the international consequences significant and the outcome still unpredictable. However, the battle between Clinton and Obama is the one to watch."

How the FBI Wiretap Net Operates - Unreasonable search and seizure anyone?

"The FBI has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device, according to nearly a thousand pages of restricted documents newly released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The surveillance system, called DCSNet, for Digital Collection System Network, connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is far more intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure than observers suspected.

It's a "comprehensive wiretap system that intercepts wire-line phones, cellular phones, SMS and push-to-talk systems," says Steven Bellovin, a Columbia University computer science professor and longtime surveillance expert.

Snapshots of the FBI Spy Docs
DCSNet is a suite of software that collects, sifts and stores phone numbers, phone calls and text messages. The system directly connects FBI wiretapping outposts around the country to a far-reaching private communications network.

Many of the details of the system and its full capabilities were redacted from the documents acquired by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but they show that DCSNet includes at least three collection components, each running on Windows-based computers.

The $10 million DCS-3000 client, also known as Red Hook, handles pen-registers and trap-and-traces, a type of surveillance that collects signaling information -- primarily the numbers dialed from a telephone -- but no communications content. (Pen registers record outgoing calls; trap-and-traces record incoming calls.)

DCS-6000, known as Digital Storm, captures and collects the content of phone calls and text messages for full wiretap orders.

A third, classified system, called DCS-5000, is used for wiretaps targeting spies or terrorists.

What DCSNet Can Do

Together, the surveillance systems let FBI agents play back recordings even as they are being captured (like TiVo), create master wiretap files, send digital recordings to translators, track the rough location of targets in real time using cell-tower information, and even stream intercepts outward to mobile surveillance vans.

FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf.

The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation.

The numbers dialed are automatically sent to FBI analysts trained to interpret phone-call patterns, and are transferred nightly, by external storage devices, to the bureau's Telephone Application Database, where they're subjected to a type of data mining called link analysis.

FBI endpoints on DCSNet have swelled over the years, from 20 "central monitoring plants" at the program's inception, to 57 in 2005, according to undated pages in the released documents. By 2002, those endpoints connected to more than 350 switches.

Today, most carriers maintain their own central hub, called a "mediation switch," that's networked to all the individual switches owned by that carrier, according to the FBI. The FBI's DCS software links to those mediation switches over the internet, likely using an encrypted VPN. Some carriers run the mediation switch themselves, while others pay companies like VeriSign to handle the whole wiretapping process for them. "

By Ryan Singel at Wired

Freedom Index by The New American

"Our first look at the 110th Congress shows how every representative and senator voted on key issues, such as the minimum wage, immigration, stem-cell research, and the Iraq War."

View the Freedom Index here

"These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
— Declaration of Independence, 1776

This is extremely interesting, these guys rank our congressman on how well they uphold the constitution of the Unites States based upon their congressional past votes.

"The average House score for this index (votes 1-10) is 40 percent; the average Senate score is 38. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the only representative to earn a perfect score of 100, and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was the only senator who scored 100."

Leveling the playing field

"The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday ordered candidates to refund any oversized campaign contributions they accepted this year unless they could show such refunds would create a serious hardship.

The court ordered the Missouri Ethics Commission to give any candidate a hearing to show why refunding the money would be overly burdensome.

Such hardship, the court wrote, would depend on the amount of contributions that exceeded the limits in effect before Jan. 1, 2007, and the extent to which those contributions already had been spent.

“Depending on the amount of money involved, it could become prohibitively difficult and expensive to require candidates to refund this money,” the decision said. “It might also be futile, as donors could skirt the limitations on direct contributions” by giving the money indirectly through political party fundraising committees.

However, to allow candidates to keep thousands of dollars in huge contributions, the court said, would be unfair to candidates who have yet to raise money or even declare their candidacy.

“In balancing these variables in an election such as this, one must endeavor to avoid doing so in a way that creates a political advantage for one candidate over another,” the court said.

However, no refunds will be required of candidates whose elections already have been held, such as municipal races and other local contests held in the spring. To require refunds of money already spent would constitute a “manifest injustice,” the court said.

The unsigned decision was a follow-up to the court’s July 19 ruling that reinstated contribution limits that the legislature adopted in 1994. The legislature repealed the limits in 2006, but the court ruled unanimously that the legislative procedure was invalid.

Under the limits, statewide candidates could accept a maximum contribution of $1,275. Candidates for state Senate were limited to $650 and candidates for the House maxed out at $325.

With the limits gone, some candidates for state Senate received contributions as large as $40,000. Gov. Matt Blunt accepted $300,000 from a wealthy Texas couple. Attorney General Jay Nixon, who plans to challenge Blunt next year, received $100,000 from a single labor union.

Paul Sloca, spokesman for the Missouri Republican Party, stopped short of saying the decision was a loss for the GOP.

“We believe that candidates and contributors should not be punished for obeying the law, and we sincerely hope that the Missouri Ethics Commission will take the people, and not politics, into consideration when deciding the fairest way to apply the law the people’s representatives enacted,” Sloca said.

Democrats rejoiced at the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for those Missourians who believe elections should be fought on a level playing field,” party spokesman Jack Cardetti said. “It will be hard for Matt Blunt to argue that returning $350,000 from the Swift Boat benefactors creates a hardship.”

Nixon’s office said the decision “clears the way for the ethics commission to order refunds of contributions in excess of limits.”

Bob Connor, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, said the agency’s attorneys would present their recommendations and analysis to the full commission on Thursday. The commission might adopt policies to comply with the court ruling, Connor said.

But Connor said the ruling appears to require the agency to conduct a case-by-case review of every candidate for office. The agency will have to weigh each hardship that is claimed on all the other candidates in a race, he said.

“If X says, ‘I have a hardship for these reasons,’ ” the commission will have to consider it, Connor said. The commission will then determine how that affects every person in the same race.

After the decision to reinstate the limits, the Supreme Court invited legal arguments on whether contributions in excess of the limits should be refunded or whether the limitation should be enforced only after the July 19 ruling.

Monday’s ruling clearly fragmented the court. Four judges agreed with the decision, but two others dissented, saying the proposed remedy was unworkable."

By KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondents

"California Republicans seek to rig 2008 presidential vote" - wsws.org

Californian Republicans are fighting back for their electoral college votes. In what has been described as a transparent attack to reclaim electoral college votes, Republicans of the great state of California are fighting to put "a referendum on the ballot in June 2008 that would split the state’s huge bloc of electoral votes rather than awarding them based on the traditional winner-take-all formula."
Read more about this from the actual article here.


Currently, only Maine and Nebraska allocate their elctoral votes by congressional district.

What do you think about this? Would our country be better off breaking down votes by state instead of a winner take all? I think so.