Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (5178)	11/25/2006 10:30:20 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

Thousands Rally for Chavez Rival in Venezuela By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER AP CARACAS, Venezuela (Nov. 25) - Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans packed a major highway Saturday in a rally for opposition presidential candidate Manuel Rosales, one of the largest demonstrations against President Hugo Chavez in years. Shouts of "Dare to change!" rose up from the dense crowd filling the highway for several miles and spilling into nearby overpasses and streets in Venezuela's capital, Caracas. The rally came eight days before the country's presidential election on Dec. 3. Rosales, speaking from a stage, promised democracy for a country he said was sinking into Cuba-style authoritarianism under Chavez. "I don't want to be a president who controls all the branches of government," Rosales shouted to thundering applause. "Let there be true democracy in Venezuela!" He denounced the government for prohibiting television crews from using helicopters to film the march, saying, "They don't want the people to see this multitude." "They are scared," he shouted, pumping his fists. "We are going to win on Dec. 3." The crowd appeared to number in the hundreds of thousands. Organizers claimed more than 1 million people attended. Rosales, the governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia who favors a free-market economy over Chavez's brand of socialism, trailed the Venezuelan president by a wide margin in an AP-Ipsos poll conducted earlier this month. However, his candidacy has managed to galvanize Venezuela's fractured opposition, reviving a movement that had struggled to recover from a crushing defeat in a 2004 recall referendum against Chavez. Rosales said the vast crowd on Saturday was proof he would defeat Chavez. "It's Caracas in the streets," he said. "A great avalanche of votes!" Marchers departed from various points in the city of 5 million and converged on the Francisco Fajardo Highway, where they danced to Venezuelan folk music booming from loudspeakers and chanted anti-Chavez slogans. "After seeing this, nobody should have any doubts about Rosales' chances," 43-year-old accountant Franklin Salas said. More than 3,000 police were deployed along the march route to prevent clashes with Chavez supporters who gathered on several street corners, shouting "Viva Chavez!" as marchers passed. There were no reports of violence. Despite the revived opposition movement, Chavez remains hugely popular among the poor, especially those who see benefits from oil-funded social programs ranging from free health care to heavily subsidized government grocery stores. Rosales lashed out at Chavez for wanting to be "president all his life, until he dies like Fidel Castro - indefinite re-election." "This country doesn't want that. It wants modernity," he said. Chavez, first elected in 1998, has said he wants to continue governing Venezuela until 2021 or longer. He said he plans to ask Venezuelans in a referendum if they support changing the constitution to allow indefinite re-election. It currently allows two consecutive presidential terms. Rosales accused the Chavez administration of having no respect for private property and giving away the country's oil wealth to leftist allies overseas while neglecting the poor at home. He said Chavez wants "a new rich and more poor people ... an elite that runs everything." Rosales, who temporarily stepped down as Zulia governor to run for president, is one of the few opposition politicians to hold on to office as Chavez's allies have gained control of the National Assembly, state offices and the courts. Rosales accused the Chavez government of imprisoning people for political reasons and said he would free them if elected. The government says Venezuela has no political prisoners, only people legitimately convicted of crimes. Ernesto Galindez, a 58-year-old butcher who backs Chavez, said he was surprised by the size of Saturday's march, but predicted Rosales would lose. "They are going to have to wait six more years because Chavez is still very strong, and he's not going anywhere," said Galindez, grinning.

To: Jim S who wrote (5178)	11/25/2006 10:31:13 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 10087

The public will have two years to watch the leftist stars in action. The leaders of the party in positions of power are those who survived in safe "liberal" districts. While the election brought in moderates - the moderates bring radicals to power.

To: Jim S who wrote (5178)	11/27/2006 10:59:31 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

Town makes it illegal to fly a foreign flag By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Special to CNN Adjust font size: SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This is where we've arrived in this country: You have the constitutional right to burn an American flag, but you can get into trouble for simply flying a foreign one. At least you can in the 30,000-person town of Pahrump, Nevada, which is close to Las Vegas and even closer to stepping over the line with an idiotic, intolerant and insulting ban on foreign (read: Mexican) flags. The town council voted last week, 3-2, to approve an ordinance that makes it illegal to display a foreign flag -- unless an American flag is flown above it. Scofflaws face a $50 fine and 30 hours of community service. Pahrump resident Michael Miraglia proposed the ban because, he said, he got upset when he saw immigrant activists marching through U.S. cities last spring, waving Mexican flags. Mr. Miraglia told USA Today that he was especially miffed that "we had Mexican restaurants closed that day." So that's what started all this -- the fact that some guy couldn't get his burrito fix. It's our cultural schizophrenia. Americans love Mexican food, even if they don't always love Mexicans. They never ask themselves: If they succeed in getting rid of all the Mexicans -- as some would, no doubt, like to do -- who's going to make the food? For the record, I don't think people should wave flags of countries they left behind or celebrate one country while demanding rights from another. But just because you'd like to see a given outcome -- i.e., immigrants putting foreign flags in mothballs -- doesn't mean you should use the coercive power of government to bring it about. The end does not justify the means. Besides, the spectacle with the Mexican flags was no different than what happened a few weeks later when American Jews marched in Los Angeles and New York, waiving the Israeli flag to show support for Israel in its war against Hezbollah. About that, there were few complaints. What gives someone the right to wave a foreign flag anyway? Answer: The First Amendment. Bans like the one in Pahrump are almost certainly unlawful and unconstitutional, leaving one to wonder, about Mr. Miraglia and the Pahrump Town Council, what part of illegal don't they understand? What I don't understand is how immigration restrictionists can still insist, with a straight face, that the immigration debate and its offshoots haven't become anti-Mexican. When people brush aside distinctions of legal versus illegal immigrants and start banning the Mexican flag, what else do you call it? As my friends in Texas say, I may have been born at night -- but I wasn't born last night. At moments like this, I barely recognize my own country. Americans confronted slavery, the Great Depression, the Third Reich, and racial injustice here at home. Now some of us tremble at the sight of a piece of cloth. How sad. We're a bigger people than that. Even if some of us, now and then, tend to forget it. cnn.com

To: Jim S who wrote (5178)	11/28/2006 3:07:14 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

CREW SENDS LETTER TO DOJ URGING INVESTIGATION INTO SPEAKER HASTERT’S LAND DEAL CREW Questions Hastert Earmark – Demands Reform Washington, DC – Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate whether Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) violated the law by inserting an earmark into the 2005 Highway Bill that earned him a 500% profit on a lucrative land deal. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, in August 2002, Speaker Hastert purchased 179 acres of land, inaccessible by road, in Kendall County, Illinois for $925,000, or $5,200 per acre. Then, in February 2004, Speaker Hastert formed a real estate trust with two other land buyers and purchased 69 acres of land adjacent to the original parcel at a cost of $1,033,000, or $15,000 per acre. The trust’s 69 acres was then joined with 69 acres of Speaker Hastert’s land. The land purchased by the trust was more valuable than Speaker Hastert’s property because it was accessible by road. In the summer of 2005, the Federal Highway Bill was enacted containing a $207 million earmark inserted by Rep. Hastert for construction of the Prairie Parkway. While the earmark was sufficient only to build about one-third of the entire 36 mile parkway, the language of the legislation mandated that construction take place on the portion of the parkway nearest to Speaker Hastert’s property. As reported in The New Republic, four months after the bill was signed into law, the trust’s 138 acres was sold to a developer for $4,989,000 or $36,152 an acre. The partners apportioned the proceeds of the sale according to the acreage each had contributed. Thus, Speaker Hastert was credited with 62% ownership on the supposition that his $5,200 per acre land was equal in value to the partnership’s $15,000 per acre land with the result that he received $3,118,000 of the proceeds. While Rep. Hastert’s partners each made a 144% profit on their investment, Speaker Hastert’s profit was 500% of his original investment. Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, stated, “Speaker Hastert’s use of the earmarking process to increase his own property value is an egregious abuse of his legislative authority. The Department of Justice should immediately investigate this sweetheart deal.” Sloan continued, “Congressional leaders have promised that the first order of business in January will be to enact ethics legislation. Any reform package must include a provision prohibiting members from inserting earmarks for their own personal financial benefit.” The request for investigation and supporting documents are available at CREW’s website. Speaker Hastert was included in the watch list of CREW's September 2006 report, "Beyond DeLay: The 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and five to watch)."