Net the Truth Online

PA Tax Free KOZ Hypocrisy

2009-06-23T06:53:00.000-07:00

Yet again, the state-wide tax-free Keystone Opportunity Zones have come up for an extension in Pennsylvania.

Local elected officials who comprise three taxing bodies, county, school district, and municipality must weigh agreeing to granting the status to undeveloped properties for this time around some seven (7) years.

Each separate entity must vote on approving the KOZ extension request by voting and a majority of the board can accept or deny.

The important feature of the process is any one of the boards' denial of the extension would effectively gut the extension for the one jurisdiction. Further, if one board - the county commissioners - would deny the extension - even though the school board/s and municipalities approved, the extension would not happen.

Fayette's board of commissioners voted in the majority but not unanimously to enable the application process for the extension to go forward. This week, it's been reported the board will consider a motion to re-consider some of the properties which have KOZ status currently to either expire in 2010 or 2013 and may pull some of the properties from the extension.

South Union Township supervisors have reportedly denied the extension for their own property, some 60 acres, but agreed to grant the extensions so far to property the local economic development organization sought for inclusion in the extension due to its undeveloped status.

But it isn't clear whether developed properties that want to continue to receive the KOZ status after its expiration, such as Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 Company, can obtain the extension, it's interesting that in material distributed by Fay Penn Economic Development Council, the company is listed among requests for the extension.

The question arises then, what is the purpose of continuing the KOZ on already developed and habitable land another 7 years?

The extension is supposed to be for undeveloped properties, but as we've seen how the KOZ has been promoted in the past for industrial development, that goal didn't quite pan out in the county as planned.

Further, if the Fayette commissioners pull some property (qualified and undeveloped at this time) from the extension for whatever reason - don't like it or think KOZ status is appropriate for housing developments, individual single family homes, or apartment complexes, or a private individual or private corporation has obtained the status through diligent application, and members of the board by majority or unanimously deny the extension - what does that say about continuing to permit an extension for other property in the county solely because it is handled by the county's lead economic development agency?

Across the border, in Greene County, supervisors display a bit of common sense in comments made about KOZ and what the state gave them to deal with, yet the members still voted to continue the program they've raised objections to. Give a look.

An upcoming post will highlight the same arguments and some variation used by Fayette commissioners Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites who don't like some aspects of KOZ yet still voted for approval of the extension.

Net the Truth Online

In other business, supervisors voted unanimously to support the seven-year Keystone Opportunity Zone extension for the Evergreene Technology Park. The extension would continue the current KOZ tax incentive for an additional seven years, until Dec. 31, 2017. The current KOZ incentive ends Dec. 31, 2010.

The two existing buildings in the technology park are not eligible for the KOZ extension.

The township projects an estimated total of $6,050 of tax revenue in 2011 from the two buildings.

Currently, the technology park has about 220 acres of undeveloped land, which is eligible for the KOZ extension if developed.

Although supervisors John H. Higgens and Corbly Orndorff disagree with the concept of the KOZ and believe the state is overstepping its boundaries by offering this type of incentive, they agree that if surrounding counties are offering a KOZ tax incentive extension to perspective businesses, then Franklin Township and Greene County must do the same to remain competitive.

Supervisors' Chairman T. Reed Kiger told Don Chappel, executive director of Greene County Industrial Development Inc., that he hopes to see collaboration between Evergreene Technology Park officials, the Franklin Township supervisors and other county officials not just for the township's benefit but for the benefit of the entire county.

Kiger also suggested that the park consider businesses in the oil and gas industry, which he believes to be up and coming in Greene County.

Kiger added that the board of supervisors would really like to see the park make changes.

Herald-Standard June 22, 2009

Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano on WAR Program

2009-06-07T07:05:00.000-07:00

Discussion at Ron Paul Forums and link to audio of the Wayne Allyn Root program featuring guests Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano. We're tracking Judge Napolitano and his proposal Freedom Watchers start the alteration of our Constitution ball rolling via pressing the legislatures of the required necessary 34 states to petition or submit a call for a second federal Constitutional Convention.

Napolitano outlines his proposal in a piece we've highlighted here at Net the Truth Online. We have noted dangers of such and have highlighted notables who have done so as well.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2155452#post2155452

Link

http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/war.php

Ron Paul: Uprising, Revolt, Nobody Will Pay Taxes Anymore

2009-06-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Interesting discussion on Freedom Watch Program, still, beware Judge Napolitano's call for a second federal Constitutional Convention. Odd the Judge didn't bring up the issue during his discussion with Ron Paul...

clip

Judge Napolitano: I think Shelly has a question for you from one of the good folks that has been watching and listening.

Shelly Roche: Yes. Congressman Paul. This is from Betsy Ross and she would like to know…

Judge Napolitano: Is that really her name?

Shelly Roche: That’s her screen name.

Judge Napolitano: Great name.

Ron Paul: Hi, Betsy.

Shelly Roche: I know. It’s appropriate for today. She would like to know about the questionable constitutionality of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Judge Napolitano: Oh, you want to weigh in on that, Ron.

Ron Paul: Well, I can rather quickly because I discuss it a lot. I think it was improperly ratified, the 16th. But it really doesn’t matter. I think it’s good to debate it and expose it. But we’ll get rid of the IRS and the 16th Amendment by repeal or [maybe] people are finally going to get fed up, and there will be a tax revolt and so much chaos and violence in our streets, so nobody [will pay taxes anyway].

But on the 17th, I never think of the 17th as being illegally ratified. There may be an argument there that I’m not aware of, but the whole thing is I don’t like the 17th, and that’s the one that allows the senators to be elected by popular vote rather than representing the states. That was the symbol or the essence of the states being independent and sovereign, that the legislatures elected the senators and sent them to us. If we did it that way, we would certainly eliminate all these buying and selling of senators like they have in the Illinois.

Judge Napolitano: In Illinois.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/ron-paul-peter-schiff-on-freedom-watch-4/

Warning Post at Philly Blog

2009-06-05T14:54:00.000-07:00

Thank you Philly Blog for your post about Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano pushing for a second federal Constitutional Convention. We're steaming over here after following Judge Napolitano's misguided proposition, and we're tracking the Wayne Allyn Root radio program upcoming June 6th wherein Napolitano is going to be a guest.

We don't know yet how Root feels about a second Con-Con, but we're tracking.

Years back we researched the issue of the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention and posted info on our site Dare Inquire Representatives Truth.

http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html

also see our sidebar and conduct a search of our site for posts about a federal Con-Con...

As we're hot on highlighting what Napolitano is saying as a sit-in for the absent Glenn Beck Friday - tonight - June 5 - and what he might say on Wayne Allyn Root's upcoming radio program, we've little time to formulate more of our thoughts, and you've said it all so well, why duplicate...

Thanks.

Net the Truth Online

Note the part about Madison's warnings of a second federal Constitutional Convention... Guess Glenn Beck didn't read that either.

Net the Truth Online

OK 6 PM Napolitano didn't repeat his proposal for states to submit the same Constitutional Amendment/s and call for a second Constitutional Convention when he had an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program to do so. Why not?

And we had time to ponder over Beck's denial Napolitano even wants a Con-Con. Maybe he'll actually read what Napolitano wrote and after his tour is over he'll find our site and come out and address his oversight and negligence.

Net the Truth Online

Philly Blog

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=84535

Phyllis Schlafly is tops don't miss her May article on the dangers of a Con-Con

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html

2009-06-05T14:46:00.000-07:00

Judge Napolitano interviewing a couple of experts on the Tenth Amendment.

Glenn Beck Denies Push for Constitutional Convention

2009-06-05T14:25:00.000-07:00

OK then why the Judge's push for 34 states legislatures (by a mere majority vote, maybe a mere quorum, too) to forward the same exact amendment/s to the Constitution for whatever, Glenn.

The man simply doesn't realize the call is automatic upon the submission of the call for formal submission of the same amendment/s proposal/s from the required 34 states.

Judge Napolitano is wholly negligent in his proposal for 34 states to submit the same exact amendments and initiate a call for a convention for that purpose.

The call is automatic once the 34 number is reached. Automatic. No do-overs. No, oops we (34 states) really just want to scare Congress-critters to act on these matters...

The convention will be called and state legislatures will forthwith select delegates to the convention somehow someway. Once convened there is no way to limit what the delegates could do.

If I were able to ask you a question on your tour, Glenn, I'd ask if you read Judge Napolitano's writing on the matter to which you made a post denying the Judge wanted a Con-Con.

He wants one, no doubt. Just read where he says he does in What Should Freedom Lovers Do?

Excellent suggestion at Ohio Freedom to have John McManus make a guest appearance on Napolitano's program!

http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3241

Vote for guest on Napolitano's Freedom Watch

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/206370-john-f-mcmanus

Net the Truth Online

Don't miss

Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=18760

May 15, 2009 - 11:17 ET

By Judge Andrew Napolitano

1.) The Scope of the Problem.

The Constitution gives the Congress only 17 discrete powers. One of them is the power to regulate interstate commerce and another is the power to tax incomes. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, almost from the time the first Congress sat, it used its Commerce Clause power to tax goods, to control private behavior, and even to prohibit items in interstate commerce. Subsequent Congresses used that power to control the conditions for production and sale of goods that eventually made their way into interstate commerce. And modern Congresses have used that power to regulate any human behavior they wish, so long as the behavior, when combined with other similar behavior, might conceivably affect the movement of goods or persons in interstate commerce. Thus, today, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the size of the toilet bowl in your bathroom, the number of legs on your desk chair, the strength of the water pressure in your shower in your home, the amount of wheat you can grow in your yard, the amount of sugar manufacturers can put into ketchup, the words you can utter in public or private, are all regulated by the Congress, claiming power under the Commerce Clause. And the feds, as well, use their enormous horde of cash from our income taxes to bribe the states by paying them to regulate in areas that the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating.

2.) How to address this?

We need an amendment to the Constitution that expressly limits Congress to exercising only the 17 specific powers that are delegated to it in the Constitution and defines and limits the regulation of interstate commerce to its original meaning of keeping commerce regular by preventing all governments, state and federal, from interfering with it. We also need to rescind the 16th Amendment and affirmatively prohibit any federal tax on persons, as individuals or as groups. These two measures will starve the federal government back down to the footprint established for it by the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended by enactment of an amendment by three-quarters of the legislatures of the states. In order to get to the state legislatures, an amendment can only come from an affirmative vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or from a constitutional convention which Congress must call if asked to do so by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

3.) What should freedom lovers do?

Here are a few simple steps. First, agree on the wording of two amendments addressing commerce and income taxes. Next persuade the state legislatures of 34 states to enact a resolution by a simple majority vote of each house of the states’ legislatures instructing Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the express and sole purpose of considering these two amendments. I don’t know if 34 states will agree to this; but I firmly believe that as the number of agreeing states approaches 34, Congress will become terrified, and will begin to curtail its regulation of our behavior and lower our taxes. If the convention does come to pass and sends the two proposed amendments to the states, the goal is then to get 38 states to adopt the amendments. Note, the state legislative process of demanding a convention and the state legislative process of approving an amendment only requires a simple majority in each house of a state legislature, and neither is subject to a governor’s veto.

Judge Napolitano

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25372/

Note from Glenn

Let’s be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention. Nobody on the left or the right really pushes for one for two reasons. First, no matter how limited the scope of the proposed constitutional convention if one actually takes place it’ll be almost impossible to restrict the changes that could be made to the Constitution. Remember that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government. If a constitutional convention were held today there would be no limits on what they could do and it’s very possible we end up with the Constitution shredded and in tatters. I don’t want to take that risk.

Second, I don’t trust our current crop of politicians to do the right thing. I don’t see a modern-day George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison. All I see are selfish politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected. I don’t want to put the future of my children and grandchildren in their fat money-stained fingers.

So let’s hold off on the constitutional convention but move forward with the gun legislation in Montana, Utah, Texas and other states in an effort to have the Supreme Court re-consider the 10th Amendment. Good people doing great things is all it takes to return America to what our Founding Fathers intended Her to be—a bastion of freedom and liberty!

-glenn

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25372/

Watchdogging Judge Napolitano on second federal Con-Con

2009-06-05T14:01:00.000-07:00

Judge Napolitano is sitting in as host of the Glenn Beck Program tonight. He started out saying in his introduction the Tenth Amendment is under attack.

We're tracking to see how far the Judge goes to push for a second federal Constitutional Convention... We've posted about this previously...

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-ignores-dangers-napolitano.html

See our sidebar for more info about the dangers of a second federal Constitutional Convention...

including our former website Dare Inquire Representatives Truth

http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/actrights.html

Net the Truth Online

Excellent article from Phyllis Schlafly

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=judge+napolitano+constitutional+convention&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2

Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root in Syndication

2009-06-05T13:39:00.000-07:00

Root has recently been appearing on many Fox News Network programs, including interviews with the dynamic Neil Cavuto...

Cavuto interviewed VP Biden's economic policy analyst, yadayada, who could not answer what the Great Lakes Czar was responsible for accomplishing... he gave a sketchy answer about the goals of the "Stimulus Czar," appointed by President Barack Obama.

Cavuto interviewed South Carolina Governor on the recent state Supreme Court case wherein the Court ordered the state to accept the stimulus money from the federal government. Unbelievable. The Gov. said he wasn't going to appeal the decision.

As if those interviews weren't enough to make your stomach turn, Cavuto's next guest was Wayne Allyn Root who raised further concerns about government largesse, debt, and control of our individual lives and livlihoods.

A search produced the info about Root's syndicated radio program to air in select cities June 6. Following...

Ah yes, we also had to find controversy...

Independent Politcal Report Comments

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago/

OK Just a note to beware one of Root's first guests on his radio program will be Judge Napolitano. Recently, the Judge encouraged consideration of a states' initiated federal Constitutional Convention while appearing on the Glenn Beck program. We made a post and provided a link to discussion of this wholly bad idea and danger to our country at the time.

so we're just saying... beware... the Libertarian plank has at one time included just such a second Constitutional Convention...

Net the Truth Online

Independent Political Report Comments

Scott Lieberman // Jun 5, 2009 at 1:25 pm

To listen to the Wayne Allyn Root Radio show on a streaming feed on the Internet:

Saturdays

Noon-1pm Eastern Time

Go to…

http://am970theapple.townhall.com/

and then click on “Listen Live”, which is in a red oval in the upper left part of the page.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago/

"The Wayne Allyn Root Show" to debut nationally Sat., June 6
Root's First Two Guests Are 2008 Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News

LAS VEGAS -- Wayne Allyn Root, the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee and a regular guest personality on FOX News and FOX Business networks, is declaring “W.A.R.” on big government beginning June 6, 2009 when “W.A.R.: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” debuts in Los Angeles and New York (with Chicago joining the lineup in two weeks).

Root's guests on his first show will be 2008 presidential candidate and 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee Dr. Ron Paul, and libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano of the FOX News Channel.

The weekly, one-hour syndicated talk show will be broadcast on political talk format radio stations on Saturdays in the three biggest markets in the country, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. The program will be aired at noon on AM 970 The Apple WNYM in New Jersey/New York; 8 a.m. on Talk Radio 790 KABC in Los Angeles; and 9 a.m. on AM 560 WIND in Chicago (starting on June 20th). Additional markets are expected to be added in the coming weeks.

Root joins a star-studded lineup on these stations with the biggest names in talk radio: Sean Hannity (KABC), Mark Levin (KABC), Michael Savage (WIND), Bill Bennett (WNYM), Dennis Prager (WNYM), Michael Medved (WIND), Mike Gallagher (WNYM) and Joe Scarborough (KABC).

“The show will focus on politics, business and personal finance issues with a Libertarian point of view,” said Root who advocates a free market economy, dramatically smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, reduced government regulation, and more freedom and individual rights.

Root described his unique persona: “I'm 'the ANTI-Obama.' I'm an S.O.B. - son of a butcher - small businessman, home-school father and citizen politician. My life experiences have made me a passionate, committed Libertarian and Capitalist Evangelist. I am proud to be adding my Libertarian flair to conservative talk radio. My hero was Barry Goldwater. I'd describe him as a Libertarian conservative. I look forward to returning conservative talk radio to its Goldwater roots.”

Root is regular guest on three of the biggest talk shows in America: “Savage Nation” hosted by Michael Savage, “The Jerry Doyle Show” and “The Mancow Show” with host Mancow Muller. He's appeared many times on FOX News Channel with hosts Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren and Judge Andrew Napolitano as well as appearances on CNBC. A tireless freedom crusader, he conducted hundreds of radio, TV and print interviews around the country during his campaign for Vice President. Now he's turning the tables and will be interviewing nationally-known personalities and pundits weekly on his new show.
Root is the author of seven books. His latest is The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns Gambling & Tax Cuts!, to be published on July 20 by John Wiley & Sons and available at www.Amazon.com.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/the-wayne-allyn-root-show-to-debut-nationally-sat-june-6

ACORN Donation Obama Figures?

2009-05-15T05:22:00.000-07:00

Another ACORN scandal – in a funeral home?
Group operating out of small building donated $33 million to Obama campaign
Posted: May 14, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Fox News' Glenn Beck may have uncovered another twist to a series of ACORN's alleged scandals when he revealed on his show that the group's main affiliate is operating out of a former New Orleans funeral home and bringing in millions of taxpayer dollars.

The Service Employees International Union's New Orleans headquarters location that also houses ACORN is supposed to be home to more than 270 related corporations and non-profits.

"Does that former funeral home look big enough to you to house 270 organizations?" Beck asked. "The owner of the building is a company whose partners are – oh my gosh! – Wade and Dale Rathke."

Wade Rathke, a New Orleans resident, is founder of ACORN and also founder and chief organizer of Service Employees International Union, which donated $33 million to President Obama's campaign last year.The online OpenSecrets.org estimates Obama's entire campaign spending at about $640 million.

According to the New York Times, he failed to notify police in 2000 when he learned that his brother Dale, ACORN's chief financial officer, had embezzled $948,600 from Citizens Consulting Inc., the ACORN affiliate that handles its financial affairs.

Beck said Wade and Dale are listed as president or partner in dozens of companies based in the New Orleans building.

"[T]he big question remains unanswered: Millions of dollars flow into that building every year," Beck said. "Where does it go?"

Wade Rathke

He said ACORN received as much as $10 million in federal grants last year. But it could get up to $8 billion more after the House passed Rep. Barney Frank's amendment allowing organizations indicted for voter fraud or related crimes to receive taxpayer dollars today.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., urged Congress to block ACORN's access to federal housing funds.

"ACORN, as you know, is no stranger to the spotlight," Bachmann said outside the Capitol. "Yet no matter how many times prosecutors investigate and even indict ACORN and their employees, they emerge unblemished as far as the federal government is concerned from having access to federal tax dollars."

Bachmann told Fox News that ACORN has received at least $53 million in tax dollars since 1994. Frank's amendment passed by a vote of 245-176, largely upon party lines.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98145

Beck: ACORN web of connections

2009-05-12T14:14:00.001-07:00

Glenn Beck revisits the issue of ACORN and its "web of connections" - he wants to know what we might know. So send in your investigative reports...

Last episodes discussion

Former ACORN Board Member Wants Answers
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," May 11, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Now, let's talk to somebody who I may not agree with on politics — I don't really know because I haven't talked with him — but I know he is working at ACORN and I think that's just a left group, but I do agree with the man on principle.

Current ACORN member, Michael McCray: He was a member of ACORN's national board like the women I spoke to on Friday on this program. He, like them, was pushed off the board after they all started asking questions...

...BECK: Oh, yes. That's why, you know, I was told on Friday by the two amazing women that were here, I was told on Friday, "Glenn, stop looking at this as politics. It's not politics. It's about money." Can you tell me — because what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to find — I'm trying to find the beating heart of this — this is like hydra. You can cut ACORN off but it just sprouts another head. There are all kinds of affiliated organizations.

Can you tell me at all what CCI is?

MCCRAY: Well, I'm glad you asked that, Glenn. Essentially, CCI — Citizens Consulting, Inc. — is basically the financial nerve center for ACORN and all its entities. So, if you really want to try to follow the money, that's why we requested a forensic examination and financial audit of CCI.

BECK: OK. CCI — can you put that back up on the screen, please? CCI shows one — what a surprise, it's in New Orleans. There's no corruption down there. It shows one address. This is the address that has — that all of the other ACORN entities, they all list this as their address.

So, if you are — correct me if I'm wrong here, Michael — but if you're in one of these organizations and you apply for federal dollars or any kind of dollars, the money goes there?

MCCRAY: Well, Glenn, I'm glad you mentioned that. I mean, that's the main problem. As a matter of fact, the money goes there first.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519948,00.html

Former ACORN Board Members Speak Out
Monday, May 11, 2009
GLENN BECK, HOST: This week, I learned an awful lot about the "ACORN 8," eight members of the group that joined because they wanted to help people. They said when they learned about some of the fraud and corruption; they just couldn't take it anymore. They tried to blow the whistle but it seems like nobody would listen to them.

I want to introduce you to two women that were in my office this afternoon and we had about a 45-minute conversation. We're going to try to break it down here in the next few minutes. They are — they were once national board — once national board members of ACORN. They ran an organization after the CEO and CFO of the group were fired over a million-dollar embezzlement scandal. Then, when they tried to get the books opened to find out about the corruption, one of them was fired from the board.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519834,00.html

Write-in Choice: Paper Recorded Ballot

2009-05-12T08:46:00.000-07:00

Want to send a message to unsatisfactory candidates whose names appear on the Primary ballot? Use the write-in option and vote another candidate whose name doesn't appear on the ballot for the contest, or if there is nobody that meets your specs, vote None of the Above as a write-in choice.

Want to send a message to election officials who chose wholly electronic voting systems and who have yet to see the usefulness of hand-marked ballots that provide a record in ink in the event a recount is ordered?

Want those election officials to adopt paper ballots as a voter choice of voting system at the polling place in the Primary or General Elections?

if you are displeased with only one choice of voting system when you show up in person to cast a vote at the polling place, under a contest between candidates you intend to leave blank, or under-vote, use the write-in feature on the electronic voting machine to write-in a choice for inclusion of paper ballots.

In a Friday, May 19, 2006 piece online, PA Voters' Dirty Write-In Votes & a Better Idea, Joyce McCloy of Black Box Voting.com makes several recommendations to send just such a message.

Put the "write in" feature to good use. Why not write in your "vote" for one of these candidates (especially in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida or anywhere that the lawmakers and election officials refuse to listen to the voters) :

-voterverified paperballots
-noproof notruth
-HR550
-no vaporballots
-paper ballots

If enough people write in the same thing, for the same contest, your candidate, "No Vaporballots" might win.

Regardless, your write-in vote will be counted, and then the media can report something that actually IS newsworthy - that the voters do not want paperless voting. Count those write ins if you don't believe us!

If "voterverified paperballots" got 2,000 votes in a small contest, it might win!

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/124-PA-Voters-Dirty-Write-In-Votes-a-Better-Idea.html

Rather than the above, might we suggest a very clear message "paper recorded ballot."

While many election officials (who tout electronic method of marking a ballot) have actually argued the electronic marked direct recording machines (called DREs) can print-out on paper each electronically cast ballot, there is actually no way for anyone to determine whether the voter indeed actually made the selection recorded in data stored in an internal memory area.

Nobody can determine whether what is stored on a memory card for instance was tampered with and so if what officials print out from the DRE has in some way been tampered with, nobody will ever know.

However, with a paper ballot, hand-marked by the voter, and the optical-scan system used to scan the ballot for counting (the system also enables second-chance voting in case of error or voter changes) the actual "record" of the voted ballot is the paper ballot.

In the event of a recount - there is something visible to recount. A paper ballot.

That's not to say a wholly paper ballot system cannot be tampered with. It can be. Memory cards can be tampered with. Ballots themselves can be manufactured or created anew and inserted into the optical scan machines.

That's why the chain of custody for paper ballots must be as clean and visible or transparent as possible.

That's why the state of Minnesota is in the position it is with the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

The chain of custody there during the recount was horrendous.

The entire state uses paper ballots, but not all precincts used precinct scanners.

There were enough questionable delivery of absentee ballots there to warrant a complete investigation yet no investigation was done.

yet in comparison to wholly electronic voting systems, the paper ballot with optical scanner as a choice for the voter can have safeguards built-in, if only election officials would allow that choice.

Many don't so if you want that choice you might want to write it in this next election in areas of the ballot you intend to leave blank anyway.

Silent Sebelius Sidesteps How Taxpayers Pay Uninsured Coverage

2009-05-12T04:33:00.000-07:00

Secretary of Health faced the question posed twice by Mike Barnacle on Morning Joe programming this morning but skirted it with platitudes.

Barnacle asked: How are we going to pay for this?

Sebelius responded: We need to change healthcare...

Barnacle asked: How is this going to be paid for?

Sebelius responded: We need to lower costs...

Her answers didn't answer the direct question posed two different ways.

How are we - taxpayers - going to pay for this via the federal government program?

In other words, if (approximately 46 million)(according to reports)(the number keeps rising because people keep dropping out of the private programs expecting public-funded replacement healthcare insurance and assurance)(no matter their unhealthy lifestyle choices) more people need insurance, but aren't acquiring insurance by paying in through private business employer/employee split insurance programs, how are the rest of the taxpayers going to pay for those who will use the new healthcare program but are not expected to chip in?

Another consideration, guess who currently is statistically the largest employer in the U.S.? Right, government. For the first time in history, government entities now employ more individuals than all the few left manufacturing plants, private business entities and banks too big to fail, and little mom 'n pop stores - combined!

Wouldn't it be interesting to discover that there are also now more than can be imagined illegal aliens who are included, yes included in the numbers cited 46 million uninsured?

ILLEGAL ALIENS AND EMTALA
Dr. Madeleine Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ
March 23, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine.htm

2003 June 22 Sunday
Illegal Immigration Drives Up Number Of Medically Uninsured
Bruce Crawford argues that the high percentage of illegal immigrants with few skills and with less than a high school education is driving down wages among the poorest sector of society while driving up the number of people who have no medical insurance.

It is true since 1989 the national population without health insurance has grown by 7.8 million to 41.2 million in 2001. This is almost exactly the incease in the number of illegals in the U.S. When one counts both immigrants and children born to them, over 95 percent of the increase in uninsureds is the result of immigration, more than half of which (by some estimates, 70 percent) is attributable to illegal immigration.

This is a plausible argument. The level of uninsured among the Hispanic population in the United States is much higher than that of other ethnic and racial groups.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001395.html

Uninsured Immigrants Burden the Health Care System
Health Care News October 2001

Written By: A Camarota and James R. Edwards Jr.
Published In: Health Care News > October 2001
Publication date: 10/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Managing Editor’s note: The increase in the number of people without health insurance is one of the our most troubling social trends. An under-reported study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds the nation's health insurance crisis is being driven to a measurable degree by immigration policy.

The study, "Without Coverage: Immigration's Impact on the Size and Growth of the Population Lacking Health Insurance," was written by the Center's director of research, Steven A. Camarota, and James R. Edwards Jr. of the Hudson Institute. It offers detailed information, based on Census Bureau data, on immigrant and native insurance coverage at the national level, as well as for the major immigrant-receiving states and cities.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/456/Uninsured_Immigrants_Burden_the_Health_Care_System.html

August 28, 2007 Right Truth
Almost half of uninsured in America are illegal aliens - UPDATED II
Poverty is down and median income is up, according to just released census figures 2006, Current Population Survey. (pdf) Reporting: Molly Henneberg, Fox News Channel.

2006: number of uninsured in America 47 million people, or 15.8% of the population.
2005: number of uninsured in America 44.8 million people, or 15.3% of the population.

Joseph Antos, American Enterprise Institute, looks inside the numbers, because they are very misleading.

uninsured who are NOT U.S. CITIZENS IS 45% of the 47 million.

Broken down by age, 18 - 24 years old - 29.3% of the 47 million.

25 - 35 years old - 26.9% of the 47 million.

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/08/health-care-hyp.html

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'

http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/posts/list/1542810.page

From: Cafe, Election Central
Obama, Illegal immigrants and Health Insurance
By AM - July 27, 2008, 6:28PM
They reported that Obama has stated (showed a clip of a debate) that he
does not plan insuring the illegal immigrants in this country. He
stated his reason as "we have limited resources." Then they said
that he has stated many times his intention to insure the 47 million
uninsured people in this country, and that 40% of those are
illegal. Then CNN quickly moved onto something else...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/obama-illegal-immigrants-and-h.php

Net the Truth Online

By Donna Smith Donna Smith – Wed May 6, 3:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday said a proposed government health insurance plan backed by President Barack Obama would compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.

In her first appearance before a congressional panel since taking office, Sebelius fielded questions about a new government health plan that would help cover the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.

"Dismantling the private market ... is not something the president supports. He supports moving forward and filling the gap, not disrupting the entire market," Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republican and private insurers argue that a government-run plan would drive insurance companies out of business. Sebelius said it would inject competition in the market, keep costs low and help cover the uninsured.

Obama has not put forward a specific plan and is leaving it to the Democratic-controlled Congress to write the legislation.

Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel said how the plan they proposed would operate and what benefits it would offer depended largely on costs.

Sebelius said several states offer public insurance plans to their employees, taking on the underlying risk but contracting with private insurers to operate the plan.

Obama wants an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry passed by the end of the year. The ambitious undertaking has become more urgent amid soaring health costs and rising U.S. unemployment that is leaving many workers without their employer-sponsored health insurance.

"The costs of the current system are unacceptable and unsustainable," Sebelius told the committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090506/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_overhaul

Choice Easy Between Candidates for Fayette Common Pleas Judge

2009-05-06T04:18:00.000-07:00

We find it interesting during the Fayette Civic Forum debate between two candidates for Fayette County Common Please Court Judge a notable defining issue was presented to voters who take time to sift through the stark and different information each presented to the audience.

From a Herald-Standard report Judicial candidates' debate spirited by Jennifer Harr

Candidates for Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge (crossfiled)

Ernest P. DeHaas III

Nancy D. Vernon

DeHaas said that civil cases - which include not only lawsuits, but also custody cases, divorces and any other non-criminal matter that would come before the court - make up the bulk of the court's docket.

However, Vernon said she believes criminal cases did. She said she got that assessment from the county's current judges.

Which candidate is actually "correct" yes correct in different statements concerning the kind of cases that make up the often overwhelming docket in Fayette County court?

Shouldn't the candidate who got the information "correct" be the candidate who can bring more than experience to the bench?

Something more like 'trustworthiness?'

While DeHaas cited his background with civil cases, Vernon cited her background with prosecuting criminal cases.

The exchange between the two candidates on that matter alone could enable voters to determine which is the spinner and which is the truth-teller?

Shouldn't the candidate who did her or his homework and provided an accurate portrayal of the kinds of cases that make up the Fayette County docket be the candidate who voters will trust to well do his or her homework on the law?

So which is the correct info?

More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are non-criminal?

More Fayette County Common Pleas Court cases are criminal?

Should it turn out it's 50-50 voters will have a much more difficult choice. If not, the choice should be pretty clear.

Net the Truth Online

The following article is posted as published in the Herald-Standard for discussion purposes and in full so as not to leave out anything that might help make an informed decision.

Net the Truth Online

Judicial candidates' debate spirited
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
05/06/2009
Updated 05/06/2009 12:57:59 AM EDT

When voters go to the polls on May 19, they will have two longtime Fayette County attorneys to choose between for their next common pleas court judge.

And while Ernest P. DeHaas III and Nancy D. Vernon agreed on some issues, they entered into a spirited debate about their respective qualifications and other issues during a debate hosted Monday by the Fayette Civic Forum at the State Theatre Center for Arts in Uniontown. The forum was one of four held at the theater Monday night.

While Vernon, 53, cited her 10-year tenure as the county's chief prosecutor as one of her qualifications to take a seat on the bench, DeHaas, 61, said voters should consider his broad experience in civil cases.

Both have cross-filed in the primary.

DeHaas said that civil cases - which include not only lawsuits, but also custody cases, divorces and any other non-criminal matter that would come before the court - make up the bulk of the court's docket. However, Vernon said she believes criminal cases did. She said she got that assessment from the county's current judges.

Moderator Gary Altman, a local attorney, asked both about their ideas for improving the civil and criminal court systems in the county.

Because civil court week is held four times a year and most cases are settled before they actually go to trial, Vernon suggested the judges could set specific times to hear civil trials.

DeHaas said that, with twice as many civil cases filed than criminal cases, increasing the number of days for arbitration might be beneficial.

Cases in which plaintiffs sue for $50,000 or less are automatically scheduled for arbitration.

"A full-time DA wouldn't realize that because they're just (handling) criminal cases," DeHaas said.

DeHaas suggested that Vernon's office does not efficiently schedule cases to get them into court during the county's monthly criminal court term.

Vernon bristled at the suggestion.

She said that she schedules 10 cases for each courtroom to be heard during the week, however, it is beyond her control when a defendant decides to enter a plea, or continue the trial.

Although he cited a wealth of courtroom experience, Vernon said that she never has seen DeHaas in a criminal trial, and questioned his ability to keep up with the fast-paced ways of criminal law.

Vernon cited her vast criminal trial experience, which includes trying 26 homicide cases as district attorney. Of these, 15 resulted in first-degree murder convictions and nine in third-degree murder convictions. In two of the first-degree cases, she obtained a death sentence from jurors.

Vernon said she has tried more homicides than any district attorney ever has in Fayette County, and conducted more trials in general.

"I have the experience necessary to take the bench," she said.

"Experience as a prosecutors would have some importance if we were running for district attorney, but we're running for judge," DeHaas said.

He noted that former county judge Fred C. Adams has indicated to him that while on the bench only about 15 percent of the workload a judge sees is criminal.

By those numbers, DeHaas said he is uniquely qualified for the post because he has a wealth of experience in civil cases.

"My experience far exceeds hers," he said.

The candidates also went back and forth at different times during the debate about advertisements DeHaas has run criticizing how Vernon has dealt with appeals.

Those ads include quotes from various appellate court rulings that have criticized Vernon for not filing briefs in some cases.

In advertisements that attack Vernon's record in filing briefs in appeals cases, she said DeHaas as "misstated (facts) and misled people."

Vernon said a conviction never has been reversed because she failed to file a brief, and noted that she is not required to file one.

DeHaas, however, said that he never has failed to file appeals briefs, and has received compliments from judges for the work he has done on cases over the years.

Both candidates vowed that politics would not enter into his or her courtroom if elected.

"We don't want a person who is going to make a decision based on politics on the bench," DeHaas said.

As district attorney, Vernon said she is accustomed to making decisions based on the law and not on any other considerations.

"I have never made a decision based on politics, and I would never jeopardize the integrity of my office to do that," she said.

DeHaas noted that it is not often that voters get to elect a new common pleas judge, and said they should vote to continue the excellence on the bench.

"We're electing a judge, we're not electing a district attorney," he said.

He said voters should focus on his broad legal experience, proven ability to handle cases, his impartiality, non-political background and good work ethic.

Those qualities, he said, have helped him earn the respect of county, state and appellate judges.

DeHaas vowed to work hard as a judge, and said he would make decisions based on the law and facts.

"I will keep politics out of my courtroom," he said.

Noting that she was the county's first female trial lawyer and first female district attorney, Vernon said she would be honored to serve as the county's first female judge.

She stressed her many years of legal experience, both criminal and civil, and said that she believes that public service is a calling.

While also promising to keep politics out of the courtroom, Vernon said that she had to run for district attorney because it is an elected post. During that time, she said that she believes she has earned the trust of the voters.

"You know me. You know what I stand for," she said. "I've been here for you, and now I'm asking you to be here for me," she said.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20310150&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Excuse Lame Not Release City Financial Data

2009-05-06T03:56:00.000-07:00

Financial issues draw attention
By Steve Ferris, Herald-Standard
05/06/2009
Updated 05/06/2009 12:58:19 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
(Editor's note: The following is the second of a two-part series on the primary race for Uniontown City Council.)Democratic candidates for Uniontown City Council offered varying opinions on the city's financial struggles at a recent debate conducted by the Herald-Standard editorial board.

Incumbent Gary K. Crozier, appointed Councilman Francis "Joby" Palumbo and challengers Gary Gearing and James L. Killinger are seeking Democratic Party nominations for two seats on council in the May 19 primary.

Advertisement

Republican candidates Curtis R. Sproul, who was recently appointed to fill a vacant council seat until the municipal election in November, and Russ Rhodes were not included in the debate because they are running uncontested in the primary.

A debate between the Democratic and Republican nominees for those two offices and the parties' nominees to serve the remainder of an unexpired term will be conducted prior to the November election.

Crozier, who is running for his fifth consecutive term, said no one should be blamed for the city's financial difficulties, but not raising property taxes in the past is at least part of the cause.

"I voted for raising taxes 10 years ago, 12 years ago," Crozier said.

He said the city's accountant told council then that the city couldn't continue operating with the amount of revenue it was getting from taxes.

"I wanted to raise taxes, it wasn't raised," Crozier said, adding that he believes the city's financial condition is improving.

He said council had to raise taxes this year, but shouldn't have cut services.

Council laid off 31 employees in October 2008 and then raised taxes, laid off 10 more employees and made two others part time this year. Ten employees were recalled in April.

Soon after taking office in January 2008, Mayor Ed Fike reported that the city inherited $1.3 million in debt from the prior administration. The auditor general's office began an audit in February.

Crozier said potholes have to be filled and streets are dirty. He said council has to do something for residents who have been forced to pay higher taxes.

The city needs a manager to handle its finances, he said.

"The city needs a city manager."..."I'm for it 100 percent."

Some people don't understand the role a manager would play, Crozier said. Council would continue to run the city if a manager was hired, he said.

Gearing, who has been a candidate for state representative in the past, said it's hard to know whom to blame for causing the financial struggles because many financial records are not available.

A 2008 financial statement from the current administration had not been completed as of April 2009 and financial information from prior years is "absent," Gearing said, adding that financial documents should be available on line.

"It's all about accountability and responsibility," Gearing said.

He said council did the right thing by reducing expenses and raising taxes, but it is not letting the public know how money is being spent.

This year's budget is "over inflated" and needs a lot of changes, Gearing said.

A city manager would help the city, but finding out how the city got into debt should be the first priority, he said.

In the past, spending was not done in accordance with budgets and the current council has not provided information on spending, Gearing said.

Killinger, a former commander of the state police barracks in Belle Vernon who retired after 30 years in the state police, said the last and previous administrations probably caused the financial problems facing the city.

He said he asked council to contact the auditor general to conduct an audit in 2008 to find out how the city ended up in financial trouble.

"That fell on deaf ears for a year," Killinger said.

He said no information is available about how the last and former administrations spent money. The first priority should be to find out how the city got into debt, he said.

Killinger said council should have asked the state to help track down the city's debt in early 2008 and should consider hiring a manager.

Palumbo, who was appointed in January 2008 to serve the remainder of Joseph Giachetti's term after he was elected treasurer, said the prior administration caused the financial crisis the city is facing now.

"We had a mess to clean up," when the new administration stepped in last year, Palumbo said.

He said Gearing had not received the information he has requested because the 2008 financial books have not been closed and city officials do not want to release inaccurate information.

Work stopped on the 2007 audit last year because the city didn't have enough money to pay the accounting firm that was conducting the audit, but work has resumed, Palumbo said.

The public should be able to review city financial documents, he said.

Council needs someone, possibly a manager, to work full time on city finances, Palumbo said.

He said there should be a checks and balances system to monitor spending in all departments and the manager.

"We can't afford to relive the past," Palumbo said...."I think greed crept in in the past."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20310148&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

ACORN Workers Accused Registration Packing Vote Fraud Not Supported

2009-05-05T05:13:00.000-07:00

Whether any subsequent action will include criminal charges of voter or election fraud remains to be seen.

Net the Truth Online

May. 04, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

ACORN voter registration drive nets charges

By ALAN CHOATE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNALA voter registration drive last year illegally required canvassers to meet quotas to keep their jobs and resulted in thousands of “garbage” registrations gumming up Clark County voter rolls, officials said Monday as they released a criminal complaint against the drive’s organizers.

The complaint names the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, as well as Chris Edwards, the group’s former Las Vegas field director, and Amy Busefink, who was regional director for voter registration...

...Lisa Rasmussen, a local attorney representing ACORN, called the allegations against the group “patently false.”

“Even the state concedes in its charging documents that there was no 'quota’ system that was enforced by ACORN,” she said in an e-mailed statement. “Furthermore, the suggestion that a business cannot implement standards of quality control, performance goals and individual job performance tools is contrary to the First Amendment.”

She also said Busefink would not be available for comment.

The charges are Class E felonies, the penalty for which can be probation or one to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

At Monday’s announcement, state and local officials strenuously emphasized that the false voter registrations didn’t translate to people being able to vote fraudulently.

“This is a case of voter registration fraud,” said Secretary of State Ross Miller. “There is absolutely no evidence that there was any voter fraud in the last election.”

Larry Lomax, the Clark County registrar of voters, said his office reviewed the 91,002 voter registration forms turned in by ACORN, verifying that information on the form matched information attached to the voter’s driver’s license number or Social Security number.

If it didn’t, those registrations were tagged as requiring identification at the polling place.

There were 28,097 forms that were duplicates or changes of name, party or address, leaving 62,905 new voters.

Of those, 23,186 actually voted in the 2008 general election, according to a report prepared by Lomax’s office.

That means almost 40,000 of the new voters registered by ACORN didn’t vote, and of those, almost 19,000 had information on file that didn’t match what was turned in on the forms.

“That’s 48 percent of those forms that I believe are clearly fraudulent,” Lomax said.

“This is individuals ripping off their bosses because they have a quota to make.”

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/44307912.html

John Murtha No Influence Says Pentagon Awarding Nephew Contract

2009-05-05T05:10:00.000-07:00

Murtha's Nephew Got Defense Contracts
Millions in Work Came Without Competition

Murtha has "no influence" in the awarding of particular contracts, a Pentagon spokesman said. (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)

By Carol D. Leonnig and Alice Crites
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.

Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.

Murtha said he does not advertise being the nephew of John Murtha and considers it "unfortunate" that some will unfairly assume Murtech received its federal contracts because of his uncle's influence at the Pentagon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050403743.html?hpid=topnews

Glenn Beck Ignores Dangers Napolitano 2nd Federal Constitutional Convention

2009-05-02T14:53:00.000-07:00

On Glenn Beck's program Saturday, Judge Napolitano said the federal income tax has to go as a way to stop government over-spending. He specified states can call a federal Constitutional Convention by submitting the same proposal to "abolish the income tax." He noted 34 states could make the call.

Glenn Beck's response, I like the idea, as a warning to Congress... we don't have to actually do it, but we have to put the fear in them and maybe they'll get the idea.

How sad. As soon as you turn your thoughts to the liberal and progressive coup of United States government with a Democrat President and majority Democrat Congress, and how to combat loss of liberty from those quarters, and soon enough with the help of the minority so-called conservative Republicans, along comes Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck stumping for a second Convention.

Is Beck unaware of the dangers a convention called by the states presents? (Yes.)

See our sidebar for information showing the dangers inherent in convening a second Federal Constitutional Convention. The precedent for a 'runaway' and unlimited convention if states call for one was set in 1787 to 1789 when the delegates to the convention veered from the stated purpose to convene (amend the Articles of Confederation) and instead presented an entirely new Constitution. The one the U.S. still has in operation.

Another little matter the delegates altered - a unanimous vote required to pass the document on for ratification!

Has Beck read enough history, obviously not. Had he been aware of the controversy over a second Constitutional Convention he'd have responded to Napolitano's idea far differently. He may have stuck to the best warning we can give these Congress-critters who spend unconstitutionally now and on unconstitutional programs now is a boot out of office next chance we have. Can't come soon enough for many.

Net the Truth Online

See Hannity forums for discussion not all ok with second Con-Con there, either

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1451601

Also see commentary

The new Constitutional Convention and what it means for America
Jan 13, 2009

http://toastyaroma.com/blog/the-new-constitutional-convention-and-what-it-means-for-america/

See Eagle Forum and Phyllis Shafly

This page was updated June 5, 2009

2009-05-02T05:25:00.000-07:00

Fayette judge overturns zoning board on windmill project
By Liz Zemba TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, May 1, 2009 A Fayette County judge has ruled in favor of an Oregon-based company that accused the county zoning hearing board of bias when it denied the company's permit for a special exception for 24 wind-powered turbines in Georges and Springhill townships.

In the ruling handed down late Thursday, Judge Ralph Warman reversed the hearing board's denial of the special exception for Iberdrola Renewables, formerly known as PPM Atlantic Renewable. Warman found that the zoning hearing board had "abused its discretion and committed errors of law" when it issued the denial.

Warman ordered the zoning hearing board to reconsider Iberdrola's request.

"Since the ZHB has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final adjudications in applications for variances and upon consideration that the ZHB has failed to do so in this case, we remand this action back to the ZHB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Warman wrote.

"The ZHB shall consider and grant each special exception as required by law and may impose whatever conditions they deem fit to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community."

Iberdrola wants to use the wind turbines to produce electricity for its South Chestnut Ridge Windpower Project. In the notice of appeal, Iberdrola indicated the 24 windmills were part of a total of 27 that were to be installed over a 3.5-mile section of Chestnut Ridge in Wharton, Georges and Springhill townships.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_623214.html

Fayette Base Year Assessment Constitutional Per Allegheny Ruling?

2009-04-24T08:25:00.000-07:00

Hopefully, some citizen-minded Pennsylvania property tax assessment expert will come Fayette's way before the reassessment planned to be implemented June 1, 2009, is implemented.

Where oh where are the Pennsylvania state legislators who promised their first, or second, top priority (pre-election) would be to "eliminate property taxes" even if they revised their pre-election statements to the more narrow "eliminate school property taxes?"

Where are these elected public servants now they are getting hefty state taxpayer-funded salaries, pensions, perks, free cars, daily stipends, travel subsidization, etc. including staffs to rival that of U.S. Congress-critters?

Nowhere to be heard on the promised "eliminate school property taxes" issue. Now the tone has changed to we're trying to do something positive to cut costs of property taxation for school-funding at the local level. Yes we are, we're really trying our best.

their best is to keep in place this obscene system of unfair property taxation.

On the one hand, state legislators pass such gimmicks as years-long tax-forgiveness for some, Keystone Opportunity Zones, and its offshoots and extensions and expansions, while on the other hand name-call the unfortunate who may have to use a payment plan to pay any back taxes owed. At worst, the same state legislators tout the tax-forgiveness for some as economic development while in their own districts some unfortunate may lose home or business property to a tax sale for inability to pay the bill!

why there isn't an uprising in Fayette has been frustrating for the past 10 years since the first round of Keystone Opportunity Zones were approved for certain sections of the county.

Now a reassessment will be conducted, and in this distressed area it's more likely more existing houses will have lost market value in the nationwide financial and housing crisis climate.

Meanwhile any costs associated with building a new place have risen out of all proportion. Only the very wealthy will be able to build or update if the crisis climate continues unabated.

Even 84 Lumber Company has sought state help from the federal government stimulus money if one can believe that because of a decline in that industry!

The little home-owner or business-owner who just wants to get by faces a neighbor or neighboring business that doesn't have to pay its fair share or any share of taxes for 10 or for 7 years with knowledge everything can come tumbling down just around the corner.

this situation has even been acknowledged as unfair, not uniform according to the state Constitution, and unconstitutional by state Representative Tim Mahoney nearly 2 years back come August, yet the legislator turns around and says OK to a new round of tax-forgiveness for those accepted into the program locally.

Maybe the board of Fayette Commissioners hasn't formalized the KOZ expansion/extension as requested by its promoters, yet, but who knows, as things have been going in this county maybe all a majority has to do is sign a form.

Along comes the reassessment and some homeowners will possibily have to pay not only more because of new building or upkeep while some located in KOZs won't have to pay a dime.

In addition, there's a year-2000 county bond-issue that's being used for the reassessment costs, dubbed a bargain at nearly 3 quarters of a million dollars, and local property tax-payers will foot the bill for that bond while KOZers won't be tapped for who knows how long with the extensions and expansions.

Maybe the expert on tax assessment Supreme Court rulings will come into Fayette and stop the insanity, on more than one front, but we're not holding our breath.

Net the Truth Online

Fayette commissioners take steps toward reassessment
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
04/24/2009
Updated 04/24/2009 12:15:43 AM EDT
...Hercik said the county assessment office plans to mail new notices on June 1 with the new values scheduled to go into effect for the 2010 tax year. Once notices are mailed, property owners will have 30 days to file an appeal if they disagree with their new assessed value.

The appeals will be handled at the satellite office and an independent appeals board will hear all appeals.

Hercik said when the first countywide reassessment in more than 45 years was undertaken in 2003, there were 10,000 appeals. He said his office doesn't "really have a clue" how many will be appealed this time around, but the assessment office is preparing for the appeal process.

When the first reassessment was held, county officials vowed not to allow time and inequities to creep into the system by doing regular updates.

The assessment office staff has undertaken the proactive step of updating the property valuations for all 85,000 tax records in the county for the 2010 tax year.

"In 2001, when the comprehensive revaluation program was announced, the county took the position that it would not allow the assessment system to fall victim to time as had occurred previously," Hercik said. "The county determined it would update the program every five or six years to stay current with market trends and values."

County assessment office staff has revisited every property in the county over the past few years and updated information for the county database. Hercik said some new photographs were taken, but not in cases where the physical condition of the property stayed the same.

"This time around out, county assessors performed the review functions," Hercik said. "We feel this greatly benefits the project as my staff knows their municipalities better then anyone. This update is being done 'in house' with minimal outside contracts and at a fraction of the original 2003 cost."

Hercik previously said the 2003 reassessment cost $3.3 million and was done by an outside firm. The current reassessment, being done in-house over three years, will cost "under $750,000."

Cole Layer Trumble of Ohio did the previous reassessment.

Hercik said he and his staff has revisited the neighborhood delineations previously set by CLT, and made adjustments in land values as well as locations of comparable sales to more accurately reflect the conditions of different areas of the county. Also, new building cost and depreciation tables have been established.

The previous assessments were based on a 2001 base year, but 2008 will be the new base year.

"There had been a steady increase in market values from 2001 to 2007, however, 2008 and now 2009, may show a decline," Hercik said. "We plan to take all of this into consideration as we set new values across the county."

Hercik said an appraisal traditionally looks at sales that have occurred. In the update process, assessors are utilizing sales from 2006 through 2008.

"The assessment office can't forecast what the economy will do in 2009, but future updates will take current and future real estate markets into consideration. A revaluation is not a tool to simply increase taxes for the local taxing bodies, but it is a means to equalize the tax base," Hercik said. "In a revaluation year, local taxing bodies are required by law to adjust their millage rates so that they don't collect anymore in tax dollar after the revaluation than they did before the revaluation."

Hercik said individual tax shares may increase or decrease as a result of the reassessment, but the total amount collected by the various taxing bodies cannot change. In 2003, taxpayers saw the school millage rates drop from the 50- or 60-mill levels to the current 10- to 13-mill levels, and the same process will occur when new values are set this time.

Once the new notices are mailed, they will include a telephone number for taxpayers with questions to call...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20303770&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Base year vs market sale price May 7, 2008 Testimony copy Daniel A. Miscaviage

http://www.senatorbrowne.com/finance/2008/050708/Miscavage.pdf

Judge rules Allegheny's base-year system unconstitutional
Buzz up!By Mike Wereschagin, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, June 7, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_511304.html

June 9, 2007
Judge Holds Unconstitutional Pennsylvania's Property Tax Assessment System

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/judge_holds_unc.html

Westmoreland anxiously awaits assessment ruling
Buzz up!By Rich Cholodofsky, TRIBUNE-REVIEW NEWS SERVICE
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Westmoreland County officials readily concede the property assessment system is out of whack.

County commissioners have long acknowledged that adjustments need to be made in a system that overtaxes some property owners, while undertaxing others.

But the cost of a countywide reassessment starts around $10 million.

And the likely political fallout from such a move has led to Westmoreland officials making no decision to improve its system.

That could change this year, depending on what happens in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is considering a case that could end with every county in the state finding that its property assessment system defies the constitution.

It's a scenario that would cost taxpayers in each county millions of dollars to revamp the property tax system.

The base-year system allows for counties to assign properties a value that reflects construction costs in one particular year. In Westmoreland County that year is 1972.

"We understand the tremendous cost and upheaval a reassessment can be," said Westmoreland Commission Chairman Tom Balya. "We hope the Supreme Court issues something that gives counties some relief."

"There's never a great time to do it. It's a very challenging thing to accomplish, because I don't believe the public is aware that we're not in it trying to raise taxes," Balya said.

The appellate court is being asked to review a decision by Allegheny County Judge R. Stanton Wettick, who ruled that county's system of using a base year to determine property assessments -- and subsequent taxes -- is unconstitutional.

That system, which is used in the state's 67 counties, allows properties to be assessed using values from the last year of a reassessment.

Westmoreland County uses 1972 as its base year. According to the State Tax Equalization Board, Westmoreland has the fifth-oldest base year for assessments in Pennsylvania.

The base-year system means that in 1972, the property assessments reflected 100 percent of a parcel's value. By 1982, the state calculated that Westmoreland County's assessments represented just 47 percent of market value.

This year, a property's assessed value will equal just 20.4 percent of it market value, meaning a home worth about $100,000 will have a property assessment of $20,000.

Those percentages are calculated by a state agency and are unique to each county.

John Wilt, a member of the county's Board of Tax Assessments and Appeals, concedes that the system is skewed.

"As time went on, market values tend to change. I cannot say the assessments are current today," Wilt said.

That's the problem.

One solution would be a countywide reassessment of its 193,000 parcels. But county leaders have opposed that effort as too costly. It is estimated that a reassessment could cost at least $10 million.

A reassessment would result in about one-third of the county's properties decreasing in value, while one-third would increase, Wilt said. The remaining third would not change substantially.

"Older communities will have older values. A reassessment will find that their (values) will go down," Wilt said. Homes with current market values of more than $250,000 would get higher assessed values, he said.

The Supreme Court decision could force the hands of commissioners throughout Pennsylvania.

Westmoreland County officials have a $35 million budget surplus that could be used to pay for a reassessment. But they would prefer not to do so.

"In a perfect world, we'd like to see the Supreme Court rule that it's OK to have a base year but update how we get there. The last thing I want to see is a legislative fix that has a lot of holes in it. Hopefully, the courts will allow enough time to transition into something else," Commissioner Tom Ceraso said.

A reassessment is overdue for Westmoreland. But in counties that already went through the turmoil of reassessing, it likely would have to be redone to comply with any ruling that holds the base-year system as unconstitutional.

Fayette County reassessed its 83,000 parcels in 2003. That project, which was phased in over a number of years, is expected to be completed this year, costing taxpayers $474,000 next year.

Vince Zapatosky, chairman of Fayette County board of commissioners, said lawyers for the county already are preparing a response should the Supreme Court throw out the current assessment system.

"It's more than a kick in the teeth. It's a loss of teeth," Zapatosky said of the pending ruling.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/blairsvilledispatch/obituaries/s_606900.html

After an exhaustive review of statistical evidence, the court held that a base year real estate tax system was unconstitutional because it violated the requirement of the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution that

"[a]ll taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects." The court reached this conclusion for two reasons, one theoretical and one practical. First, it reasoned that a base year system was invalid on its face because it failed to account for differential rates of change that occur after the base year in the value of real estate in different areas of a county. Second, the empirical evidence confirmed that the anticipated disparities had in fact occurred.
The court ordered Allegheny County to perform a computer-assisted countywide reassessment by March 31, 2008, for use in 2009, and a second computer-assisted countywide reassessment by March 31, 2009, for use in 2010.

Recognizing the virtual certainty that Allegheny County would file a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court permitted Allegheny County to continue using its 2002 base year system until the 2009 tax year (though it provided a delay mechanism if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not entered a final order in this case by October 31, 2008).

http://www.buchananingersoll.com/media/pnc/5/media.1795.pdf

Pennsylvania Supreme Court weighing property tax assessments
by The Associated Press Thursday September 11, 2008, 7:14 AM

PITTSBURGH -- The property tax assessment system used by every county in the state might not be perfect, but it complies with a constitutional requirement that taxes be fair and equal, a government lawyer told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday. Attorneys challenging the so-called "base-year" system on behalf of several property owners argued that it leads to unfair real estate valuations and, thus, unfair tax bills.
The base-year system pegs the tax to a property's value in a given past year, rather than on its current value. The longer a county goes without reassessment, the greater the tax disparity can be, they argued. "It would be like taxing somebody at their 2002 income when they're making less in 2008," attorney Ira Weiss said. "No one would put up with that, and no one should want to put up with paying taxes on property with 2002 values in 2008." The case before the Supreme Court comes from Allegheny County, but the base-year system is used by all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties to determine how valuable a property is. School districts and municipalities use the assessment values to calculate landowners' tax bills. In October 2005, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and county council decided to set 2002 as the base year for assessments, because they said using 2006 property values could mean large tax increases for thousands of people who bought property since the last reassessment in 2002.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/09/pennsylvania_supreme_court_wei.html

County property tax case goes to top court
Onorato appeals Judge Wettick's assessment decision
Saturday, September 06, 2008
By Karamagi Rujumba, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Sitting in its Pittsburgh session, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a case that is at the core of how Allegheny County -- and many others -- determines real estate property values.

In 2005, county Chief Executive Dan Onorato implemented a base-year property assessment plan, which sets assessments based on the value of property in 2002, including new construction. Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. threw out that system last year, declaring the state law that allows a base-year system is unconstitutional.

At a news conference yesterday, Mr. Onorato said the county will argue that Judge Wettick not only was wrong in his interpretation of Allegheny County's base-year plan but also overstepped his authority in finding unconstitutional a state law that is the basis for similar plans in counties across the state. The court will hear arguments on the case on Wednesday.

"We think [Judge Wettick] is wrong," Mr. Onorato said, adding that he will keep fighting for his base-year plan because he made a campaign promise to deal with "the reassessment problem" when he sought the chief executive's office in 2003.

The long-awaited assessment case -- Clifton et al, and Pierce et al v. Allegheny County -- hinges on a law that was created by the state Legislature and approved by then Gov. Dick Thornburgh in 1982, giving counties the authority to use a base year when setting property values.

In Allegheny County, the issue of assessments has been a lightning rod for many years, with property owners complaining of constant and excessive reassessments of their properties. Mr. Onorato said he sought to stabilize what amounted to a continuous "back-door property tax increase on homeowners" every time the county did a reassessment because values increase but school districts and municipalities never rolled back tax rates.

Furthermore, he argued, about 20 counties in Pennsylvania use a base-year market value system to establish property tax rates, causing chaos if Judge Wettick's ruling is upheld.

"The first thing I will do [if the Supreme Court upholds Judge Wettick's decision] is go to Harrisburg and ask them for a new law," he said. "Allegheny County is not going to do a reassessment any time soon."...

...A group of homeowners challenged Mr. Onorato's base-year plan in Common Pleas Court, arguing that he had essentially implemented an assessment freeze, unfairly penalizing property owners with decreasing or stagnant assessment values while giving tax breaks to property owners with rising values.

More than a year after their initial challenge, Judge Wettick agreed with the homeowners and threw out Mr. Onorato's plan, ordering the county to complete a computer-assisted reassessment by March of this year and another reassessment by March of 2009.

So far, the county has done neither assessment because the case is still under appeal. And because Judge Wettick found a state law unconstitutional, the case went straight to the state Supreme Court, where it has been since last year, pending oral arguments.

At its core, the homeowners' case is based on the premise that the base-year plan violates the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"It's a question of uniformity," said Ira Weiss, an attorney representing a group of homeowners in Franklin Park, Mt. Lebanon and Squirrel Hill. Another group of homeowners is represented by attorney Don Driscoll. Judge Wettick combined both cases, and both legal teams will essentially operate as one.

"The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that all taxes in the state should be structured uniformly. That is why we don't have a graduated tax," said Mr. Weiss. "What Allegheny County did [in implementing the base year] is so far from acceptable, let alone uniform. It is unconstitutional."

The inequities in property valuations that were created by the base-year plan, Mr. Weiss said, are far-reaching enough that "I'm very confident the court will affirm Judge Wettick."

And that could set the precedent for challenges of the other base-year plans across the state, said Mr. Weiss. "I think ours is a bellwether case. If [the challenge] stands, there is a chance all those other similar systems out there will fall."

But in his brief before the court, Allegheny County Solicitor Mike Wojcik argued that the state statutes that created the base-year plan "do not clearly, palpably, and plainly violate the Constitution."

"We have a strong argument to make because I think Judge Wettick exceeded his bounds. He wants the [base-year plan] to be a lot closer to perfection in uniformity [regarding how taxes are collected,] but I don't think the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that," Mr. Wojcik said...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08250/909908-85.stm

Pennsylvania’s ‘Base Year’ Assessment System Challenged
The base year assessment system that all 67
counties in PA use to tie a property’s tax to its value
in a given past year is being challenged in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The attorney’s
representing several property owners contend that
this system leads to unfair real estate valuations
and therefore unfair tax bills.
Attorneys for the government say the system may
not be perfect but it complies with a constitutional
requirement that taxes be fair and equitable.
In October 2005 Allegheny County officials decided
to set 2002 as the base year for assessments
because they felt using 2006 property values would
result in tax increases for thousand who had
purchased property since the last reassessment in
2002.
But people’s attorney Ira Weiss contends, “It would
be like taxing somebody at their 2002 income when
they’re making less in 2008.”
If the Supreme Court rules in the people’s favor
counties would have to do annual reassessments
unless the state legislature were to set another
standard.

http://www.ennestax.com/admin/doc/WEBTaxFaxs_regular_Sept_08.pdf

Downingtown decision

http://kassablaw.com.p2.hostingprod.com/files/Interim_Real_Estate_Tax_Assessment.pdf

Related

The Burden of Property Tax Exemptions
By Donald A. Krueckeberg
December 2004

http://www.njpp.org/rpt_freenj.html

2009-04-23T17:20:00.000-07:00

7-year-old boy prescribed powerful drug before suicide

Troubled boy was being treated by a Broward psychiatrist who is on a list of Florida doctors red-flagged as having ''problematic'' prescribing practices
Carol Marbin Miller | The Miami Herald
6:31 AM EDT, April 22, 2009
MARGATE - Weeks before his death, Gabriel Myers, the 7-year-old Broward boy who hanged himself in the shower of his foster home, had been prescribed a powerful mind-altering drug linked by federal regulators to an increased risk of suicide in children.

In all, Gabriel had been prescribed four psychiatric drugs, two or three of which he was taking at the time of his death, said Jack Moss, Broward chief of the state Department of Children & Families.

Moss said he is not sure which medications the boy was taking because Margate police took the foster home's medication log as part of an investigation into Gabriel's death last week.

Three of the psychotropic drugs carry U.S. Food and Drug Administration ''black box'' label warnings for children's safety, the strongest advisory the federal agency issues.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=28542476

Fayette Not Among Counties Purged Ineligibles To Wait Years

2009-04-23T07:24:00.000-07:00

Highlighting the Tribune-Review article More than 200,000 state voters purged
brings up the status of Fayette County authorized review and purge of ineligible names on the county voter registration rolls.

A purge of ineligible voters from Pennsylvania's voter registration rolls must follow stringent election requirements. Obviously, Allegheny County's voter rolls needed a review as of 200,000 names removed in some counties in PA, some 53,000 of them hailed from Allegheny County, alone.

Remember, too, if unfortunate and unavoidable errors occur, a name is removed from the listing by mistake, notice of removal is sent to the person long in advance of deadlines to register to vote. In the case of an error in removal of a name, the individual notified of the removal would have an adequate amount of time to re-register, and/or decline the opportunity.

A purge must be completed within 90 days of an election.

So there would be ample time for individuals whose names have been scheduled to be removed erroneously to re-register. It may be a hassle to do so, but in the interest of as accurate a voter database as possible, the paper-work hassle is a small price to pay.

We have pressed for years for the County of Fayette to complete a full review of the county's voter rolls.

Fayette County commissioners unanimously passed a measure last May 8 to have the county Election Bureau develop a plan to conduct a purge, with some specified directions this be completed within the 90-day window before a federal election.

Fayette County Board of Commissioners Thursday, May 8, 2008

Election Bureau
Moved by Commissioner Vicites and seconded by Commissioner Zimmerlink to develop a plan to purge voter records

Commissioner Zapotosky Aye
Commissioner Vicites Aye
Commissioner Zimmerlink Aye

Motion passed unanimously

Laurie Lint Director of Election Bureau states she will try to have the records ready for the next Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Zapotosky informed Mrs. Lint that we have 90 days. The Federal Law requires us to have the records done 90 days prior to the next Election. Commissioner Zimmerlink questioned the Director if she will have a plan ready in June. She replied she had to check on that. Commissioner Vicites informed Mrs. Lint she needs to get started on records as soon as
possible. He added that we have many people that will never vote again for different reasons for example some may be deceased. He said we need to clean those up to make sure they are as accurate as possible.

Commissioner Zimmerlink stated that prior to 2004, a voter purge was done on a smaller scale and in 2006, and another purge was done in conjunction with mailing 21,000 new voter machine information affecting 30,000 voters. The Director confirmed this and Commissioner Zimmerlink said the County has since discussed another purge

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/may_8_2008.pdf

See budget copy 2006 Voter Registration Purge amount dedicated

http://dirtline.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fayette_county_budget_2006.pdf

Just a couple of weeks later, to citizen inquiry, Chairman Vincent Zapotosky assured the purge was in progress.

However, due to public revealation the Election Bureau director had a conflict in advance vacation scheduling at the time, such a plan was forestalled past last year's 90-day requirement, and was actually put off until this year. At that, even though official notices reportedly have been sent to some thousands of potential ineligible voters, names will not be able to be removed until two more federal elections pass!

We've pressed long ago for the board of commissioners sitting in the capacity of the county Registration Commission to begin its own review of the county voter registration rolls.

To date, no commissioner has opted to undertake a duty they could perform - act as a registrar of elections - cause a thorough review of the county voter rolls to be done and utilizing any necessary personnel including hiring and appointing an "inspector" or inspectors of voter registration.

We think letting the voter registration rolls in Fayette County continue as-is for another potential 4 to 5 years - admitted to be inaccurate by the elected officials (members of the board of commissioners who also comprise the county Registration Commission)- is simply unconscionable.

We've provided information over the years citing election law as well that shows the capacity for a review any member of the Fayette County Registration Commission possesses (as do all other such county Registration Commission members in PA).

In fact, years ago, 1999-2000, a review of the county voter rolls was started, with the aid of a state-wide advocate for clean elections, the Voter Integrity Project, but it never was completed.

The VIP group researched the status of the county's voter rolls and generated a preliminary report that all subsequent Registration Commission members have had available to them.

So for some 9-years this report has been available as a starting point for subsequent re-elected incumbents and newly elected board members since then.

Further, since the late '90s, when an investigation into voter and election fraud ensued to the point a Fayette Grand Jury convened and initiated indictments, one involving former Congressman Austin Murphy, the Grand Jury's report which proclaimed the inaccuracy of the voter rolls at that time, all commissioners either re-elected or newly elected, have had if nothing else that motivation to to initiate a review of the county voter rolls.

Is this not as egregious an affront as anything to knowingly maintain an inaccurate voter registration list for even one year (with knowledge of its inaccuracy) let alone close to if not more than a dozen?

The amount of years current commissioners have surely had this VIP status-report and Fayette Grand Jury report available, and noting the incomplete 2000 purge wherein more information had to have been supplied to subsequent Registration Commissions:

Commissioner Vincent Vicites = 10 years (sworn into office since Jan. 1994 and in office during 1999 Fayette Voter Fraud Grand Jury)

Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink = 6 years (sworn into office since Jan. 2004)

Chairman and Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky = 1 year and 5 months (oath of office Jan. 08 but was informed of particulars prior)

the Registration Commission members must follow the same procedure - stringent procedure - to actually remove a name from the voter rolls should there be a finding of potential ineligibility of a name. It's the same procedure that is followed when they delegate the nitty-gritty process to the county Election Bureau.

The current board of commissioners has heard our plea for a thorough and an adequate review of the county voter rolls in time for the 2008 Presidential Primary Election and General Election. They've heard from us since.

Our effort stands as one insisting one or more of the members of the Registration Commission determine the legalities of causing a review of the county voter registry, (by members of the Registration Commission), and act on any warranted removals, before November's 2009 Municipal General Election.

For more information and details visit our companion site Vote Fix, started back in 2000-2001. We provide links to county records such as the VIP Report and Fayette Grand Jury official report of its findings.

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id72.html

Also see the Guest Column in the Daily Courier for April 11, 2009 wherein writer Brian K. Lutes lays out exactly what could, and should, be done.

Net the Truth Online

Commissioners' Meeting May 22, 2008

Delinda Young commented that she feels there is an emergency in this County which is the need to do a purge of voter records & to use a portion of the surplus & that the Capital Projects should not be for Court House repairs.

Commissioner Zapotosky assured Delinda Young that the purge was in progress.

Commissioners Zimmerlink informed Mrs. Young that Capital projects are not just Courthouse repairs and that the funds may be available in the Hava Grant for the purge.

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/may_22_2008.pdf

Net the Truth Online

Brennan Center takes credit for purge delay

In detail – Reports emerged in June that the Elections Bureau of Fayette County was moving forward with a purge of inactive voters that did not appear compliant with NVRA standards. According to news sources, the plan would have removed from the rolls any inactive voter who failed to respond to a confirmation-of-address mailing and who subsequently did not vote in November's election. The NVRA, by contrast, is explicit in prohibiting the purge of voters for their mere failure to vote. It does, however, specify measures by which a state can remove from the rolls voters suspected of having changed address: voters can be removed from the rolls only after they've failed both to respond to the appropriate notice (regarding change of address) and to vote in two or more consecutive federal elections thereafter.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/vre_state_based_pennsylvania

Fayette postpones purging
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_581779.html

More than 200,000 state voters purged
Buzz up!By Mike Wereschagin, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

More than 200,000 people have been removed from Pennsylvania's voter rolls since the presidential election in November — 53,000 of them in Allegheny County.

The reduction is part of a regular purge of registrations for people who haven't voted in at least five years, or the last two presidential elections. The purge helped registered Republicans narrow Democrats' 1.2-million voter registration advantage by 30,000 voters.

In all, about 8.6 million people remained registered to vote in Pennsylvania as of Thursday, the last day for which statewide statistics are available. Large registration declines are common in years after major elections, said Pennsylvania Department of State spokesman Charlie Young. From November 2006 to the following May, officials purged 75,000 voters from the rolls, and 300,000 during the same period in 2004.

Monday was the deadline to register for the May 19 primary. With few races drawing much interest, however, the number of registrations slowed to a trickle of about 50 per day, said Mark Wolosik, manager of the Allegheny County Elections Division.

"There isn't the level of interest in this primary as there was last year," when Pennsylvania became the focal point in the marathon Democratic presidential primary race between then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Wolosik said.

The only statewide offices on the ballot this year are judicial races, making the Pittsburgh mayor's contest the highest-profile contest on the May ballot.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_621514.html

Fayette lacks funds to cull registration roll
Buzz up!By Chris Foreman, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 13, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/fayette/s_507440.html

The Herald Standard - July 22, 2008, By Amy Zalar

...The commissioners also will act today on proposals to enact a voter purge as well as initiate a pay study for all non-union county employees.

Last month, all three commissioners voted to support a voter purge. Zimmerlink said in May 2006 the county mailed out 21,142 letters to registered voters, informing them of the new voting system, which led to removing more than 1,000 names.

Zimmerlink said the open issue is how to fund the purge.

Vicites said the purge should be completed before the November election, adding that he initially pushed to have it placed on the agenda.

"We need to move forward. We have identified funding," Vicites said. "The voter purge is the top priority in the election bureau in my opinion."

Zapotosky said money from the sale of some of the county's electronic voting machines could be used to pay for the purge. He said the only outstanding issue is to ensure the county follows federal requirements regarding when the purge can be done...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19863949&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dep t_id=480247&rfi=6

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/22/commissioners-may-change-ordinance-to-comply-with-turbine-industry-standards/

Purge of inactive Fayette voters delayed
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
08/09/2008

August 09, 2008

A purge of about 25,000 Fayette County voters who have failed to show up at the polls in five years has been delayed until after the November election...

...But as [Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau] began to evaluate the process - which included the need for additional supplies, printing letters, folding them and stuffing them - Lint said she realized she would need additional time to make sure everything was done correctly.

"We were afraid it wasn't going to get done right, and I didn't want to push it through fast. We wanted to do it 100 percent right," Lint said.

Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites said he also was disappointed that the purge was put off. At a May commissioners' meeting, Vicites said he pushed for, and the three agreed, to direct Lint to bring a plan for purging the rolls to the June 26 meeting.

Lint did not do that, he said, noting that she waited until the July 24 meeting to address the purge. Had Lint brought the plan forward in June, Vicites said she would have weeks instead of days to complete the task.

"I specifically put this on the agenda right after the April 22 election to make sure it got done," Vicites said. "It didn't, and I'm not happy about it."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19901537&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

County begins purging voter rolls
Posted: 02/27/2009
Back
By Liz Zemba, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 27, 2009

Fayette County on Thursday initiated a long-awaited purge of its voter-registration rolls.

Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said her department began mailing out notices to some 9,000 inactive voters yesterday. The figure represents nearly 10 percent of the county's 91,382 registered voters.

County commissioners last summer discussed conducting the purge, but it was delayed until after the November election because of time constraints. Vince Zapotosky, chairman of the board of commissioners, attributed more recent delays to technical problems with the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE.

Operated by the state, SURE notifies the state's 67 election bureaus when voters die, move or register in another county. Zapotosky said the county worked with the State Department to resolve problems with the system, allowing Fayette to move forward with purging its voter-registration rolls.

Lint said the 9,000 voters who will receive letters have had no election-related activity in five years. Such activity includes voting or making changes to addresses or party registration.

Individuals who receive the letters will be asked to contact the election bureau. If they do not, and then fail to vote in the next two federal elections, their registrations will be purged.

That means affected voters who fail to respond to the notices in time for this year's spring primary will still be permitted to vote, Lint said.

In the past, Fayette purged its voter rolls every two years. Lint said that stopped in 1995, when new rules were introduced with the passage of the Motor Voter Law.

Zapotosky said purging the voter rolls will give voters and candidates an accurate understanding of issues such as party dominance.

Of the county's current 91,382 registered voters, Lint said 62,880 are Democrats and 21,929 are Republicans. The balance, or 6,573, are independents.

http://m.triblive.com/triblive/db_7241/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=E25A191343C39C3633E26CE82CC61743?contentguid=c4vVaaEV&storycount=409&detailindex=5&full=true

Related opinion published in Daily Courier (we disagree with the headline as the writer obviously states a need for a purge of ineligibles, but not utilizing strictly the postal methodology)

The problem with purging voters
By Brian K. Lutes Saturday, April 11, 2009

I am writing to address the voter-registration purge that apparently will be conducted via the U.S. Postal Service by the Fayette County commissioners.

The only effective way to purge the voter rolls is to conduct a door-to-door canvass of all registered voters in the county. This would consist of sending inspectors of registration out across the county and actually knocking on doors to verify that a registered voter actually lives at a given address and that the address given in the registration information is actually a residence.

Any registered voter found to not live at the address listed in the registration information on file would be challenged and given a chance at a hearing to prove that he is entitled to be registered to vote.

There has also been discussion, in news articles about the purge, of the voter rolls containing the names of dead people. This should not be, and if it is, someone is deliberately breaking the law.

Every month the state Department of Health sends out a list of citizens who have died to all county election offices. The election offices are required to cross-reference the list of deceased people with the voter registration rolls and remove any registered voters who have died.

This is how the voter registration process is supposed to work: A person who wishes to vote must fill out a voter registration card and deliver it to the Election Bureau. The registration card must contain the person's address and signature indicating the person is legally qualified to be registered to vote. At this point the person is not registered to vote; he has only applied to be registered to vote.

Once the Election Bureau receives the application, it is supposed to be given to an inspector of registration, who is then supposed to verify the information that has been provided. The inspector has 10 days to verify the applicant's address, that the applicant is not listed as deceased, that the applicant has been a resident of the election district in which the address listed is located for the requisite amount of time, that the applicant is a legal citizen, etc.

If the inspector determines that the applicant meets the legal requirements to be a registered voter, the election bureau registers the applicant. But if the Inspector determines the applicant does not meet any of the legal requirements, he is to file a "challenge" to the registration of the applicant with the registration commission (county commissioners) and the applicant is notified that his application to be registered is being challenged. He has a right to appear at a hearing before the commission to answer the challenge.

Despite language that dictates that the registration commission shall employ inspectors of registration, the Fayette County commissioners do not employ them. This means that when a person applies to be registered to vote in Fayette, no one is checking the information presented in the application; they are simply registering the applicants based on the information given to them in the application and sending out the registration cards.

We must have inspectors of registration as required by law.

I'm sure there are many retired police officers who would he willing to give their time to act as inspectors of registration. Or, perhaps, the political science departments at the California University of Pennsylvania and Penn State Fayette could provide students to carry out the work of inspectors of registration for extra credit.

Without inspectors verifying the information on the registration applications, any "voter purge" conducted by mail is totally worthless.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/s_619739.html

VOTER INTEGRITY PROJECT MENTIONED in (biased) report at salon.com

VIP gave an award to ChoicePoint for its Florida work, praising its "innovative excellence [in] cleansing" the state's voter rolls. VIP is promoting the firm's proprietary methods to purge voter rolls nationwide, and has partnered with Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, to identify small communities that need pro-bono voter roll "scrubbing."

This year, VIP launched a pilot voter registration clean-up program, focused on Fayette County, Pa., and Atlantic Beach, N.C. In Fayette County, Democrats outnumber registered Republicans better than 3-1, according to data from the Pennsylvania department of state. In Atlantic, Democrats hold a 58-42 percent registration advantage over Republicans, according to the state department of elections.

VIP says Fayette was chosen because it was home to an absentee ballot fraud scheme that resulted in three election fraud convictions earlier this year, according to its Web site.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/integrity/index.html

Gullible Public Care Less About Equality in Vote Counting

2009-04-19T06:59:00.000-07:00

Following the Minnesota Senate contest, we find the public of Minnesota and the rest of the nation simply could care less whether there has been equality, or inequality, in vote-county methods applied when paper ballots are utilized. The hand-counts of some ballots which were initially rejected as an 'invalid' ballot, rejected by the machine, should of course be done to confirm the reliability of the 'machine' count.

But when different methods are then used to accept the rejected paper ballots, differing only due to who is doing the 'counting' of the paper ballot, the public should be outraged, no matter who is doing the counting.

They don't seem to be. Maybe indeed, they deserve what they get.

But on the other hand, if injustice reigns in the improper counting of paper ballots, then an injustice reigns during the term of whomever is placed in office.

No matter who it is, every effort should be made to have the same regs in place for rejecting or accepting of what were machine-rejected, thus voided and uncounted, paper ballots.

Without that process in place in a state, the state is guilty of an infringement on the rights of all voters of the states.

The right to have their ballot equal to that of every other ballot, no more and no less.

Hopefully, somebody will see the light, and if possible, have a do-over. That would be fair. In fact, a special election might attract mover voters of all persuasians, and since a third-contender, maybe even more would be permitted, the people would be the winners no matter the new outcome.

Fairness and justice. Soon we won't recognize what they once were.

Net the Truth Online

Minnesota's Missing Votes
Some Senate absentee ballots are more equal than others
Meanwhile, back in the Minnesota Senate recount, the three-judge panel reviewing the race has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner. Republican Norm Coleman intends to appeal to the state's Supreme Court, while Democrats and the press corps pressure him to surrender. We hope Mr. Coleman keeps fighting, because the outcome so far hangs on the fact that some votes have been counted differently from others.

Even after the recount and panel-findings, the 312-vote margin separating the two men equals about .01% of the 2.9 million votes cast. Even without any irregularities, this is as close to a "tie" as it gets. And there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted. Any one of these issues was enough to throw the outcome into doubt. Combined, they created a taint more worthy of New Jersey than Minnesota.

The Coleman camp pushed for resolution of these problems during the recount, but it was stymied by a state canvassing board that cared more about preserving its "Minnesota nice" reputation than about making tough calls. The state Supreme Court also punted difficult questions. The mess then landed with the three-judge panel overseeing Mr. Coleman's contest trial, a panel that seemed out of its depth.

Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact.

Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead.

During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.

If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.

This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.

Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.

Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html

PA: KOZ still unfair amid broken promises job creation

2009-04-17T06:11:00.000-07:00

What do proponents of tax-forgiveness for some fail every time to reveal?

While a select few don't have to pay up on annual local property tax-bills for some amount of years (in the name of economic development) don't face:

foreclosure on property because monies are freed up to pay mortgages on other property

property tax-sale for inability to pay the assessed taxes

And the worst drawback to this scheme of tax-forgiveness for some on real-estate property?

those not located in a KOZ must pay for everybody who is in a KOZ because the costs of government at any level continuously go what? UP.

The Herald Standard article quotes some $81,000 that will come due from the KOZ properties within the Laurel Highlands School District jurisdiction.

Get real. Does that sound like a lot to anybody with half-a-brain? On all of the properties located in a KOZ now or for the next 7 years, after the expiration of KOZ in one of the most upscale area of the entire county, only an $81,000 return in the future?

Maybe it was a misprint?

The idea of the KOZ status was initially proposed to draw big business to Fayette County and the municipalities within the county. New employers were supposed to create hundreds upon hundreds of well-paying new jobs.

Those jobs were supposed to attract outside the area new residents. Residents who would want either existing housing or to build new.

Those residents in turn would stimulate the local economy and move families into the area during the time the big business was receiving the tax-freedom for creating jobs.

That hasn't exactly worked out as intended.

Local businesses already established have in most cases simply moved operations to a KOZ. A few came from another part of the country like Duke Energy in another area of Fayette but employs less than a dozen persons.

Not exactly the hundreds upon hundreds promised.

And when the program was pitched around the country, the proponents offered 10-years should be enough time to get things going.

That soon changed a mere couple years later and extensions seem to have been the wave of the future.

When will KOZ end?

Not in our lifetimes. Unless people go to the other boards the municipal government and county commissioners, this won't end for another 7 years.

At the same time, if even one homeowner or business goes bust or has to relinquish property for failure to pay local property taxes while another doesn't have to pay because of location in a tax-free KOZ, what does that say about the idea of equality and tax fairness?

Reject the KOZs. Missing from any report is how much the state government has forked over to Fay-Penn to provide aid to these same companies in the form of grants and low interest loans.

While the national economy and local economies are burning out, at some point necessitating even larger increase in taxation, some don't have to pay.

They don't have to fear losing home or business while others may.

Not only is that unfair, it's unconscionable.

Net the Truth Online

Laurel Highlands board OKs KOZ program
By Christine Haines, Herald-Standard
04/17/2009
Updated 04/17/2009 02:15:36 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
The Laurel Highlands School Board Thursday approved a Keystone Opportunity Zone that includes the University Technology Park, the Fayette Business Park and another 100 acres in North Union Township.

"New businesses that come in are given a tax break for up to seven years," said Dr. Gary Brain, the district superintendent.

Brain said the policy is paying off for the district, with businesses previously given the tax break expected to contribute $81,000 in taxes to the district in 2013 when their tax break ends. Brain said that the district benefits from the KOZ program through the creation of jobs even before the district begins to realize additional property taxes.

Brain noted that North Union Township and the Fayette County Commissioners must approve the new KOZ before it goes into effect.

The board also voted to put $500,000 into the capital reserve fund, bringing that fund to $1 million. Brain said that between the capital reserve fund and stimulus money from the government, the district should be in good shape for upcoming building renovation projects.

School director Tom Vernon reported that the finance committee will meet at 8 a.m. on April 24 to start putting together the 2009-10 budget...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20299932&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Susan Boyle: unique 47-year old talent humor "that's one side of me"

2009-04-16T06:49:00.000-07:00

Who's calling the woman frumpy didn't see beyond the outer woman. So her hair is nest-curly. So her arms aren't First Lady Michele Obama fit. Susan Boyle has class and humor. Imagine, asked how old she is, Boyle responds:

47 years old, and that's just one side of me!

Really now, who spontaneously at that age comes out with not only her real age, but pokes fun at her age and competing nonetheless in front of thousands of audience members primed to reject the spinster!

Erma Bombeck made a career of it, why not Boyle!

What was stunning after the comedy, she went right into the opposite. Serious.

A song from Les Miserables, no less. Not that we're judges of talent, but the heart was heard loud and clear.

She's making the covers of many newspapers around the world, too. Maybe the Obama's will invite her to the White House after her next stunning performance.

Love the outfit first time. she actually has what's called an hour-glass shape.

Can't wait to see what she's wearing for her next round.

And read more views that generate this kind of issue-discussion about capitalism vs government collectivism...

The Why is no one Suspicious writer doesn't believe. While Simon may play to the camera he's not adverse to slamming the talent-less. Makes some of 'em cry, in fact, with his barbs. Had Boyle not had any 'budding' or 'actual' talent on display, Simon would not have said, 'you can return home to your little hamlet, village with your head held high, you've got 3 yeses.'

Instead he've had said in his way, you can return to your little hamlet, village, with your head hung as low as most of your 47-year old parts.

Simon isn't cowering in the shadows in the U.S., and it's got to be the same over there, or else he'd lose face, whatever his 'youthful' age.

Net the Truth Online

clip

Our dreams Boyle over

...A Facebook Fan Page dedicated to Boyle has over 22,000 fans, and, as of this writing, has been increasing at a rate of 1,000 fans per hour. You can expect to hear about a Boyle record sometime soon, because this kind of support proves she already has a fan base, even after only singing one song.

In any other year, at any other time, it’s possible that Susan Boyle’s story would just be a nice Cinderella type of tale that reminds us you can’t judge a book by its cover. However, this year, in the midst of a global recession, with so many hard-working people unemployed and out of luck, Susan’s story transcends the cynically colored glasses by which we now view humanity’s successes.

Yes, she has an incredible talent most of us do not have, but if someone with a story like Susan’s can overcome what she’s lived through to become an instant star, then perhaps each of us can persevere and make good on our dreams.

Even the way in which Boyle has come into our lives, via a reality TV show fueled by capitalistic aspirations, is a reminder that, in spite of its travails, capitalism is a system that provides each of us an opportunity at success.

If ever we needed Susan Boyle, we needed her now...

comments

Michael Metrick:April 16, 2009 at 6:56 am

Kudos for calling it like it is! All you folks expressing disdain for the “capitalist” comment should remember this: when the State runs the economy and industry, eventually it will begin to try to run your personal life as well. The collectivists will try to impose their decisions as to who becomes a doctor, who becomes a steelworker, etc. Want to open your own business? Sorry, Big Brother says there’s too many dry cleaners, bad for the state run economy, bad for our collective good. In such a society, there would never be an opportunity for a Susan Boyle to shine. God bless her! And God bless the free market for providing her a stage!

http://digg.com/d1opbc

Net the Truth Online

Susan Boyle Stuns 'Britain's Got Talent' Audience and Even Simon Cowell
...As she was interviewed by Simon Cowell on "Britain's Got Talent," everything about her stage presence--from her dress to her hairstyle to her choice to avoid make-up to her age--seemed to say this was going to be one of those Gong moments for the show.

This CNN clip of her performance shows some wonderful before and after pictures of the audience members. Before the song, it was obvious they didn't expect much. Nor did Simon. Miss Boyle said her goal was to become a professional singer. "Why hasn't it worked out so far," he asked. Her confident, poised and cheerful response should have given us an idea of what was next.

I've never been given the chance before, here's hoping it'll change," she beamed.

And then...wow!

An audience ready to laugh and ridicule became synchronized in their amazement, applause, cheers, and instant respect for the gifted woman singing before them.

Piers Morgan gave her "the biggest 'yes' of his career!" It's possible she'll go a long way in the competition. And I hope she does, because she is a living example of one of things I absolutely despise about our media-driven culture. The idea that women need to be young, thin, tabloid-friendly, and discovered by the time they're 25 is an unhealthy as it is foundationless. There are so many gifted people who hold no hope of ever being discovered for their talents. They go undiscovered except for their close friends and perhaps some church attendees. And it shouldn't be that way. And we know it.

That is why I was inspired not only by her song, but by the crowd's reaction. Everyone loved it! They loved her! They were touched by her raw talent, her beautiful voice, and became instant fans. The part about each of us that is quick to judge is also quick to respond to excellence and beauty. We should be quicker to look for the beauty in people, and I'm not sure our media-driven culture trains us to do that.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/04/47-year-old-scot-stuns-idol-au.html

Scotland lines up behind Susan Boyle, unlikely star of Britain's Got Talent
Britain's Got Talent standout Susan Boyle has already found backing from an army of Scottish fans.

Britain's Got Talent standout Susan Boyle has already found backing from an army of Scottish fans.

The unlikely singing star of Saturday’s first show dazzled with a stunning version of I Dreamed A Dream from Les Misérables, which you can find on our catchup site, with many viewers already tipping her to win the show....

http://entertainment.stv.tv/home/88331-scotland-lines-up-behind-susan-boyle-unlikely-star-of-britains-got-talent/

Mom Blogs: To be Regulated?

2009-04-16T05:56:00.000-07:00

Coming soon... veering away to listen to Susan Boyle... I Dreamed the Dream. Youngest of 9 children. Lives with her cats.

World sensation. Asked how old she was she responded, 47. And that's just one side of me!

She sings in church. Being interviewed by Fox News from Scotland. The show found her, she said!