Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Aug. 21, 2006 at 12:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
68 Comments
Here is a topic I have been wanting to discuss?
Back in June, each and every vehicle that was headed to the Wakarusa music festival near Lawrence was searched by Kansas Law enforcement officials.
My question is, how did the authorities have the right to search each and every vehicle? What statue does it relate too? Is this part of the patriot act?
When I attend concerts/thunder games at the Coliseum, or even concerts at Sandstone Verizon, my car has never been searched.
I would have been irate and would have let the police have a piece of my mind if this would have happend to me.
Does anybody have any insight into the situation. I would love to hear some opinion about this.
A vehicle search can be done after a person has been stopped for a traffic violation. After that the search can only be from outside the car unless the driver gives the officer permission to search areas that cannot be viewed from outside (like in a closed trunk). That’s why police can set up road blocks and check driver’s identities when searching for escaped convicts, but going to a concert of music festival is not grounds for being criminally suspect.
Otherwise it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no probably cause to search the car and no consent was given. The Patriot Act doesn’t not trump the Constitution, no state of federal legislation does.
Such searches only establish a state of fear. Of course complaining about your civil rights will just cause you to get arrested where the police can hold you for three days (or is it a week now because of the patriot act?) then let you go without filing charges. You can then sue, provided you have the money to do so, and hope you get a judge that respects the Constitution.
The system is biased against those who don’t advocate a police state. You should still write a letter to the ACLU about this circumstance since they have the means to sue the police.
I did not attend but read about this in the newspapers. The ACLU tried to get involved, but it turns out nobody was willing to file a complaint with them. I dont understand why people were not in that much of an uproar over this.
I would have definitly been the first to file a complaint.
The situation just doesnt seem right?
excuse my mis-punctuation.
Its time for bed
Joke of the Day:
A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool henoticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attentionand asked, “Sir, what will you have?”
The man thought a moment then replied? “A martini please.”
The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the manhad ever had.
The robot then asked, “Sir, what is your IQ?”
The man answered “Oh, about 164.”
The robot then proceeded to discuss the ‘theory of relativity’,'inter-steller space travel’, ‘the latest medical break throughs’,etc…….
The man was most impressed. He left the bar but thought he would try adifferent tact. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clickedAnd asked what he would have? “A Martini please.”
Again it was surpurb.? The robot again asked “What is your IQ sir?”
This time the man answered , “Oh about 100″. So the robot starteddiscussing Nascar racing, the latest basketball scores, and what toexpect the Dodgers to do this week end.
The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took astool…. Again a martini, and the question, “What is your IQ?”??
This time the man drawled out ” Uh….. bout 50″.
The robot clicked then leaned close and very slowly asked ,”A-r-e y-o-u-r p-e-o-p-l-e g-o-i-n-g t-o n-o-m-i-n-a-t-eH-i-l-l-a-r-y?????
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Love the joke Ian! :)
The way I heard it was:”a-r-e-y-o-u-g-o-i-n-g-t-o-v-o-t-e-f-o-r-b-u-s-h-a-g-a-i-n?
My understanding is the police do not have the authority to search your vehicle. What they did to the folks attending Wakarusa is an outrage. If a few courageous folk had demanded the police produce a warrant, traffic would have been so blocked with the delay that the police would have had to stop the nonsense.
It’s one old cop trick.I’ve seen this before several times in rural areas.It usually goes like this:1)somebody decides to have an outdoor party with BBQ and booze.2)they decide to hire a band and buy keg beer.3)the word gets out, the party gets large and cops find out when and where.4)the police either put word on the street, or even better, they actually publish in the local newspaper that their will be sobreity checkpoints on roads going to and from the area, at the time the celebration is going on.5)since it was announced police initiative to fight DUI, nobody speaks out in protest and the party is simply cancelled.
Funny thing though, the local Elks lodge is right across the street from our police station, and they NEVER check people coming and going from there.Hmmmm………..Do you think that’s where law enforcement goes to party?
The police were in fact WAY out of line at Wakarusa.
But, to my knowledge, no one followed up with a formal complaint. That’s understandable, as it doesn’t undo what happened, and complaining about your hometown cops–or even someone else’s hometown (hmmm, “outside agitators”?) takes some guts.
However, NOT complaining ensures a repeat performance. One does not have to be anti-police to object to antics like these. I hope the good people of Lawrence will keep that in mind.
A possible scenario at Wakarusa: If the event was on private property and the cops were moonlighting for the promoter then they CAN search – if at the request of the property owners.
Possible, yes, Ben, but that’s not what happened.
“Promoter Mosiman said he’s had a good relationship with law enforcement in the months leading up to the festival and supports their efforts to curb drug dealing. But he said he had no idea the checkpoint was coming. He said he thinks it sends the wrong message to tourists coming from out-of-state to visit Kansas.
He said four of his managers have been stopped at the checkpoint, and one was cited for having a cracked windshield.
‘It’s like you’ve got the opposite of the red carpet for our visitors…. Would they consider throwing out that wlcome mat for KU homecoming?’ ”
http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/lawrence_blotter/2006/jun/07/promoterupset/?wakarusa_2006
Thanks rage – like I said, simply a possible scenario. My policy is to allow a search of my trunk – AFTER I read the warrent. I am required to do that under the terms of the Loyalty Oath I had to take years ago to uphold the Constitution.
Ben: If moonlighting cops can search private property at the request of their moonlighting employer — then that explains why cops at the entry gate at Lawrence-Dumont Stadium can search women’s purses for soft drinks, cookies, candy bars, peanuts, etc. It seems like an unneeded irritant to fans that uniformed police officers do this but your scenerio does explain why they can do it.
Understood, Ben. You choose your words carefully, and I try to do the same! :-)
I helped security at Wheatland Jam a couple of years ago. Since it was on County property we had to be strict. Also, as with Riverfest, the promoters wanted to protect the business of the vendors.
P.S. Indianapolis v. Edmond is directly applicable: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-1030
What the feds (yes, the feds) did was a clear Fourth Amendment violation.
Interesting;http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9786&feedId=online-news_rss20
From the WAPO article:
“While most conservative media figures have not abandoned Bush, influential opinion-makers increasingly have raised questions, expressed doubts or attacked the president outright, particularly on foreign policy, on which he has long enjoyed their strongest support. In some cases, they have complained that Bush has drifted away from their shared principles; in other cases, they think it is the implementation that has fallen short. In most instances, Iraq figures prominently.
“Conservatives for a long time were in protective mode, wanting to emphasize the progress in Iraq to contrast what they felt was an unfair attack on the war by the Democrats and media and other sources,” Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, said in an interview. “But there’s more of a sense now that things are on a downward trajectory, and more of a willingness to acknowledge it and pressure the administration to react to it.”
Lowry’s magazine offers a powerful example. “It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq,” Lowry wrote in April 2005, chastising those who disagreed. This month, he published an editorial that concluded that “success in Iraq seems more out of reach than it has at any time since the initial invasion three years ago” and assailed “the administration’s on-again-off-again approach to Iraq.”
“It is time for the Bush administration to acknowledge that its approach of assuring people that progress is being made and operating on that optimistic basis in Iraq isn’t working,” the editorial said. Lowry followed up days later in his own column, suggesting that the United States is “losing, or at least not obviously winning, a major war” and asking whether Iraq is “Bush’s Vietnam.”
******
Some rats are abandoning the sinking ship that is Bush Co. Others nail their feet to the deck.
Bad choice, isn’t it?
Sucks to be them.
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 256
August 21, 2006Hakuna Macaca Edition
Welcome once again to the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. This week George Allen (1) opens his mouth and puts his foot in it, George W. Bush (2,4,10), gets snippy about the Constitution and Iraq but gets to ride a motorcycle, and Katherine Harris (6) continues her awesome Senate campaign. Enjoy, and don’t forget the key!
1. George Allen
At a campaign rally in Virginia last week, Sen. George Allen decided that it would be a good idea to get a rise out of his all-white audience by picking on a non-white fellow who happened to be videotaping Allen on behalf of his opponent’s campaign. That’s right: the subject of George Allen’s embarrassing rant was the person who was there to videotape him in case he made any embarrassing rants. Now that’s what I call “savvy politics.”
Let’s go to the tape and check out Allen’s address to Jim Webb campaign volunteer S. R. Sidarth:
My friends, we’re going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas. And it’s important that we motivate and inspire people for something. This fellow here, over here, with the yellow shirt – macaca, or whatever his name is, he’s with my opponent, he’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great, we’re going to places all over Virginia and he’s having it on film and it’s great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he’s never been there and probably will never come so it’s good for you to see what it (inaudible due to applause and cheering).
Rather than living inside the Beltway, (my) opponent right now is actually with a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls. We care about fact not fiction. So welcome, let’s give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America, and the real world of Virginia.
Macaca?
According to the “list of ethnic slurs,” Macaque is a common French (or Belgian) epithet aimed at “a Negro (originally) or a person of North-African origin (more recently); derived from macaque monkeys.” (And French isn’t the only language in which macaca means monkey.)
And John at AmericaBlog notes that it’s “a word that French soccer fans have used in the past as a slur against black players (often of North African descent) on opposing teams.”
I know what you’re thinking. Where on earth would George Allen have picked up this European slur?
Let me give you a clue.
According to Wikipedia, George Allen’s mother was an “immigrant of Tunisian/Italian/French background.” Tunisia was a French Protectorate from 1881-1956, and for those of you who failed Geography it’s in North Africa. Allen’s mother spoke fluent French – her son apparently still does.
So when you consider that Allen’s mother grew up as a French-speaking white woman from an area of North Africa where macaque is a common slur against black people, do things start to make a bit more sense?
Do you think it’s possible that George heard this word growing up? Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that he knew exactly what he meant, but figured his audience – actual Virginia good ol’ boys – would probably just think it was a funny-sounding made up word? Or even worse, that they knew exactly what it meant too?
If that’s not good enough for you, try this: why would Allen say “Welcome to America” to Sidarth? If you think it’s because Sidarth is not white, have a freedom fry. Because you see, S. R. Sidarth was born and raised in Fairfax County, VA. He’s as American as George Allen – and more of a Virginian, since Allen was born in California. (Which, coincidentally, happens to be where all those “Hollywood moguls” live.)
Frankly I think it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. So let’s skip now to the excuses Allen gave when called on his behavior.
First, Allen campaign spokesman Dick Wadhams tried to claim that they’d given Sidarth the nickname “mohawk” because of his hairstyle, and Allen had merely mispronounced it.
According to the Washington Post:
Reached Monday evening, Allen said that the word had no derogatory meaning for him and that he was sorry. “I would never want to demean him as an individual. I do apologize if he’s offended by that. That was no way the point.” Asked what macaca means, Allen said: “I don’t know what it means.” He said the word sounds similar to “mohawk.”
Hmm… mohawk, macaca… I’m not sure that’s going to fly. Macaca doesn’t really sound like mohawk to me. Plus, Allen said it exactly the same way twice. Does he really not know how to pronounce the word “mohawk?”
Now let’s take a look at our handy “Mohawk-Not-A-Mohawk” visual aid, featuring the man himself, S. R. Sidarth:
[What follows are pictures of mohawks and S. R. Sidarth, which is not a mohawk.]
Mohawk? It would be a stretch to call Sidarth’s haircut a faux-hawk. (Which would presumably make him “facaca” anyway in George Allen’s bizarro world of excuses.)
No, explanation number one simply didn’t wash, and that’s why George Allen came up with a completely different explanation the very next day. Are you ready for this? It’s a good one. According to CNN:
In a four-paragraph statement issued Tuesday, Allen said, “In singling out the Webb campaign’s cameraman, I was trying to make the point that Jim Webb had never been to that part of Virginia — and I encouraged him to bring the tape back to Jim and welcome him to the real world of Virginia and America, outside the Beltway, where he has rarely visited.
“I also made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false.”
Oh, so now he made up the word? How peculiar. I thought it meant mohawk.
2. George W. Bush
There was some seriously bad news for Our Great Leader last week – I mean, really bad. Not quite as bad as Laura hiding the Jim Beam or Dick Cheney taking his bicycle away, but bad nonetheless. According to a federal judge, Dubya has been violating the Constitution of the United States. See? I told you it wasn’t as bad as Dick Cheney taking his bicycle away.
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit ruled that George’s warrantless wiretapping program was entirely unlawful. According to the New York Times, “She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping – Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.”
“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote. Ha ha! Yeah right. That’s so pre-9/11. Haven’t you heard? Any president not named Clinton who allows 3,000 Americans to be killed by ignoring warnings that terrorists are going to fly planes into buildings gets to stand on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn and proclaim himself Unitary Executive of the New American Empire. Watch Fox News – they’ll explain it all to you.
Anyway, the Judge’s decision wadded King George’s regal undergarments into a right royal bunch, and he came out swinging (not unlike a drunk at closing time). According to the Associated Press:
President George W. Bush said those who agree with a federal judge in Detroit that his warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional “simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.”
“This country of ours is at war,” the president said Friday. “And we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.”
Even if that means tearing up the Constitution. Get it?
3. Tom Ridge
Of course, Bush’s pals past and present came rushing to his defense to claim that in fact it’s perfectly all right for the president to violate the Constitution in order to protect it. Take Tom Ridge for example, who appeared on CNN with Miles O’Brien last week. O’Brien asked Ridge, “why are we in this war after all? We’re there to protect the rights that we hold so dear, right?” Here’s what Ridge had to say:
Ridge: Well I think you’re on to something there. I mean it’s rather remarkable that in a democracy and in the United States as we’re trying to combat an enemy that is sworn to our destruction, we are having a legitimate public debate as to whether or not the president needs a warrant and another piece of legislation in order to protect America by gathering foreign information.
You know Tom, you’re absolutely right. Isn’t it remarkable that George W. Bush hasn’t taken away all of our rights yet? I mean, it’s so great that you guys are still able to sit there on CNN jawing about the fact that the president has repeatedly bum-raped the Constitution. After all, if he hadn’t done that, the terrorists might have won by now. So I guess we should all just shut up and mind our own business, because hey, you guys still have the right to talk about his illegal activities on TV.
For now.
4. George W. Bush
Of course, there’s another reason why Our Great Leader is a bit down in the dumps at the moment. Iraq was supposed to be his crowning success, and instead it’s going to be remembered as his greatest failure – which is pretty impressive considering some of the other failures he’s presided over while in office. So who’s to blame for the problems in Iraq? That’s right – it’s the Iraqi people. According to the New York Times:
President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government – and the Iraqi people – had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.
(snip)
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.
Gosh, those ungrateful bastards. And after everything that George has done for them! I mean, it’s hard to understand why the Iraqis aren’t putting up statues to Our Great Leader when you read news like this:
July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, reinforcing criticism that the Baghdad security plan started in June by the new Iraqi government has failed.
An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures. The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly double the toll in January.
Tsk tsk. Those irresponsible Iraqis and their crappy government have really screwed the pooch on this one! Why, it’s astonishing that none of them had the foresight to realize that sectarian violence would tear the country apart after the fall of Saddam Hussein. This is clearly all their fault.
But it’s okay – it turns out that George W. Bush isn’t really down in the dumps after all:
President George W. Bush is not frustrated with the leadership of the new Iraqi government and does not expect an “overnight success,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Wednesday.
Snow was responding to newspaper reports that said Bush in private meetings had expressed concern about progress in Iraq and frustration with the new government.
(snip)
Snow said Iraq was not in a civil war and disputed the characterization of Bush as frustrated with progress in Iraq or with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government.
“You’ve got a government that is brand new,” Snow said.
“This is a guy who has a series of challenges before him with this government and the president is impressed not only by his determination to get the job done, but the fact is that he is working aggressively to do these things,” Snow said. “We don’t expect him to be an overnight success in dealing with all these problems, nobody can be, but the president certainly supports Prime Minister Maliki.”
I’m sure the prime minister is delighted to hear that George W. Bush is backing him all the way – and doubly delighted to learn that despite all appearances to the contrary, Iraq is not in a civil war after all. Expect the flower-and-candy-throwing to begin any time now.
5. Orrin Hatch
It’s been a while since we’ve heard from Sen. Orrin Hatch, but he was back on form last week. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:
Sen. Orrin Hatch, who continuously decries the bitter partisanship in Washington, implied this week that Democratic success in November’s election could result in terrorist attacks on America.
Hatch was quoted in Tuesday’s Tooele Transcript Bulletin as saying Middle East terrorists are “waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again.”
Well I guess that makes sense. After all, the Democrats were in power on September 11, 2001, when Islamic terrorists last struck on American soil after waiting eight long years. Oh, wait. No they weren’t.
Meanwhile, it was revealed last week that:
The Bush administration quietly tried to cut $6 million that was earmarked for developing new explosives detection technology — even as the British terror plot was unfolding.
Officials wanted to use the money instead on federal building protection. Congressional leaders rejected the idea.
The maneuver was one in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that left lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the administration’s commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
An investigation by The Associated Press showed the department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money during the summer session of Congress.
I guess Orrin Hatch must have been off sick that day.
6. Katherine Harris
Now it’s time for an update on the Katherine Harris Senate campaign. Here she is at a meeting of the Broward County Young Republican Club:[photo]
Er, at least that’s what it says on her website.
Actually, I must admit that despite everything, I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for Harris (sorry that she might not win her primary, at least). Last week she held a campaign rally at Orlando Executive Airport, and it was, well, a bit of a flop. According to the Orlando Sentinel:
Katherine Harris’ attempt to boost her campaign with a series of high-profile endorsements wilted Thursday when none of the officials appeared at her campaign rally and one of them said Harris wrongly included him on her list of supporters.
State Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Winter Garden, said he has not endorsed Harris and instead is supporting one of her challengers, Orlando attorney Will McBride.
Ouch. Mind you, it’s not like anyone really noticed:
None of the nine officials listed on her event flier appeared, leaving Harris on her own to address a group of about 40 supporters, reporters and campaign-staff members.
40 supporters, reporters and campaign-staff members? So that’s about 10 supporters then. Yep, I’d say so:[photo]
The most prominent official on hand was former state Rep. Allen Trovillion, who left office four years ago.
Long time readers of the Top 10 may remember Mr. Trovillion from Idiots 14 and 15, when he welcomed gay students to his office by saying “God is going to destroy you” and then claimed that Broward County has a “masturbation problem.”
Harris spoke in an airplane hangar that seemed to highlight the modest size of the crowd. She said a last-minute location change — required because a tree fell on the hangar where the event was supposed to be held — kept crowd numbers down.
Airport officials, however, said no hangar had been damaged by a tree and that the rally was in the hangar that had been originally booked.
Wow.
Harris spoke for 10 minutes, saying she is the only candidate with the conservative credentials to defeat Nelson. When she finished, red, white and blue balloons dropped onto an empty stage, rendered unnecessary by the sparse crowd.
You know, I’m really going to miss this race when it’s over. Do you think we can persuade Harris to run for president in 2008?
7. The Bush Administration
In February 2002, George W. Bush announced his National Drug Control Strategy. Here’s an excerpt:
You know, I’m asked all the time, how can I help fight against terror? What can I do, what can I as a citizen do to defend America? Well, one thing you can do is not purchase illegal drugs. Make no mistake about it, if you’re buying illegal drugs in America, it is likely that money is going to end up in the hands of terrorist organizations.
Just think about the Taliban in Afghanistan – 70 percent of the world’s opium trade came from Afghanistan, resulting in significant income to the Taliban, significant amount of money to the people that were harboring and feeding and hiding those who attacked and killed thousands of innocent Americans on September the 11th. When we fight drugs, we fight the war on terror.
So how’s that National Drug Control Strategy working out? Well, in 2001, Afghanistan produced 185 tons of opium. And last week officials in Kabul told the Associated Press that in 2005, Afghanistan produced, er, 4,500 tons of opium. Which is a new record. And constitutes almost 90 percent of the world supply, up from 70 percent in 2002. And according to the AP, “opium accounted for 52 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2005.”
Yes, it’s another smashing success for the Bush administration!
8. Marc Gellman
Newsweek’s Rabbi Marc Gellman weighed in on the Leiberman/Lamont race last week, and tried to sift through the election’s complex religious dynamic:
I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe’s percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). I have opinions on way too many things I don’t know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you.
It’s a good question, but thanks to some brilliant detective work by Atrios, we may have the answer. Let’s go back to the year 2000 and listen to a prominent Rabbi telling us why it would be simply stupid for Jews to vote against Bush just because his opponent’s running mate is Jewish:
True acceptance means that we as Jews can be delighted that he was nominated and then vote against him because we do not agree with his politics. Voting for Lieberman because he is Jewish is just as wrong as voting against Lieberman because he is Jewish. Acceptance means being considered for public office because of where you stand on the issues, not where you stand on the sabbath. Politics isn’t baseball. There is no room in politics for irrational rooting for the hometown team. If you believe in Lieberman’s political views, then you should vote for him; if you don’t, then you shouldn’t, and you should not feel as if you have betrayed Judaism or the Jewish people or God by your vote.
If you guessed that those are the words of prominent Rabbi Marc Gellman, have another freedom fry.
9. Lou Beres
In Idiots 218 we noted that Lou Beres, “longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon,” had stepped down from his position after being accused of sexual abuse by three of his relatives.
According to the Oregonian last week:
Beres denied allegations of sexual molestation when they first came to light in The Oregonian last October. Gresham police last fall investigated allegations Beres had molested underage family members, but Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Shrunk said the allegations occurred so long ago that Beres couldn’t face charges under the statute of limitations.
So let’s see, the longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon denied sexually abusing underage girls. And what does a newly released report by Gresham police say?
Beres “readily admitted sexually touching” the plaintiff in the lawsuit when she was 13 or 14 years old, according to the report. He also acknowledged sexually touching a 16 or 17-year-old friend of his daughter in 1976 or 1977.
In a later telephone call with an investigator, “he made admissions to three separate victims at three different times,” the police report said. “All involved underage females. The offenses ranged from kissing to touching the breast of an underage girl.
“(Beres) identified the victims as his sister-in-law and two friends of his daughters,” said one of the investigators, Detective Lee Gosson of Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department. “It should be noted that Mr. Beres said his activities with the girls were in a playful fashion. I told him that the acts were sexual and he agreed.”
I see. So he sexually abused underage girls and then lied about it. But it’s okay – he was just being “playful.”
10. George W. Bush
And finally, during a photo-op last week George W. Bush parted his thighs and straddled a throbbing symbol of American power and superiority. No, not Donald Rumsfeld – a Harley Davidson motorcycle.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/256
Browsing through the WE today, on page A4, I noticed that Lieberman is ahead of Mr. Lamont (the great white hope of the cut-and-run dems) 53% to 41%.
What does this mean for the wacko left? This is happening in the ultra-conservative blue Connecticut. If the anti-war crowd can’t beat the independent candidate with the anti-war democrat in Ct, maybe itw not the issue to run on?
Hank
Where is that “majority” who is so anti-war to vote out Leiberman?
Hey Price boys?
RUN ON THE WAR! Run on expanding the war. See where that gets ya.
Thanks JR!
I think that’s a pretty good idea! I know of a few targets in Iran that need to taken out!
Hank
You may have trouble convincing the American public on that.
DO TRY!
JR,
Keep pretending like there is no such thing as terrorism while the President and our allies keep stopping them.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
John Stuart Mill
Don’t worry JR. Your liberty is being protected by better men than you. :)
It seems to me my freedoms are being eroded in order to “protect me”. Thanks but no thanks.
Now Nathan who would be protecting our liberties? It certain can’t be the Bush administration since they think torture is okay and the government doesn’t need warrents to search your residence or wiretap your phone. I suppose you are referring to the British, the ones that catch terrorists rather than the Bush administration who creates and inspires them.
None of my liberties are threatened by the middle east Nathan. Maybe some people are just looking for a fight.
Maybe you are one of them?
JR,
Were those people in the World Trade Center having their liberties threatend?
How about the people who would have been on those planes the other week with the liquid bombs?
Or do you only care about yourself here in Kanas… will it take someone killing your son or someone in your familiy before you actually care?
The American people are not likely to embrace a call for further wars. Especially since they were lied to about the last one.
Sell your true intent Nathan. Nobody is buying anymore.
Nathan,
Americans are far more likey to be killed by wetbacks than by muslim fanatics. You know, those same wetbacks who slither across the border that YOUR president won’t secure! Those same wetbacks that YOUR president wishes to bestow amnesty upon.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
The fear stuff does not sell anymore Nathan.
If the threat you sell were real, we should have attacks every day. It aint happening because the threat is not as great as you would like to sell it.
Nathan – and how many of those were from Iraq?
Nathan, what “freedom” are you defending? Is this close to reality?:
“Lakoff’s central premise is that warriors with radically different worldviews fight the war over freedom. To conservatives, their authoritarian freedom seems the only natural road to human fulfillment. People are born bad, and will remain bad and “unfree” without discipline, punishment, hierarchy, and authority. To progressives, justifying authority in the name of freedom seems little more than a transparently hypocritical justification of elite privilege and control.”
In his racist way, Ian makes a good point.
Don’t try to sell me fear and offer to protect me when the border is wide open.
Nathan? 911 was one event.
Oklahoma City was also one event.
Should I consider YOU a threat Nathan? Tim McVeigh was an ex Marine and Iraq war veteran of an extremely conservative bent. That sounds alot like you! I don’t fear you.
Link:http://www.alternet.org/story/38813/
JR,
Who claimed responsibility for the first bombing on the trade ceneter?
Who bombed several embasies?
Who blew up the USS Cole?
The attacks in London, Spain, etc…etc…
Yep, it was just one event.
Go bury your head in the sand my little ostrich. I will protect you.
Ian complaining about immigrants again.Please tell us the story of how you Cubans got here, again!
I do not require your defense Nathan. Get me a president who will take proper and effective measures to address terrorism. You know, like shutting the border, inspecting cargo containers etc. Far more effective than launching military adventures that only create more terrorists.
Actually JR,
In recent polls the American public seems to think that Iran is a problem that needs to be taken care of militrily.
Hank
Good for you?
Run on it.
Tracy,
My family are White, Spainish and came here legally. Wetbacks are criminal, disease ridden, low IQ, non-Whites who slither across our borders, illegally, in the dark of night. Anything else you want to know, coconut?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Gotta link for that info, Hank?
Yeah, where do SPAINISH come from?Stupido.
Lieberman was way ahead of Lamont at one time too, Hank.
A bigger question is why can’t the Republicans run against Lamont?
Why do they support the former Democrat?
Phrase the poll question correctly.
“Iran may or may not be working on a nuclear weapon. IF they acquire one they will have absolutely no capactity to use it to attack the United States. Knowing this, do you favor a military campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb?”
Poll that one.
Spanish is not white, it’s Hispanic.
And just because you didn’t have to sneak in, doesn’t mean you are any better than people who did.
Spanish peanut.
Tracy,
Trying to explain matters of racial quality to you, especially, is an exercise in futility. You are dumber than an affirmative action incompetent.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
I find it funny that everyone was screaming that the nomination meant that the end was near for anyone who supported the war…
Now that things are not looking that way no one is saying a word.
What hate groups do you belong to?You a skinhead, or do you try to hide the fact that you’re a racist?
Nathan—WORD !!
Tracy,
The term “hispanic” is uselles because it does not signify race. Wetbacks are all mestizo or indio, not White. The majority of puerto ricans and dominicans are mullato or negro, not White. Spainsh, White Cubans, Argentinians, Uruguayans, etc., are all WHITE! Here, edumacate yoursefl.
Geneticists find Celtic links to Spain and Portugal09/09/2004 – 17:47:04
The Irish and Scots may be as closely related to the people of Spain and Portugal as the Celts of central Europe, it emerged today.
Historians have long believed the British Isles were swamped by a massive invasion of Iron Age Celts from central Europe around 500BC.
But geneticists at Dublin’s Trinity College now claim the Irish and Scots have as much, if not more, in common with the people of north-western Spain.
Dr Daniel Bradley, genetics lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, said a new study into Celtic origins revealed close affinities with the people of Galicia
“It’s well known that there are cultural relations between the areas but now this shows there is much more,” Dr Bradley said.
“We think the links are much older than that of the Iron Age because it also shows affinities with the Basque region – which isn’t a Celtic region.”
“The links point towards other Celtic nations, in particular Scotland, but they also point to Spain,” he added.
Historians believed the Celts, originally from the Alpine regions of central Europe invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2,500 years ago.
But using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe geneticists at the university have drawn new parallels.
Dr Bradley said it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula to Ireland as far back as 6,000 years ago up until 3,000 years ago.
“I don’t agree with the idea of a massive Iron Age invasion that took over the Atlantic islands. You can regard the ocean – rather than a barrier – as a communication route,” Dr Bradley said.
It is believed archaeologists are also questioning the links between the Celts of eastern France and southern Germany and the people of the British Isles.
The study found people in areas traditionally known as Celtic, such as Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Brittany and Cornwall, had strong links with each other and people in Ireland have more in common with Scots than any other nation.
There are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the Plantations of the 1600s when many Scots moved to northern Ireland in search of fertile farming lands, the research showed.
However scientists could not shed any light on whether fair skin, red hair and fiery tempers truly are Celtic traits.
The study headed by Dr Bradley was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
That didn’t say anywhere that your family are not immigrants, and you’re not an ignorant racist jackass.And answer my question?Which “quality” racial groups are you a member of?
Tim McVeigh wasn’t a Marine, he was, I’m sad to say, Army.
Ian,You hate the Jews because you believe that they demand special treatment and believe themselves superior from other races (goyim)yet you are guilty of doing the same things which you accuse the Jews of doing.
Textbook definition of hypocrisy, mi amigo.
The present military tactics do nothing but fuel terrorism. We went off course after Afganistan and it’s gotten us into a quagmire. I wish it were so simple, Nathan and Hank. The only real way to deal with things now are to hand over the reigns to the new government and let the chips fall where they may. We should have left after we drove Sadamm out of power, because it was a huge mistake from the time we invaded Bagdad. The experts knew Iraq was going to dissolve into civil war, but the present administration wouldn’t listen because Bush&Co had an agenda and no one was going to stop them. We’ve probably killed more civilians than Sadamm did plus spent billons, maybe trillions before it’s all over, and destroyed their country in the process. Good work, George! America has so much to be proud of!!Yes Hank, it would be so much easier to just blow them all off the map, do you really think that’s the solution? Just erase the slate and start all over. I’m sure that George would like to do that. So what makes you any different than the terrorists? I guess it’s OK to kill innocent women and children as long as the bombs fall long distance from the sky, not close by, like in a car.
Will, you rock dude.Couldn’t have said it better.
Did you notice he doesn’t answer about his involvement in racial hate groups?Hmmmm………
Mary,
Dont even sit here and pretend like you give one care in the world about the women and children in Iraq.
By demanding that we cut and run and “let the chips fall where they may” would involve many civilian deaths in the chaos that may ensue after our departure.
Of course you don’t care about that now do you?
All you care about is sitting here and toting the liberal mantra of cut and run.
I don’t always agree with Crowson’s Cartoons.. but he NAILED it today!!
Just hope this doesn’t turn out to be BTK on a national level.. I am already sick of seeing his face!!
Tracy,
The very worst type of racist is the person who hates his/her own race.
Congratulations though, you are well in the lead for Coconut of the Year honors.
V.L.R.B!!!
Since when are Cubans white?
When they became Republicans Dingus!
The purple chicken has breaking news. Please acknowledge.
Nathan, I bet I care more about the women and children of Iraq than you do.If we would have left right after the fall of Saddam, the end result would have been the same. As it is now, we’ve just allowed our soldiers to be killed for a useless cause, spent a hell of alot of money, and ruined our credibility with our allies.Don’t pretend that you care about the Iraqi people, you’re willing to kill them just because your fearless leader wants you to. HIS guts and YOUR blood. Wake up, Nathan, not everything is as black and white as you’d like it to be.
Dave says “hi” and thanks for the emails. We both hope you come home safe.
Ian,Since when does accepting people for who they are and affording equal respect to everybody irregardless of what their race/sex/age/sexual orientation/religion is equate to hating your own race?
That just doesn’t make any sense compadre. =)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214×85885
heheheheh
Will, If you expect Ian to make any sense I wouldn’t hold your breath.