Free Republic

I-5 Road Cam pictures, heading north through Southern Oregon:

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=74
North of Siskiyou Summit (northbound view)

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=79
Sexton Mtn., north of Grants Pass (northbound view)

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=80
Sexton Mtn. (southbound view)

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=108
South of Roseburg (southbound view)

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=105
Roseburg (northbound view)

Southern-coast Road Cam:

http://www.tripcheck.com/roadcams/fullcam.asp?ID=73
Port Orford

(Road Cam on US 199, SW of Grants Pass, is out of commission.)

Source:
http://www.tripcheck.com/RoadCams/roadcams.htm
(updated on the quarter-hour)

CAL and Richard, I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that the new show's format is to be under the control of Dr. Keyes, and not that of some leftist network nitwit(s). This is what I'd hoped for, and I'm looking forward to tuning in. My congratulations to all, and best wishes for a long, successful run.

Thanks for the heads-up, Rowdee! (T minus 9 days and counting....)

The prospect of a show is very encouraging. TV continues to offer such worthless, mind-numbing garbage, it'd take a show with consistently good, stimulating content to get, and keep, my attention. More of the same political-celebrity parades, and elitists' screaming matches, wouldn't begin to cut it, though, so I hope Keyes avoids that stale route. (I have zero interest in hearing the personal opinions, and interpretations, of DC's anointed. Instead, let's talk about Self-Evident Truths, shall we?)

Anyway, it's an idea, whose time is long overdue, and I hope the show does become a reality. If it doesn't, oh well—I've still got my stereo.

And you wonder why people are upset with Keyes and his supporters?

No, I can't say that I spend much time thinking about it, to tell you the truth. (I'm actually surprised to see this battle still raging. Hasn't it gotten to be just a bit monotonous after two years?)

That's a damn lie.

Not just a lie, but a "damn lie," eh? How so?

This seems quite the spectacle. Bush's name is nowhere to be found in the article, so what's the attraction? (Is it always like this around here?)

Keyes is irrelevant...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes lost their support long ago...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes couldn't get elected as dog catcher...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes said something that offended them two years ago...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes is a self-promoting, Bush-bashing loser...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes is disliked, despised, and hated by them...and, still, they're here talking about him.
Keyes will never have a show on MSNBC anyway...and, still, they're here talking about him.

(Oh, the irony.)


Remember that in New York City, police officers, firefighters, the mayor and private-citizen volunteers were running toward the danger, while in Washington, the president, vice president and Congress were running away from it.
—Charley Reese

Yeah, I tuned in to C-SPAN this morning, for the first time in I don't know how many months, and heard mention of it. I'd probably turn the TV on more often, for a Keyes show--as long as no network nitwits tried to hijack it through PC censorship.

The prospect of such a show, is an encouraging sign. I hope it materializes.

Bin Laden first met Mugniyeh in 1993, according to his former chief of security, Ali Mohammad. In a plea agreement entered on Oct. 20, 2000, in the Southern District of New York for his involvement in the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, Mohammad acknowledges that he "arranged security" for the meeting that took place while bin Laden was living in the Sudan. Mohammad said Mugniyeh's Hezbollah group "provided explosives training for al-Qaeda and al-Jihad," the two groups most closely tied to bin Laden. "Iran supplied Egyptian Jihad with weapons. Iran also used Hezbollah to supply explosives that were disguised to look like rocks."

An earlier affidavit by FBI Agent Daniel Coleman, based on information provided former members of al-Qaeda, reported that bin Laden personally exhorted his followers to "put aside [their] differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezbollah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies."

Mugniyeh and Iran go way back, and their close association disturbs some analysts at the U.S. State Department, which is trying to rehabilitate the regime of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. "There is no evidence that Mugniyeh was one of the planners of the Sept. 11 attacks," a State Department official tells Insight. "In fact, there is evidence to the contrary."

Hmmmmmm....

I've just about had it with all this "Peace and love, George" , crap!!!
6 posted on 12/9/01 7:25 PM Pacific by Phil V.

Good. That means more for me. {grin}

(And peace and love back at you, George.)

Bless these humble servants, for all the hardships they endure, and the sacrifices they make, in their patriotic service to the country. {sniff, sniff, sniff}

(BTW, what's that stench?)

There's a bill circulating around Congress called the Enumerated Powers Act. This bill, if it became law, would require bill sponsors to cite the section of our Constitution which authorizes or legitimizes their legislation. The Constitution does, after all, specifically set the powers of the federal government, reserving all other power and authority to the people and the states.

Now, there's an appropriations bill out there which includes a half-million-dollar allocation for federal research into how to remove the stink from pig poop. Wouldn't you love to see the congressman who put that appropriations request in the hopper cite the section of our Constitution that sets forth removing the stench from pig crap as a legitimate function of the federal government?...

—Neil Boortz
July 11, 2001

The Enumerated Powers Act: A Constitutional Filter
(Still accepting sponsors)

But....but.....but.....doncha wanna feel secure?

Yes, I do, which is why I find voyeurism to be so repulsive--no matter how it's packaged, or who's getting their jollies.

I'm fairly certain that the victims of 9/11 would have appreciated a little security, too. Tens of thousands of peaceful Americans were targeted for death, two and half months ago, while their government was apparently too obsessed with such bullsh*t as monitoring and scrutinizing their financial transactions to notice a genuine threat in the making--right under its own nose--and offer any defense against it. (And now, the result of that deadly failure is being used to promote more of the same??? F'ing sick.)

Women over 40 have no business having children.

Durn those unregulated biological clocks! What's a frettin', meddlin' jackass to do!? (Round up all them "women over 40," sterilize 'em, and confiscate their babies? Install surveillance cameras in their bedrooms? Post armed guards at the doors of all OB-GYN offices and hospital delivery rooms? Brand 'em all "Over 40/Unfit for Procreation," for all the world to see?....)

Most ironic, your choice of words: "no[ne of your] business."

{Sheesh!}

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Me, too.

Buried in the more than 300 pages of the new law is a provision that "any person engaged in a trade or business" has to file a government report if a customer spends $10,000 or more in cash. The threshold is cumulative and applies to multiple purchases if they're somehow related -- three $4,000 pieces of furniture, for example, might trigger a filing.

The $10,000 threshold, established by the Bank (Anti-)Secrecy Act of 1970, has never been raised. Adjusted for inflation, the $10,000 minimum of nearly 32 years ago was equivalent to an approximate $45,000 minimum in 2000.

Last year, when legislooters were pushing HR 3886 (International "Know Your Customer") the Congressional Budget Office had to prepare an analysis of the bill's compliance costs, as that bill represented yet another unfunded mandate (a vital component of a fascist system). The estimated increased-cost imposition, for banks and financial institutions alone, was guessed to fall below the annual threshold allowed by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but, according to the CBO, "because compliance costs would depend directly on specific standards...established by the Secretary of the Treasury, CBO [could not] make that determination with confidence." (So much for the notion of representative government and a system of checks and balances, right? (Non-elected secretary of treasury=king?))

Given that the CBO figure of increased costs, for US banks and financial institutions alone (or, in actuality, the customers thereof) was in the neighborhood of $109 million per year, can you even begin to imagine what the figures will be for virtually all retail business in the US? (Now, there's an effective shot in the arm for an ailing economy. </sarcasm>)

Lest we forget:

In 1998, the total cost of combating money laundering in the US was more than $10 billion for the public and private sectors combined. Despite the additional filings of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), required as of 1996 and averaging about 10,000 per month, 1998 saw only 932 money-laundering convictions, representing a cost of more than $10 million per conviction. [Source]

Close enough, for government work?

ROFLMAO, indeed.
{"I get these--ooh-ooh--suspicions"}


The real object of despotism is revenue.—Thomas Paine

I'd love to join you tomorrow, AuntB (I could really go for a road trip right about now). Alas, I gotta stick close to home, so the best that I can offer, is moral support from afar. Know that I'll be sending happy thoughts and good wishes your way.

THE PEOPLE v. THE STATE OF OREGON [CORRUPTION IN ECOTOPIA]
(See Iconoclast2's follow-up article at #20)

Hey, buddy, good to see you. How've you been?

They wanted "Know Your Customer" legislation, and they got it. They wanted "sneak 'n peek" legislation, and they got it. They wanted to destroy doctor-patient, and lawyer-client, confidentiality, and they've done so. They want to print, probe, scan, and tag every non-threatening citizen (not because they suffer perversions, mind you, but to promote feelings of "security" </sarcasm>) and, with continued patience, they'll likely have that cheap thrill to enjoy, too.

Evil-minded outsiders have a friggin' lot to learn about terrorizing Americans--which, I s'pose, is why they come here to pursue their studies.


I guess the intent is to make certain "they" don't hate us anymore? Right? So if we take away our own freedoms there can't possibly be any reason to hate us! Right??!!--seattlesue

Crud, I sure hope so, -sue. I mean, it'd really, really, really suck if this was all for nothing! (gettinscrewedperhapst@tooed.CON?--Mercuria)


"They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom......"

From the article:

Goodman, who is also chairman of the state Senate's Investigations Committee, said the nation's private aviation system represents a "gigantic loophole" in security planning.

"You can load anything you want onto them, totally unsupervised, and these are not all tiny Piper Cubs. They can be enormous passenger planes," the Manhattan Republican said. "You load that with fuel and plow it into the U.N. building and goodbye U.N. building."

Anti-UN sentiment?

The senator said the universal identification card system would utilize high-tech microchips storing digitized fingerprints, facial characteristics and retinal images.

Goodman said the panel had not yet decided if the ID card system should be mandatory or voluntary, but that in his opinion a mandatory system would "maximize safety and security."

("They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom......")

Oh, now I get what you're saying. No, I hadn't tried doing that, but I will. I use Media Player a lot, without any problems, but something's screwy with my system now. I just tried to open Media Player, through the icon, and it won't do it. (Earlier today, I checked the connection for RadioFR, through a link on another pre-show thread, and it opened WMP just fine.) Hopefully, rebooting will fix whatever's wrong.

Sorry.

I was only kidding with you--I promise. (I can catch it later, on replay, no problem-o.)

Is PalTalk's icon at the bottom of your screen?

I don't have any other applications running.

(I'm gonna give it another try now.)

Well guy, I'm locked out. Waaaaaaaah!

Ooh, nice whine--and my sentiments, exactly. I'll bring in some cheese, and we can have our own little pity-party.