Free Republic

The 1st lawyer signing the complaint is the same man that 1st posted a comment on FR that CBS’s Texas Air National Guard memos in 2004 were likely forged. A post that went down in history. Sidney Powell is awaiting admission pro hac vice. Lin Wood, already admitted in the US District Court in GA is also on the complaint

https://pjmedia.com/trending/roy-moore-accuser-makes-stunning-admission-about-yearbook-forgery/

I’m wondering why there is a “D.A.” after his signature on her divorce decree and in her yearbook. Per this article, at the time of the alleged yearbook signing he was only an Asst DA. The article suggests she copied it from the signature on her divorce decree which came years later when he was a judge. On the decree Moore’s signature appears stamped and “/DA” follows it in a very different handwriting and writing instrument. In her yearbook the handwriting is all the same. But why would a Circuit Judge put “D.A” after his signature. He was the judge, not the DA. Speculation but I think “D.A” are the initials of his secretary or law clerk, indicating that the decree was not signed by Moore, but by someone authorized by him to stamp his signature or sign his name on divorce decrees, that authorization being signified by the initials “DA” to identify who stamped or signed it for him. Signing decrees in uncontested divorces is an exceedingly mundane task and may well have been delegated to a law clerk or secretary. If this speculation is true, it blows the whole yearbook signing out of the water. Positve proof of forgery.

A well reasoned attack on the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. A paradigm shift, thinking that CO2 is an effect rather than a cause of global warming.

Andrew McCarthy argues persuasively at National Review Online that the Administration should not prosecute the papers but should instead focus on prosecuting the leakers. Convene a grand jury, subpoena the reporters and editors who worked the story, ask them to identify their sources and jail them for contempt of court if they don't answer.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzE1OWViMDAwZTY0YTFkMGIyZTI5NzIxMmNkNzAzNjI=

Brilliant! Reminiscent of the great W.C. Brann.

Ping

I listen to audiobooks extensively on my 4G iPod and have no problem fast forwarding. The technique is called "scrubbing". Hit the center button while the book is playing, the display changes to show where you are timewise in the book, then start moving your finger around the wheel clockwise to go forward, counter clockwise to go backward. The longer you maintain contact while scrubbing, the faster it goes forward or backward.
You can scroll through several hours of a book in a few seconds.

I have to disagree with you and agree with the author on this one, even though it is the NYT.

This guy is absolutely right on about jails, prisons, and holding cells. Remember, Brian Nichols took a gun from a 50 year old grandmother in a holding cell, not the courtroom. If she had no gun, she might have been overpowered and beaten, and Nichols might have escaped, but 4 dead people would still be alive. What the author does is go on to suggest no guns in courthouses, and I think it's a good idea.

I was a prosecutor, an assistant DA in a semi rural area of Georgia 30 years ago and, even before metal detectors to get into the courthouse, we had a rule of no loaded weapons in the courtroom, & especially no weapons at all in the jail or courthouse holding cells. I have personally witnessed occasions in the courtroom where a defendant tries to attack the judge or someone else and gets into a fight with a deputy. The worst possible outcome, which never happened for us, would have been for the prisoner/defendant to get hold of the officer's gun.

There were a couple of regular courtroom deputies who carried unloaded sidearms in court, as bait for defendants, because bottom line we all knew that the first thing an idiot prisoner will go for is the officer's gun.

Perhaps the man's suggestion is partially motivated by anti gun sentiment, but it still makes good sense. But it will never happen, because it's too simple, too cheap. Instead, every sheriff in the US will demand a bigger budget for various high tech, high manpower, high $ security schemes.

I disagree. This is a good guy, not a bad guy.

This article is a damning indictment of the Clinton administration's failure to act on the intelligence information supplied by the CIA. Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh are all condemned as girly men more concerned with foreign opinion than saving American lives.

What's truly amazing is that this article is in the LA Times.

Check it out.
Make sure Zoo votes for Bush

Ping

I've also decided to read Popper, because Hayek cites him so often. What books of Popper's would you recommend to start with?

I disagree. Kerry did not win the debate. He got his ass kicked from pillar to post. He may have sounded good on radio, but he looked like rotten meat on TV. It was the nitpicker v. the man of vision. And don't pay any attention to the pundits. Wait for the polls. I guarantee that women, like my wife, loved Bush.

Kerry is a pedantic girlie man.

Quit worrying. GWB hit a home run tonight. He put a hurtin on Kerry. Game over.

Brilliant strategy to put foreign policy 1st.

I think Bush kicked his ass til both shoes were shitty.

Course I am biased. But my wife, who is not really very political, thougt Kerry was a robotic, big money, sham, a lying, nit picking, bumptious pismire, and that Bush was real, speaking from the heart.

Nobody changed the minds that were already made up, but no matter how this gets spun Bush won some swing votes tonight.

My Lord this is a GREAT speech. Made me cry. Makes be proud to be from the same state as Zell Miller. He was a history professor before he entered politics and it shows.

Is it possible to get an audio or video of this speech? I would like to hear it at least.

It needs to be much more widely distributed.

The title or headline was
Winders: Cry havoc! And let slip the blogs of war

If this is a typical news man the media are in more trouble than I thought. He does not know the difference between some one running a web log and a poster, but writes an denigrating op-ed about them. He accuses Buckhead of being wrong on the superscript issue but his post never mentioned superscripts. He obviously did not read Buckhead's post or simply chose to imitate Dan Rather and make up evidence to attack him with. Buckhead's post to freerepublic.com said that it appeared to be a proportional font and that most typewriters in 1972 could only do monospaced. Everything he said is perfectly true and correct, then and now. He says that bloggers can't check facts. Obviously he has huge issues with that himself, but within 24 hours through the use of Google hundreds of bloggers and their readers had located the nation's best experts on typography and handwriting and were getting informed opinions from them that the documents were suspect. Something that mainstream media, including CBS was also able but unwilling to do until the tsunami of public outcry forced them to. Long live the Pajamahadeen!

nosofar said
"Promote free elections in those local areas that are more amenable to the concept and let them govern themselves, including their own Iraqi security forces. This will do in miniature what the advocated goal is for Iraq as a whole .."

I like this idea, reward the behavior you want to encourage.

On a slightly different tack, I think the war effort, and especially the setbacks and difficulties, would be better received if Bush imitated Churchill in the respect of constantly warning of how difficult the road ahead will be, talking frankly about the obstacles, the efforts to frustrate Iraqi freedom by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others. Openly accuse the bad guys. Promise to remain steadfast to our friends through thick and thin.

Outrageously high expectations, fueled by the ease of victory over Saddams army, create a climate of public disappointment whenever the inevitable setbacks occur. We need to lower expectations, and get tough.

Dr. Deth said:
"Someone send this stilted frothing sycophant the link. I want him to stand stark in the nomadic plains of his twisted liberal demagoguery, as his credibility is blasted from the bone like rust from the overpass. His argument is that of the hydrocephalic cur dueling his own tail (and succumbing). His prose puckers all sensibility like literary alum. The lengths of his fallacious leaps in logic stump grizzled civil engineers and bespectacled physicists who would seek to bridge the gap. In Tibet, he would be magnified by the pilgrims and elevated by the Lama for having achieved an unprecedented state of mental perfection through the elimination of all rational thought."

Excellent!!!. Reminds me of William Cowper Brann who would have said that this man's soul would rattle the inside of a mustard seed like birdshot in a #10 washtub.
His reasoning makes as much sense as the net product of nothing, the cube root of a vacumn, a hiatus in a hole. He is a bumptious pismire who imagines that his little head constitutes the intellectual cosmos. A man who couldn’t tell a fundamental principle from his funny bone. He may be a law abiding citizen, but the souls of ten thousand such men, if separated from their Gall, might play hide and seek on the surface of a copper penny for a hundred years and never find each other.
There are three kinds of liars at large in the land. The harmless Munchausen who romances for amusement, and whose falsehoods do no harm; the Machiavellian liar, whose mendacity bears the stamp of original genius, and the stupid prevaricator, who eschews the fetid vomit of other villains simply because he lacks a fecund brain to breed falsehoods to which he can play the father. ... He lies fluently, even entertainingly, but not consistently.

He is completely lost in a fog of his own making. Stuck in the bogs of brainless bigotry.
He is a a pestiferous pismire, a putty headed pedagogue, a mental microbe, a fiendish wolf of fanatacism.

He will be swept by the broom of Time into the rubbish heap of intellectual trash.

Parsing the language, this could be viewed as a tacit admission that the documents are bogus.

They continue to believe the "story" Notice that they did NOT say that they continue to believe that the documents are genuine. The story from their point of view is that Bush got special treatment and missed duty. The documents were evidence to support the story. They have other evidence, so they continue to believe the story, even if the documents are bogus.