Marc Perkel Rantz

KSFO says Spocko is trying to shut them down?

Kind of interesting listing to right wing radio KSFO as the claim that the web site Spocko's Brian is trying to shut them down and how they stand for free speech. But the reality is that I'm hosting Spocko's Brian because lawyers for Disney, the owners of KSFO sent threatening letters and actually did shut down Spocko. But you won't hear about that on KSFO. When asked about the Disney lawyers shutting down Spocko's free speech they don't want to talk about that.

One interesting point. I heard them read a statement from Spocko's blog on the air. The read Spocko's copyright content. If you apply the same standards of copyright infringement that they are claiming then they have violated Spocko's copyright. But it's not a copyright violation because of fair use laws. Just like it's not a violation of Spocko to use their stuff because of fair use laws.

Spocko's Brain Back Online

After the web site Spocko's Brain was shut down last week because the hosting company 1an1 got threats from Disney lawyers. A number of people contacted me about hosting it. I'm not easily intimidated by lawyers so I did it. Spocko is now hosted at Computer Tyme Hosting and it's here to stay.

I hast a lot of sites that no one else will touch. That's because I'm legal savvy and lawyers just don't scare me. I've received a number of threats by lawyers to take down free speech sites and unless they have firm lehal grounds I tell them to go screw themselves. I've even been sued a few times and in all instances the cases were dismissed and the threatening lawyers had to face the judge for ethics issues. I am a strong supporter of free speech and I don't like slimeballs like Disney trying to shut down critics.

MsNBC Twisting poll numbers

Watching MsNBC runnin stories about how the Republicans are closing in. The first story showed only the Pew poll putting Republicans only 4 points behind. The second story showed 3 polls but all were the polls showing Republicans making a comeback. And the stories were about Republicans surging.

CNN on the other hand showed all the major polls including their own that has Republicans 20 points behind. They also showed some movement towards Republicans but they didn't go out of their way to distort the story the way MsNBC did.

Polls are going to show a shift towards Republicans because in spite of the coverage the voting achines are rigged to favor Republicans and these late poll shifts are to provie cover for voter fraud. The only thing Republicans have left is the cheating. But it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Still waiting for Bush to find an excuse to suspend elections.

Bin Laden is not Dead!

This story is as credilble as the guy who supposedly killed the Ramsey girl. Every network every 3 minutes and it's a non story. The media are all idiots. Just sheep following the herd.

John Mark Karr - He didn't do it - and he's boring

I can't believe that this guy is still in the news. The guy is a weirdo, but he didn't do it. I think he wanted a free ride back to the USA because he's probably in trouble in Bancock and this gets him out. Or - he's just delusional.

Even if he did it - it's not the most important thing in the news. It's bigger that 2 wars and everything else in the world? It's infotainment - not news.

CNN / Fox News want World War 3

These so called news organizations sound like Christian Neocons praying for the end of the world. They are reporting news in a way as if World War 3 is inevitable. In their minds Hezbollah is already over hear waiting to attackj America. It's an election year and they are trotting out the boggie man for the Republicans.

Is Truthout Scooping the Corporate Media?

Truthout Has an article saying that Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted . Yet I don't see this in the corporate media. It makes me wonder how this story will play out. It Truthout blowing smoke or is this another corporate media coverup. Time will tell and we'll se if Truthout is right.

-------

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.

Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony.

Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

CNN Covers up War Protest for Bush Administration

CNN is running stories about the war protest on the 3rd aniversary of the Bush occupation of Iraq. The ran a 30 second story mentioning only a few cities in other countries and nothing about any protest in America. So when hundreds of thousands of Americans gather to protest the occupation and CNN refuses to cover it, are they really a news agency? I don't think so. CNN is controlled by the Bush administration and won't cover Americans protesting the war.

NBC was even worse. Coverage lasted 10 seconds. They did memtion New York protests but said basically nothing. NBC is also clearly Bush's whore.

Never pick a fight with ...

They say, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." A modern day versions of that would be never pick a fight with someone who buys data transfer by the terabyte. Someone like me. The terabyte is mighter than the ink barrel. So sayth the wise and powerful Perkel.

Peter Jennings - Good Riddance!

Here's an exchange between President Clinton and Peter Jennings From November of 2004 at the opening of the Clinton presidential library. A little something I found amusing.

JENNINGS (Discussing rankings by presidential historians]: They gave you a forty-first in terms of moral authority - after Nixon.

CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it.

JENNINGS: Why, sir?

CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections. ... In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think.

JENNINGS: Oh, yes you do.

CLINTON: They have no idea ...

JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply.

CLINTON: No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.

-----

Peter Jennings was one of the media whores who stomped on Clinton and helped Bush sell us this war. So - screw you Peter, glad you're gone!

Newsweek caught in a cover story lie

The cover says, "Martha's Last Laugh - After Prision, She's Thinner, Wealthier & Ready for Prime Time". Newsweek is a magazine that we trust because they are after all - the mainstream legitimate news. So - one would be surprized to find out that Newsweek grafted Martha Stewart's face on a model's body. But that's what happened.

Newsweek explains - accourding to CBS - their fraud as follows:

The familiar Stewart face was placed upon somebody else's body for the cover story "Martha's Last Laugh," making the 63-year-old domestic diva look terrific despite her five months in prison.

Newsweek said it did not intend to fool readers in any way and regretted if the photo illustration left any misimpression. "

They say we can look at it and see it's an illustration - not a photograph? It sure fooled me. But I guess I'm just not very smart when it come to this sort of stuff. I'm not sharp enough to even tell that the guy in this photo is Bush's favorite member of the Whitehouse press corps.

By the way - if anyone has the original pic without his cock edited out - I suse would want to get a copy of it and post it here. After all - I don't want to be like Newsweek and use doctored photos. So if you have it - please post a link to it here.