Left Wing = Hate

You ever wonder if anyone is actually watchdogging the “Main Stream” media? There is, but because they are the “Big Media”, they will never police themselves.. So here is a report on their collusion with the Obama Campaign and directly influencing the Presidential Elections in direct violation of Campaign Laws and Propaganda Laws.

From Newsmax:

Report: Networks Gave Obama the Nomination
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:27 PM

By: Jim Meyers

An exhaustive, eight-year Media Research Center study of the Big Three TV networks’ coverage of Barack Obama shows that their favorable spin on the Democrat gave him his margin of victory in the primaries, according to MRC president Brent Bozell.

The MRC notes that this year saw the closest nomination contest in a generation, with just one-tenth of a percentage point — 41,622 votes out of more than 35 million cast — separating Obama from Hillary Clinton when the Democratic primaries ended in June.

“But Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks,” an MRC report on the study states.

“At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.”

The Alexandria, Va.-based MRC logged every story, sound bite, and mention of Obama on ABC, CBS and NBC evening news telecasts from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries this past June — a total of 1,365 stories.

Among the key findings:

The three broadcast networks ran 462 positive stories about Obama — 34 percent of the total — compared with only 70 stories (5 percent) that were critical.

NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports, more than 10 times the number of anti-Obama stories, 17. The CBS Evening News ran 156 stories in favor of Obama, compared to just 21 anti-Obama reports. ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor — 127 positive stories to 32 negative reports.

Barack Obama received his best press “when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene,” the MRC report observed. All three networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.

Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full network reports, one each on ABC and NBC, and was mentioned in just 15 other stories. Also, CBS and NBC initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Obama’s best press of this year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6. After that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just 1 percent that were critical.

The networks referred to Obama as a “liberal” only 14 times in four years, while on twice as many occasions reporters referred to him as either a “rock star,” “rising star,” or “superstar” during the same period.

Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 that offered a negative opinion, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.

Brent Bozell said in a statement: “This study proves emphatically and without question that the Big Three networks had a horse in this year’s Democratic primary race. And that with their wall-to-wall, 24-hour daily assistance, NBC, ABC and CBS provided Sen. Barack Obama’s margin of victory.

“As the liberal media’s ardor with Sen. Hillary Clinton evaporated, so too did the inevitability of her victory. The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win.”

Reading through Pravda news wires, it is interesting how the world views the Clintons and the “Upstart” frontrunner Obama. Here are some pictures they have posted on their website of Queen Hillary:

The Article accompaning the pictures is here:

Hypocrite Hillary Clinton: Promises NEVER Kept

Hillary Clinton made it a point to promise voters that health care would be a priority for the Clinton administration. At mid point in her husband’s presidency, when he was running for re-election again, the promise was made that they will do these things if only her husband gets another 4 years in the White House.

And so he was re-elected only to become one of the most notorious and murderous war criminals in recent history. The bombing of Serbia and the shedding of innocent blood is a stain that can never be wiped from the legacy of the Clintons in the White House.

When the Clintons left the White House there was NO health care for US citizens. Now she is back making the same empty promises. Why should voters believe she will keep her promises this time? Why should voters believe she is even remotely capable of delivering on her promises?

She has made the most spurious and deceptive statements regarding her opponent, Senator Obama, claiming that his words are empty while her track record clearly proves her promises and her words are nothing more than empty lies and she will do anything, say anything and stoop to any level in order to get elected. When one sees her saying these things it tends to elicit the gag reflex.

Why has no one from the corporate elitist media confronted her about her blatant and despicable hypocrisy? She certainly failed to respond when questioned by Pravda.

Lisa KARPOVA
PRAVDA.Ru
USA/CANADA

As for Obama, this is the title of the article they had on him:

“Obama bribes voters offering 210 billion stimulus plan”

His Picture was a bit more pleasing then Hillary’s:

I find this just amazing, the whole Liberal Establishment, from the DNC to the NY Times and Washington Post are just completely upset that Conservatives want a Conservative as President of the United States and they are actually slamming Rush Limbaugh because most Conservatives do NOT see McCain as a Conservative, we view McCain as a RINO (Republican in name only) and is in good company with Liberals like “Jumping” Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, and others who claim they are republicans but are as way-far left liberals like Obama, Kennedy, Clinton, Byrd, etc…. It’s amazing how easily and quickly the Liberal Democrats attempt to supress Free Speach in this country. We should start calling the Democrats the “New Soviets”

Rush has it right, they only say it’s “Rush vs Whatever the Left hates” type of argument Like if Rush supports something, he must bow to the Liberal Media and capitulate and support what the “Main Scream” Media wants him to support..

Welcome to the New Soviet Union, where the Individual is trampled as government knows best.

Here is the take from the Washington Post:

Limbaugh on McCain: It’s Better to Be Right All the Time

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; C01

It may be the best sideshow in presidential politics: the nation’s top radio talker trying to take down the Republican front-runner in today’s Super Tuesday showdown.

Rush Limbaugh has been relentless in his criticism of John McCain, prompting suggestions that he may have to soften his stance if the Arizona senator wins the nomination and faces off against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But if that happens, Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.

“If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle,” he said. “And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative.”

When it comes to the McCain mutiny, Limbaugh has plenty of company on the right side of the dial. Laura Ingraham endorsed Mitt Romney last week, saying, “There is no way in hell I could pull the lever for John McCain.” Sean Hannity, who also endorsed the former Massachusetts governor, regularly rips McCain. Hugh Hewitt is urging the audience for his syndicated radio show to fight for Romney against what he calls a media-generated “McCain resurrection.” But with a program heard on 600 stations, including Washington’s WMAL, Limbaugh is the loudest and brashest voice inveighing against the man he derides as “Saint John of Arizona.”

Limbaugh dismissed the notion that a McCain victory would be a “personal setback” for him. “My success is not defined by who wins elections,” he said. “Elected officials come and go. I am here for as long as I wish to stay. . . .

“Yesterday it was Limbaugh vs. [Donovan] McNabb, Limbaugh vs. Michael J. Fox. Before that it was Limbaugh vs. Bill Clinton. Tomorrow it will be Limbaugh vs. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And I note the media never applies this template to anyone else in media. Not to anyone in cable news, not to any of the endorsements of the major newspapers. Why are the New York Times and Washington Post not asked about the setback they both suffered when George Bush beat both their endorsed candidates in 2000 and 2004?”

………. Read the rest on Washington Post website

Yes Al Gore, you are the Prophet of Doom of your own created Church of “Human Created Climate Change”. Your fanatical running around blaming humans, cows, chickens and other of God’s creations for changing the “Climate” is total crap. Now even the Pope is not buying into your fake religion and is condemning you and your attacks on “Client Change ‘Deniers’”. Your Preaching of Doom and Gloom for the world without ANY basis in fact, but only on rhetoric of you and your fellow waaaaaaaaayyy far left wing nut jobs who want to turn the world over to you so you can run your socialist empire. Your fake “Carbon Offsets” will be judge as it should be, your very own Ponsi Scheme to bilk Americans and others out of their hard earned cash so you can be rich and powerful.

Here’s what the pope has to say:

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

“Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow,” he said in the message entitled “The Human Family, A Community of Peace”.

“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

“If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

“Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

Efforts to protect the environment should seek “agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances”, the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to “choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions” in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope’s message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world’s scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth’s temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

“The industrial-military complex up on Mars can’t be blamed for that,” he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

Everyone with a brain knows that the whole “Global Warming is Caused by Humans” religion is bogus and being driving by the Left-Wing Propaganda machine currently being led by Al Gore, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Main Stream Media (CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC). Here is the Founder of the Weather Channel weighing in on this debate:

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

This Article pretty much says it all.. Just like the Nazi’s and the Soviets before them, the “Progressive” socialists of the DNC have complete propaganda control of our media.

From Investor’s Business Daily Editotials:

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. “Obama’s front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.”

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories “tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the ‘game,’ compared with 63% overall.”

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it’s there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program’s disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter’s groundbreaking 1986 book “The Media Elite”; “A Measure of Media Bias,” a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg’s two books, “Bias” and “Arrogance.” All underscore the media’s leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can’t be edited or spiked.

We have all heard about this Tape that was and intercepted telephone conversation between Duane “Dog” Chapman and his son Tucker that has Dog saying the “N” word. Reading the statement by the Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer, David Perel, says that how they got the tape was in his words “There’s no problem with how the tape was obtained…”. Perel also will not say how he obtained the tape and whether or not it was obtained using a warrent as required by Hawaii State Law. David Perel’s position is that since Dog Chapman use the “N” word in any context makes him a “Racist” and “He must be OFF the Air”.. (those are Perel’s words).

Everything the Enquirer has done has violated both state and Federal law, not only wiretap laws, but he has violated the Chapman’s Civil Rights, to include privacy rights. Here is the Hawaii Wiretap Law:

§803-42 Interception, access, and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, use of pen register, trap and trace device, and mobile tracking device prohibited. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, any person who:

(1) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication when:

(A) Such a device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other similar connection used in wire communication; or

(B) Such a device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(3) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this part;

(4) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this part;

(5) (A) Intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or

(B) Intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage;

(6) Intentionally discloses, or attempts to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by subsection (b)(1), (2), or (3), or section 803‑44 or 803‑46; and

(A) Either:

(i) Knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of the communication in connection with a criminal investigation; or

(ii) Having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation; and

(B) With the intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation[;]

(7) Intentionally installs or uses a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order; or

(8) Intentionally installs or uses a mobile tracking device without first obtaining a search warrant or other order authorizing the installation and use of such device, unless the device is installed by or with consent of the owner of the property on which the device is installed;

shall be guilty of a class C felony.

(b)(1) It shall not be unlawful under this part for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication services, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of the officer’s, employee’s, or agent’s employment while engaged in any activity that is either a necessary incident to the rendition of the officer’s, employee’s, or agent’s service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; provided that providers of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(2) It shall not be unlawful under this part for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of the officer’s, employee’s, or agent’s employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of Title 47, chapter 5, of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

(3) (A) It shall not be unlawful under this part for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

(B) It shall not be unlawful for a person acting under color of law to install in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any device for recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place, or use of any such unauthorized installation, or installation or use outside a private place of such device to intercept sounds originating in that place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside.

(4) It shall not be unlawful under this part for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

(5) It shall not be unlawful under this part for any person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication or to disclose or use the contents of an intercepted communication, when such interception is pursuant to a valid court order under this chapter or as otherwise authorized by law; provided that a communications provider with knowledge of an interception of communications accomplished through the use of the communications provider’s facilities shall report the fact and duration of the interception to the administrative director of the courts of this State.

(6) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept or access wire, oral, or electronic communications, to conduct electronic surveillance, or to install a pen register or trap and trace device if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with:

(A) A court order directing such assistance signed by the designated judge; or

(B) A certification in writing from the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, the attorney general of the State of Hawaii, or the prosecuting attorney for each county that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specific assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the providing of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.

No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any access, interception, or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance for which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this part, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the party that provided the court order or certification.

No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order or certification under this part.

(7) It shall not be unlawful under this part for any person:

(A) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.

(B) To intercept any radio communication that is transmitted:

(i) By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

(ii) By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

(iii) By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

(iv) By any marine or aeronautical communications system.

(C) To engage in any conduct that:

(i) Is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §553); or

(ii) Is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act (47 U.S.C. §605).

(D) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference;

(E) For other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that uses frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the providing or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(8) It shall not be unlawful under this part:

(A) To use a pen register or a trap and trace device as specified in this part.

(B) For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from the fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of such service.

(C) For a provider of electronic or wire communication service to use a pen register or a trap and trace device for purposes relating to the operation, maintenance, and testing of the wire or electronic communication service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider, or to the protection of users of that service from abuse of service or unlawful use of service.

(D) To use a pen register or a trap and trace device where consent of the user of the service has been obtained.

(9) Good faith reliance upon a court order shall be a complete defense to any criminal prosecution for illegal interception, disclosure, or use.

(10) Except as provided in this section, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than a communication to the person or entity or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.

(11) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:

(A) As otherwise authorized by a court order or under this part;

(B) With the lawful consent of the originator, addressee, or intended recipient of the communication;

(C) To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or

(D) That was inadvertently obtained by the service provider and that appears to pertain to the commission of a crime, if divulged to a law enforcement agency. [L 1978, c 218, pt of §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 303, §2; am L 1989, c 164, §4; am L 2006, c 200, pt of §4]

Law Journals and Reviews

The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai`i’s Constitution. 14 UH L. Rev. 311.

Case Notes

Does not permit bugging of a private place unless the parties entitled to privacy consent. 66 H. 653, 675 P.2d 754.

Allows interception of wire or oral communication if one party to the conversation consents to the interception. 67 H. 197, 682 P.2d 79.

Not violated because wearing of recording device did not constitute “installation”. 67 H. 307, 686 P.2d 816.

Hawaii Legal Reporter Citations

Scope. 81-2 HLR 810715.

Previous Vol14_Ch0701-0853 Next

It could not happen to any other party, the strong arm tactics of the Democrat party have come around to bite them in the butt. Seems Ralph is not happy that the DNC decided he was “in the way” and did everything possible, including violating civil rights, federal, state, and local laws to make sure their “Candidate” wins. In 2004 it was John Kerry, in 2008, it is Hillary Clinton. What comes around goes around.

Too bad for Ralph though, if successful, he will be killed, probably with a Clintonian suicide by decapitation or if unsuccessful, he will be torn limb by limb the zealots from all the George Soros clan, like the Daily Kos Kids, or those runts at Move on dot Org, or the People for the American way, United Way, and our favorites, the Code Pinkers.. Either way Ralph, your name is now mud and you will be slung against every fan and wall in the world.

Prepare to be aborted!

Here’s the AP version of this story:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.
Nader’s lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry’s campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.

“The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters,” Nader said in a statement. “This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy.”

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader’s campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The lawsuit seeks “compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law.” It was not clear how much money Nader is seeking; his attorney, Bruce Afran, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

A DNC spokesman also did not immediately return a telephone call for comment.