Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. Senate blocks permanent estate tax repeal

The U.S. Senate on Thursday killed a bill backed by President George W. Bush that would have permanently repealed estate taxes, but some senators held out the possibility of compromise on the election-year issue.

The Senate vote of 57-41, mostly along party lines, was three shy of the 60 needed for the measure to advance. The House of Representatives had previously passed a bill to wipe out what Republicans call the "death tax."

Republican backers had acknowledged they were short of votes for full repeal, but they had hoped for an election-year debate and planned to offer an alternative that would have significantly cut the tax rate and exempted all but the wealthiest estates from paying it.

Democrats said repeal could cost the federal treasury about $1 trillion over the next decade, a time when retiring baby boomers will be drawing on Social Security and Medicare health benefits.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he would try again this year to get a vote on estate tax repeal. Permanently repealing the tax is a long-standing Republican goal, which could mobilize supporters ahead of the November congressional elections.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted to block the permanent repeal measure, but said he would support "fiscally responsible" estate tax reform.

Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who backs repeal, said he expected continued negotiations for a compromise that could win over enough Democrats to pass the Senate.

Backers argue repeal would help small businesses, farmers and ranchers who pay significant fees to lawyers, insurance agents and accountants to plan for their deaths. Many business and farm groups have been pressing for permanent repeal.

 "A lot of people spend a fortune just trying to avoid the tax," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who has been leading the push to repeal estate taxes.

ALTERNATIVE BILL

Lacking the votes in the Senate for full repeal, Kyl planned to offer an alternative that would have exempted the first $5 million from taxation. Estates over that amount would be taxed at the same rate as capital gains, currently at 15 percent. The wealthiest estates, over $30 million, would be taxed at 30 percent, he said.

Reid said the Republican compromise "does not even pass the laugh test."

Democrats argued only a small fraction of estates ever pay the tax but the financial burden of eliminating it altogether would be borne by others.

"Who will end up paying for it? Our children," said Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. "We will take the money which we are not going to collect from the estate tax and end up borrowing it."

Bush's 2001 tax cut included a phase-out of estate taxes. Currently the first $2 million of an individual's estate and $4 million for a married couple is exempt and the rest is taxed at 46 percent. By 2009, the exemptions rise to $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple and the rate falls to 45 percent.

Total repeal would go into effect in 2010 but only for that year. In 2011 the tax would be reimposed on estates valued over $1 million and the top tax rate would revert to 55 percent.

[Soldier4Christ]

House passes bill to boost refinery capacity; Senate prospects uncertain.


WASHINGTON The U-S House has approved legislation that supporters say will make it easier for oil companies to build or expand refineries, although opponents said it could lead to more pollution and less local involvement in the siting of refineries.
The bill's sponsors argued that refinery constraints have added to the tight gasoline market that has seen prices at the pump soar to more than three dollars a gallon across most of the country. But they acknowledged the measure is not intended to address this summer's high gas prices.

At a House hearing yesterday, the head of the Energy Department's statistical agencies said he expects crude oil prices -- which have been hovering above 70 dollars a barrel -- to remain high into next year.

The House passed the refinery legislation by a vote of 238-to-179.

But its prospects in the Senate are uncertain. Last year a similar bill failed to get out of committee amid solid opposition by Democrats and moderate Republicans.

[Soldier4Christ]

A twisted reaction to Zarqawi's death

by Melanie Morgan

He's dead, he's dead, Hallelujah!

The hottest corner in hell just found itself a new occupant with the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and one can now conjure up the vision of Mr. Zarqawi searching in vain for those promised 72 virgins.

By now he's probably figured out that he would have had a better chance finding 72 virgins had he been attending Bill Clinton's campaign fund-raisers instead of waging Islamic jihad against the West.

One would expect that most sane, rational people, upon hearing the news of Zarqawi's death, would be happy or relieved, just as the world rejoiced at the death of Adolf Hitler. But then again, we've long since moved beyond "The Greatest Generation" and instead now walk through the generation of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and anti-war activists protesting at the funerals of military personnel.

Siding with the terrorists

The American political left is so committed to seeing President Bush brought down and the war on terrorism brought to an end that they instinctively side with America's enemies.

That may sound harsh, and the anti-war left activists will swear to you that it's not the case, but their own words belie their claims.

Across the websites and message boards of liberal America yesterday were cries of protest from many about the news that Zarqawi's reign of terror, murder and violence had come to an end.

At the Democratic Underground website, users attempted to manipulate MSNBC's online poll to suggest that the mission to kill Zarqawi would be meaningless in the war in Iraq. Whether or not the death of Zarqawi will have a major impact on the war effort is beside the point. The efforts by liberals to manipulate a poll so as to beat down the morale of the American people and make them believe we can't win is revolting. There is a sickness that has infected the anti-war movement.

Other liberals at Democratic Underground were foaming at the mouth with indignation about the mission to kill Zarqawi: "He's a fictitious character," said the poster "ShortnFiery." Another poster named "wizdum" agreed: "… I never believed in this pat story of al-Qaida in Iraq. It set off my ******** meter right from the get go."

Meanwhile, at another liberal website named Daily Kos, some liberals were outright upset that the military had chosen to kill a terrorist. "Bush's idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?" asked a user named "Justice."

Another user named "ronik" expressed a similar sentiment: "If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people 'knew' the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?"

Do these people not realize our nation is at war, and the enemy is attempting to kill our troops and eventually murder the rest of us here in the United States?

Apparently not, because another Daily Kos member offered consolation about Zarqawi's death, opining that, "This too shall pass."

These people comprise the constituency of Air America, the people who give money to MoveOn.org and who voted for John Kerry for president. And the saddest thing is that most of the reporters in the "mainstream media" are sympathetic to their point of view.

Some liberals thought Zarqawi had been given an unfair reputation. "How do you know 'he was guilty of masterminding suicide bombings and beheadings of innocent civilians'? Did you hear this on the MSM? Or are you privy to information the rest of us don't have access to?" asked Daily Kos user "Johann."

Others insisted Zarqawi isn't really dead, but is instead part of some conspiracy to deceive the American public. "Personally, I think they've got him in a cell somewhere, and they trot him out whenever the political situation seems dire and let him make a speech," said a user named "Pragmatic Left." The liberal member "iconoclast022" echoed that sentiment. "It seems that Osama and George are just playing their role for the family in each one's bid for empire and power. I'd be willing to bet that this plan has been in the works for a very long time. I bet they see themselves as overlords or something."

Ignoring the carnage

Those who want to see the United States and Coalition forces lose the war on terrorism have somehow found a way to make themselves positively numb to the record of carnage that Zarqawi and al-Qaida have left behind in Iraq.

The Associated Press published a list of terrorist attacks attributed to Zarqawi dating back to 2002. These include the horrific truck bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that killed 23 people, including the U.N.'s top envoy, Sergio Vieira; the March 2004 bombings of Shiite Muslim shrines in Karbala and Baghdad that killed 181 people; the kidnapping and beheading of Nicholas Berg; a car bomb attack on a vehicle convoy in Baghdad that killed 13 people, including three General Electric employees; the kidnapping and beheading of South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il; the kidnapping and beheading of two Bulgarian truck drivers; the kidnapping and beheading of a Turkish truck driver; and the September 2004 bombings in Baghdad that killed 35 children and seven adults as U.S. troops handed out candy during the opening of a new sewage treatment plant.

That's just a brief listing of some of the murderous actions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I don't have enough space in 10 columns, let alone one column, to detail the others.

This is a man – along with the terrorist effort he helped lead – that is vile and inhuman. These people must be stopped, and we must strike them where they are based in Iraq, Afghanistan and other reaches throughout the Middle East.

If we don't take action there, then we know what will happen: They will fly planes into our government and office buildings as they did on September 11; they will detonate bombs in American high-rise buildings as they did in 1993; they will hijack our cruise ships as they did in the case of the Achille Laurel; and on and on.

I don't know why more Americans don't understand this.

You may not like George Bush's personality, or you may disagree with his policies on immigration and federal spending. You might even believe he has made some mistakes in how he's conducted the war on terrorism.

But his basic premise in fighting the war against Islamic terrorism is spot-on right. Instead of hoping that Bush will be embarrassed by a failure in Iraq, these people need to realize that if we fail there, the consequences will be disastrous. We will have emboldened the most radicalized elements of Islam and sent them a message that if they only act more ruthlessly and savagely, they can bring America down to her knees and sap our morale and determination to fight for freedom, democracy and peace.

We can't do that, no matter how badly some of the sick and twisted people on the political left in this country might wish us to.

[Soldier4Christ]

Appeals Court Backs Bush on Wiretaps


WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.

The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, primary sponsor of CALEA, called the court's decision contrary to congressional intent, saying it stretches a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006."

Education groups challenged the FCC rule because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks. They argued that broadband Internet access is an information service beyond the reach of CALEA.

The American Council on Education said it was encouraged by part of the court's ruling that the law does not apply to private networks, which include many research institutions and corporations.

But more broadly, "we believe we had established a strong legal case that CALEA did not apply to providers of facilities-based Internet access or voice-over-IP," the education council said.

Challengers to the FCC rule focused on a Supreme Court case upholding the FCC's classification of broadband as an integrated information service under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, the education groups said, broadband providers must fall within the exemption for information services in CALEA.

But the appeals court said CALEA and the Telecom act are different laws and that the Supreme Court did not find that broadband Internet access was exclusively an information service.

The two laws reflect different objectives and the commission made a reasonable policy choice, wrote Sentelle, an appointee of President Reagan.

Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a private group, said the decision "threatens the privacy rights of innocent Americans as well as the ability of technology companies to innovate freely."

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who sided with Sentelle, is an appointee of President George W. Bush. Edwards was appointed by President Carter.

[Soldier4Christ]

An email that I just received.

_________________________

Passage of Let Them Rest in Peace

Today is a great day for democracy and the freedoms of the First Amendment in Illinois.  By a unanimous vote, the Illinois General Assembly has passed the Let Them Rest in Peace Act to protect the rights of mourners at a funeral to speak, assemble and practice their religious faith without harassment or disruption by an outside hate group.

The Let Them Rest in Peace Act creates a zone of privacy of 200 feet around a funeral or memorial service so families mourning the loss of a loved one will not be subjected to vile epithets or signs. Hateful speech designed to disrupt a funeral will be prohibited 30 minutes before a funeral, during a funeral, and 30 minutes after the funeral within the designated zone of privacy.

The Let Them Rest in Peace Act protects the First Amendment religious rights of families to bury their dead with reverence and dignity, and everyone in the Land of Lincoln believes in this fundamental principle of human decency.

I salute the people of Illinois for their grassroots effort urging their legislators to enact this important law. Thousands of citizens signed an online petition urging passage of the Let Them Rest in Peace Act and their voices have been heard. .

I also salute the sponsors of this bill, Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) and Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D-Joliet), as well as Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), and Sen. Dale Righter (R-Mattoon) for their support.

Thank you very much for your personal support of the Let Them Rest in Peace Act. God bless you and God bless America.

                                                       Sincerely


                                                       Pat Quinn
                                                       Lt Governor of Illinois

[Soldier4Christ]

Karl Rove won’t be prosecuted in CIA leak case
Top White House aide was under scrutiny over disclosure of agent’s identity

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove,” Luskin said in a statement.

“In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation,” Luskin said. “We believe the special counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct.”

Phone call from Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said the White House official “is elated” and said that “we’re done.”

Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration’s pursuit of war in Iraq.

Rove, who most recently appeared before a grand jury in April, has admitted he spoke with columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in the days before they published Plame’s name in July 2003.

E-mail and a faulty memory
Rove, however, did not originally tell prosecutors about his conversation with Cooper, only revealing it after his lawyer discovered a White House e-mail that referred to it.

Fitzgerald was investigating whether Rove lied or obstructed justice in failing to initially disclose the conversation. The presidential aide blamed a faulty memory and sought to testify before the grand jury after finding the e-mail to correct his testimony.

The threat of indictment had hung over Rove, the man President Bush dubbed “the architect” of his re-election, even as Rove was focusing on the arduous task of halting Bush’s popularity spiral and keeping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in November elections.

Fitzgerald’s investigation has been underway since the start of the 2004 election, and the decision not to indict Rove is certain to cheer Republicans concerned about Bush’s low approval ratings and the prospects of a difficult 2006 congressional election.

“The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and (Sen.) Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty,” Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends” show Tuesday morning.

‘Not so good news’
Democrats, on the other hand, had no reason to cheer the development.

“Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,” Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.

Rove has been at Bush’s sides since his days as Texas governor and was the architect of Bush’s two presidential election victory.  A political strategist, Rove assumed new policy responsibilities inside the White House in 2005 as deputy chief of staff.

However, as part of the shake-up brought by new White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton, Rove shed those policymaking duties earlier this year to return to full time politics.

Indictment against Libby
Fitzgerald’s case against Libby is moving toward trial, as the two sides work through pretrial issues such as access to classified documents.

Libby, 55, was charged last October with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned and when he subsequently told three reporters about CIA officer Valerie Plame. He faces five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Plame’s identity was exposed eight days after her husband, Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that the U.S. government had manipulated prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi nuclear threat.

With Rove’s fate now decided, other unfinished business in Fitzgerald’s probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodwind information about Plame.

Woodwind says his source, who he has not publicly identified, provided the information about Wilson’s wife, several weeks before Novak learned of Plame’s identity. The Post reporter, who never wrote a story, was interviewed by Fitzgerald late last year.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge to rule on gospel 'million-dollar bills'
Puts case of Christian group vs. Secret Service on fast track

A federal judge in Dallas yesterday said he will issue a ruling within one week on a complaint by a Christian group that had its "million-dollar" gospel tracts seized by the U.S. Secret Service.

The judge put the case on a fast track, said attorney Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, indicating an order will be issued Friday, or at the latest Monday.

Fahling, representing the Denton, Texas-based Great News Network, asked the judge to order return of 8,300 tracts that mimic U.S. currency and to prevent the government agency's local field office from arresting anyone who distributes them.

Fahling told WND he wants the judge to rule whether the Secret Service's application of the U.S. code is constitutional.

The Secret Service's Dallas field office has said it is preparing a cease-and-desist order, arguing the tract violates a federal law that says reproductions of currency cannot be regulation size and cannot be two-sided.

Fahling insists the sections of the U.S. code's title 18 cited by the government, 475 and 504, don't apply.

He argues 475 deals only with authorized denominations – there is no $1 million bill – and 504 pertains only to exact copies of currency. The tracts have numerous differences, including a gospel message on the back, he points out.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the controversy began June 2 when three agents visited the Great News Network office and told a staffer to hand over the tracts.

The tracts are produced by evangelist Ray Comfort, whose Living Waters Ministry in Southern California has been inundated with requests for them since the story broke a week ago.

Fahling said the head of the Los Angeles district of the Secret Service was made aware of the situation but planned to take no action.

Comfort told WND the pursuit of a judge's decision is necessary to resolve the matter.

"Some Christians think we've broken a law," he said. "Our concern is that Christians know we're reputable."

The Dallas Secret Service agents explained to the Great News Network that someone in North Carolina had attempted to deposit one of the million-dollar bills in a bank account. The address of the Texas group was on the back, and the Secret Service went into action.

Rundus told WND he wonders why there have been no arrests in North Carolina, if in fact a crime has been committed.

"I can't think of a reason a bank teller would turn [the tract] over to the feds," he said, noting he gives them to bankers all the time, and they usually laugh.

But Rundus says the controversy has "been a good thing for God.

"More people have heard the gospel in the last week through our ministry and Ray's, and more people are passing out these gospel tracts than ever before," he said.

"I think it's a million-dollar miracle."

The tract includes this message: "The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart." Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will. He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you. Jesus took your punishment upon Himself – 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily and obey it."

A WND reader has pointed out retail giant Toys R Us has been selling "million-dollar bills," printed on both front and back, for years. In fine print on the back, the bill says, "This instrument is NON negotiable."

World Class Learning Materials sells a set of 100 bills of different denominations it calls "play money"

A website called Prank Place says its currency for sale "looks and feels real. Great conversation tool. Our funny money and fake million dollar bills look just like real U.S. Currency. These are very high quality, designed by an incredibly talented artist. Our fake money make great gifts, additions to greeting cards, or even sales promotions and sales tools."

[Soldier4Christ]

Utah's Parents, Teachers, and Legislators Defend Right to Keep Porn Out of Their Homes

Utah’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and 37 state legislators have filed an application of amici curiae in the lawsuit brought by the pornography industry to shut down the state’s Child Protection Registry (www.kidsregistry.utah.gov). The filing asks the court to allow the PTA and legislators to submit a friend of the court brief supporting the right of Utah’s parents to keep pornographic materials out of their homes.

“The Child Protection Registry is a simple, free, common sense measure to keep out messages that are inappropriate for children,” said Carmen Snow, President of the Utah PTA. “Parents and teachers across the state are committed to stop this attempt by the adult industry to invade our homes and schools.”

The legislators who have signed on to the amicus brief span the political spectrum. “Protecting the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit is not a partisan issue,” said President of the Senate John Valentine. “Utah’s parents have the right to declare their homes off-limits to pornographic solicitations, and the legislature is committed to ensuring they have tools like the Child Protection Registry to do so.”

“Our legislature has a proud record of supporting parents and families,” said Speaker of the House Greg Curtis. “The State of Utah will stand strong against the companies sending this outrageous material to unwilling recipients.”

The suit to shut down the Child Protection Registry was filed in Federal District Court before Judge Dale Kimball by the so-called “Free Speech Coalition,” a lobbying group for the pornography industry. The brief by the PTA and the legislators was authored pro bono by the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a constitutional law firm based in Washington, D.C.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to keep material they find objectionable out of their homes,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The claim by the pornography industry that they have the right to send their offensive material whenever, however, and to whomever they choose flies in the face of well-established jurisprudence.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Anti-War Activists Jeer Hillary Clinton
Anti-war activists boo Hillary Rodham Clinton for opposing pullout date for U.S. troops in Iraq

Anti-war activists at a liberal gathering booed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday for opposing a set date for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq. Facing down the jeers, Clinton said Democrats need to have "a difficult conversation" about the war.

Another potential presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, spoke to the group later in the day and offered an emphatically anti-war appeal.

"Sometimes this is a difficult conversation, in part because this administration has made our world more dangerous than it should be," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

Kerry, who was widely criticized as the party's standard-bearer in 2004 for being too cautious in his criticism of the war, said Tuesday that politicians "cannot have it both ways."

In remarks that could have been aimed at Clinton, Kerry said: "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details. ... It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake. ... It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution."

Kerry's speech featured some of his strongest comments to date, including a call to "end a war in Iraq that weakens the nation each and every day it goes on."

The Massachusetts senator is offering an amendment to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

While Clinton received loud cheers for her swipes at the Bush administration, many in the crowd jeered her stance on the Iraq war. She voted for the war but has since harshly criticized the Bush administration's handling of the conflict.

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government," said Clinton, before turning to the anti-war liberals' core beef with her.

"Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests," said Clinton, prompting loud booing from some at the gathering.

Clinton has been seen as the early favorite among potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008, but she is increasingly at odds with anti-war liberals over her past vote and current position on Iraq.

After addressing Iraq, Clinton quickly turned to the 2006 election, saying her party needs to speak to middle-class Americans and overcome disagreements.

"If we're going to win in November then we have to be smarter, tougher, and better prepared than our opponents, because one thing they do know how to do is win and we have to reach out to people who may not be able to agree with us," she said.

"We have to talk about the range of issues that are on their minds that they talk about around the kitchen table," Clinton said.

Before speaking to the group, another potential presidential candidate, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, questioned whether Congress had done its part in asking tough questions.

"Congress has a responsibility here," Vilsack said, in a subtle criticism of potential 2008 rivals like Kerry and Clinton. "If the tough questions aren't being asked by the administration, the checks and balances system of our government requires that the other branch of government asks the tough questions."

Speaking at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Vilsack cautioned against rushing for a quick exit from Iraq now.

"I personally don't think now is a time to say on a date certain we are leaving," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Rejects U.S. Troop Pullout in Iraq

The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.

The vote came alongside a daylong debate in the House, where Republicans defended the war as key to winning the global struggle against terrorism while Democrats excoriated President Bush and his policies.

"We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil it inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The war was "a grotesque mistake," countered the Democratic House leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. "The administration continues to dig a hole. They refuse to come up and see the light," she said.

The political subtext was clear from the outset.

"Is it al-Qaida or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate," said Republican Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia, attacking war critics as defeatists who do not deserve re-election.

The debate unfolded four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of Congress, and at a time Bush is trying to rebuild faded public support for the conflict.

The administration was so determined to get its message out that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual "debate prep book" filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war.

The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew, "I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.

Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly.

Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote - Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The debate in the House was poignant and partisan by turns.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., began his remarks by asking for a moment of silence to mark the 2,500th U.S. combat death.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said, "It's a number." He said that Bush "feels very deeply the pain that the families feel."

Polls show the war has become unpopular. But Bush has tried to rally support in the days since the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and the recent completion of a new Iraqi government.

The Pentagon's 74-page battle plan for the debate said that "Iraq will become a haven for terrorists, murderers and thugs" if the United States left "before the job is done."

"We cannot cut and run," it said at another point, anticipating Democratic calls for a troop withdrawal on a fixed timetable.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the document. It was sent to both Republicans and Democrats and it laid out the administration's positions in strong terms and offered page after page of counterpoints to criticisms that Democrats typically level against Bush's war policies.

"In this fight for the future of peace, freedom and democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, winning should be our only option," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

"Stay and we'll pay," countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who criticized "the failed policy of this administration" and lamented the lives lost, billions of dollars spent and the bruised U.S. image since the war started. "It's time to redeploy and be ready." he said.

Republicans arranged for the House debate to culminate in a vote either late Thursday or Friday on legislation - a resolution - that labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

Across the Capitol, partisan tensions on the Iraq war were clear as the Senate sent the president an additional $66 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and debated annual military legislation.

As the death toll and price tag of Iraq rise, opinion polls show voters are frustrated with the war and favor Democrats to control Congress instead of the Republicans who now run the show.

Sensitive to those political realities, House Republicans sought to put lawmakers of both parties on record on an issue certain to be central in this fall's congressional elections.

Democrats decried the debate as a sham. They said Republicans promised an open discussion but, instead, stacked the deck in their own favor by limiting debate to 10 hours and barring any amendments.

"Republicans offer a political document, just before the fall elections," Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., said. Added Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.: "They are forcing us into a charade."

They also complained that Republicans refused to allow them to present an alternative resolution. But even though they tried, Democrats weren't able to agree on such an alternative.

In both the House and Senate, Democrats appear to be divided into three camps. Some want troops to leave Iraq this year. Others object to setting any kind of timetable. A number of them want the United States to start redeploying forces by year's end but don't want to set a date when all troops should be out.

House Democrats are mindful that voting against such a resolution could leave them vulnerable to attacks by Republicans who could claim that Democrats who oppose the resolution don't support U.S. troops and advocate a "cut-and-run" strategy.

To that end, a memo this week by House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, urged his fellow Republicans to frame the debate as "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats."

Republican leaders portray the debate as the first of its kind since the Iraq war started in 2003. But they staged a similar vote on a resolution rejecting the immediate withdrawal of troops last year after Murtha, in a reversal, called for a quick exit from Iraq.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely


    A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

    The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11, and it dismissed several key claims the detainees had made against the government. But the judge, John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the lawsuit to continue on other claims, mostly that the conditions of confinement were abusive and unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson’s decision requires top federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those accusations under oath.

    This is the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government had made little or no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations.

    Lawyers in the suit, who vowed to appeal yesterday’s decision, said parts of the ruling could potentially be used far more broadly, to detain any noncitizen in the United States for any reason.

Prairie Pundit:

    This case is a big loss for the victimhood branch of the Muslim faith. If it stands on appeal, it will be helpful in fighting the Islamist and its ideology of victimhood. While immigration laws have not been enforced consistently, they have become something of a silver bullet in dealing with the terrorist threat making it very difficult for the enemy to infltrate into the country without detection.

It always amazes me how these people who are here illegally, be it Muslim, Mexican, or anyone, think they are afforded Constitutional rights. This case is not over, but I’m glad to know that some judges still recognize our government’s right to protect us in a time of war.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pataki signs law against display of swastikas, cross burning

ALBANY, N.Y. Those convicted of burning crosses or defacing property with Nazi swastikas will face tougher penalties under a law signed by Governor Pataki.
Lawyers at the New York Civil Liberties Union and a professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law said they knew of no other state with a similar law.

Defacing property with a swastika without the owner's permission, along with cross burning, will now be felonies punishable by up to four years in prison.

Previously, cases of ethnic, racial or religious intimidation were prosecuted as misdemeanors, many of which were reduced to violations in plea agreements.

Assemblyman William Colton, a Brooklyn Democrat, sponsored the bill. He said ait was prompted by cases in the past few years in which swastikas were drawn on buildings, including the apartment house of a Holocaust survivor in his district.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the New York law is unconstitutional because it penalizes a viewpoint, not an overt threat.

The constitutionality of the law could be challenged in court.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rep. McKinney Beats Indictment In Capitol Slap

WASHINGTON -- A grand jury declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney on Friday in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

The grand jury had been considering the case since shortly after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them.

"We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.

McKinney did not immediately comment.

Wainstein's statement, released late Friday, also included support for the officer involved, Paul McKenna, and the Capitol Police. He said, "This is a tremendously difficult job, and it is one that Officer McKenna and his colleagues perform with the utmost professionalism and dignity."

With that, Wainstein closed a case that has simmered with racial and political tension.

The encounter began when McKinney tried to enter a House office building without walking through a metal detector or wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress.

McKenna did not recognize her as a member of Congress and asked her three times to stop. When she ignored him, he tried to stop her. McKinney then hit him.

McKinney described the encounter as "racial profiling," insisting she had been assaulted and had done nothing wrong.

McKinney is black. McKenna is white.

She received little public support for that stance, even within the Congressional Black Caucus.

Wainstein, meanwhile, referred the matter to a federal grand jury, which then subpoenaed several House aides thought to have witnessed the encounter. McKenna, too, testified.

Members of the CBC privately urged McKinney to put the matter behind her. The next morning, she appeared on the House floor to apologize.

"I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation, and I apologize," McKinney, D-Ga., said April 6. "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident."

[Soldier4Christ]

House Rejects Timetable for Iraq Pullout

The House on Friday rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq after a ferociously partisan debate, forcing lawmakers in both parties to go on record on a major issue in re-election campaigns nationwide.

A day after the Senate took the same position against troop withdrawal, the GOP-led House voted 256-153 to approve a nonbinding resolution that says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of American forces is not in the national interest.

"Achieving victory is our only option," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, casting Democrats as defeatists who want to retreat in the face of terrorist threats. "We must not shy away."

"'Stay the course' is not a strategy, it's a slogan," answered House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as she called for a new direction in a war she labeled "a grotesque mistake."

"It's time to face the facts," Pelosi said.

Angling for political advantage, House Republicans engineered the debate and vote, four and one-half months before midterm elections that will decide who runs Congress - and as polls show voters favoring Democrats to replace Republicans as the controlling party.

Those same polls show the public increasingly frustrated with the war as the death toll and price tag continue to rise. Voters could hold it against incumbent candidates, regardless of political party, come November.

Republicans across Capitol Hill are sensitive to those political realities.

GOP leaders in both the House and Senate sought to put lawmakers of both parties, and particularly Democrats, on record on the conflict, and looked to draw attention to deep Democratic divisions on the war.

Senate Republicans succeeded in doing that Thursday. In a maneuver Democrats assailed as a political stunt, GOP leaders brought up legislation calling for withdrawing combat troops by year's end and quickly dismissed it on a 93-6 vote. Six Democrats were in the minority.

It was the House Republicans' turn a day later.

They scheduled a vote on their symbolic resolution that also praises U.S. troops and labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism.

Democrats denounced the GOP-orchestrated debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure. They said that supporting it would have the effect of affirming Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.

Still, 42 Democrats broke ranks and joined with all but three Republicans to support the resolution. Two Republicans and three Democrats declined to take a position by voting present.

Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP, because Republicans were expected to use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.

Sure enough, within two hours of the House vote, the Republican Senate campaign committee circulated news releases that said Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in Tennessee, and Rep. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat challenging Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, voted to "cut and run" from Iraq.

Lawmakers were mindful of the political implications of the votes throughout the debate that ran more than 12 hours over two days.

In floor speeches, several GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November tried to strike a balance. They carefully criticized the resolution that their leaders had written, calling it weak and incomplete, but then reluctantly voted in favor of it.

"The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to do to fight for their freedom and when will our men and women come home," Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., said.

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., agreed, saying: "We should be having a debate and a discussion on how we will prevail, not just that we want to prevail."

Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that confronts voters.

"The choice for the American people is clear; don't run in the face of danger, victory will be our exit strategy," Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said.

Countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.: "It's not a matter of stay the course. It's a matter of change direction."