Other Political News

[Shammu]

Girls Can Marry at 15, Colo. Court Finds
Jun 15 2:05 PM US/Eastern
Email this story    

By JON SARCHE
Associated Press Writer

DENVER

A 15-year-old girl can enter into a common-law marriage in Colorado, and younger girls and boys possibly can, too, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

While the three-judge panel stopped short of setting a specific minimum age for such marriages, it said they could be legal for girls at 12 and boys at 14 under English common law, which Colorado recognizes.

The ruling overturned a lower-court judge's decision that a girl, now older than 18, was too young to marry at 15.

The panel said there was no clear legislative or statutory guidance on common-law marriages, and that Colorado courts have not determined an age of consent.

For traditional ceremonial marriage, Colorado law sets the minimum age at 18, or 16 with parental or judicial approval.

Colorado is one of 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, that recognize common-law marriage, which is based on English law dating back hundreds of years.

"It appears that Colorado has adopted the common-law age of consent for marriage as 14 for a male and 12 for a female, which existed under English common law," the ruling said. "Nevertheless, we need only hold here that a 15-year-old female may enter into a valid common-law marriage."

The appeal was filed by Willis Rouse, 38, who is serving time for escape and a parole violation. He argued that he and the girl began living together in April 2002 and applied for a marriage license a year later.

The girl had become legally independent by then, but her mother also consented to the marriage and accompanied the girl and Rouse to obtain a license, the ruling said.

A judge invalidated the marriage, saying anybody under age 16 needed judicial approval for either common-law or ceremonial marriage.

While Thursday's ruling found that the girl was old enough to marry, it did not conclude whether she and Rouse have a valid marriage. The court sent the case back to the trial judge to make that determination.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pro-war vote in the House just opening volley

The House passage Friday of a nonbinding resolution on the war in Iraq was a not-so-subtle election-year effort by Republican leaders to portray Democrats as weak on national security and unwilling to support U.S. troops.

But the acrimonious debate that culminated in a 256-153 vote in favor of the pro-war measure suggests that the battle over how much longer to keep 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq will only intensify -- especially as polls show that a majority of Americans want to see a timetable for when U.S. troops will begin to return home.

Republicans, in the 2002 midterm elections and 2004 presidential election, successfully used appeals to "stay the course" in the war on terrorism to preserve their majorities in Congress and re-elect President Bush.

But the public's patience for the "stay the course" strategy has been waning because of rising sectarian violence in Iraq and the mounting death toll of U.S. troops. The point was underscored when the House and Senate halted the war debate Thursday for a moment of silence after the Pentagon announced the 2,500th death of an American armed services member in Iraq.

Even Republican Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio acknowledged Friday that anyone honestly debating the war resolution had to admit that the violence between Sunni and Shiite factions has worsened in recent months, testing the ability of U.S. troops to maintain order.

But Boehner added: "Retreat is not an option in Iraq. The stakes for the American people are too high."

Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco used Friday's debate to suggest that her party -- if it wins back power in the November elections -- would agitate for a very different course in Iraq.

"Our new direction would say to the Iraqi people: We will not be in your country indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not control the flow of your oil," Pelosi said. "We will work with you and your neighbors diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful."

The war resolution was carefully worded by GOP leaders to put Democrats in Republican-dominated "red" states and swing districts in political jeopardy if they voted against it.

First, the resolution contained a patriotic appeal to honor America's fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also urged the United States to complete the mission of creating a free and secure Iraq.

The resolution opposed setting an "arbitrary date" for withdrawing troops and concluded with a declaration that the United States "will prevail in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."

Forty-two Democrats voted for the measure, many from Southern or Midwestern states that backed Bush in the last election. In California, two Central Valley lawmakers -- Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno -- were among the Democrats who supported the resolution.

"I reluctantly voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution on the war on terrorism," Cardoza said in a statement after the vote. "If one takes the time to read the resolution, it talks about winning the war in Iraq, supporting our troops and establishing a citizen-based government in Iraq. These are noble goals, and I support them.

"The problem is not what was said in the resolution, but what was not said. We owe our troops more than rhetoric; we owe them a real plan."

Democrats said they already expect to see radio and TV ads running against vulnerable members who voted against the measure.

"It's a trap," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said during the debate. "It's an attempt to force Democrats to sign onto a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. All they want to do is make us sound unpatriotic."

In the Senate, Republican leaders achieved much the same result by forcing a vote on an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to demand a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The measure failed, 93-6.

But Republicans could find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue.

A new CNN-Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawing troops while 41 percent oppose setting a deadline. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans said they backed a timetable for exiting Iraq.

With fading support for the war and growing concern about the president's handling of the conflict, Republicans could face calls from the public before the November elections to begin spelling out when troops would return home.

Two House Republican lawmakers voted against the resolution Friday -- Reps. John Duncan of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa -- and libertarian Ron Paul of Texas.

Duncan, a longtime opponent of the war, told his GOP colleagues they may pay a political price with voters for keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely.

"We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home," he said.

But many Republicans saw the debate as an opportunity to paint Democrats as soft on terrorism. Many argued that any proposed timetable for pulling out troops represents a retreat from the war against terrorism.

"The left in this country have a position they're advocating for -- it's called 'cut and run,' " said freshman Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

But Democrats, including Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ex-Marine who has become a leading anti-war voice, said the presence of U.S. troops is only fueling the insurgency and attracting terrorists to Iraq.

"The facts are the situation is not getting better," Murtha said. "We have 130,000 troops on the ground, but only the Iraqis can handle this."

[Shammu]

Democratic leader lays out party agenda

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - If they retake control of Congress, Democrats will act quickly to increase the minimum wage, lower prescription drug costs and slash interest rates on student loans, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The ideas are part of the Democrats' new domestic agenda, named "New Direction for America," which the party rolled out during the past week. Pelosi, D-Calif., used the party's Saturday radio address to promote the plan.

"A new direction means expanding access to affordable health care for Americans. We will begin by lowering the cost of prescription drugs by putting seniors ahead of pharmaceutical companies and HMOs," Pelosi said.

"A new direction means broadening opportunity by addressing the soaring costs of higher education. We will begin by making tuition tax-deductible and cutting the interest rates of student loans in half."

Pelosi also pledged to improve security, reduce dependence on foreign oil, maintain
Social Security and oppose deficit spending. Under the plan the minimum wage would rise from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years, the interest rate on student loans would be cut to 3.4 percent and Democrats would approve a "pay as you go" budgeting rule.

Most of the ideas have been part of Democratic talking points for months but, facing criticism that they lack a cohesive message, the party is regrouping them as a platform to run on in November's midterm elections. Democrats hope to regain control of the House and Senate, which would take a gain of 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

On Iraq, Pelosi said: "2006 must be a year of significant transition. It is time for a new direction in Iraq."

She didn't mention that there's significant disagreement among Democrats on when to begin withdrawing troops.

Pelosi's position on the Iraq timetable — "at the earliest practicable time, the United States must begin the responsible redeployment of its troops," she said — is not shared by everyone in the Democratic caucus.

Democratic leader lays out party agenda

[Soldier4Christ]

 'Reformed' gays demand a voice in America's schools


Angered by what they see as the promotion of homosexuality in schools, thousands of American parents are banding together to demand that their children be taught that it is possible to stop being gay.

Organisations such as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (Jonah) and Inqueery are trying to ensure that their view is aired alongside gay rights messages.

A high school in New Hampshire allowed an "ex-gay" activist to address pupils on Civil Rights Day last year.

In Colorado, education officials are pondering whether to hand out a pamphlet to teachers suggesting that "conversion therapy" - a combination of prayer and counselling - can reform homosexual tendencies.

Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, an umbrella for ex-gay support groups, said: "The gay community says that you can't change. But there is an alternative. Now more and more teenagers are able to see there are two sides to this issue."

Mr Chambers, 34, was drawn to men from boyhood. "I didn't choose to feel gay. When I was 11, I found myself struggling with same-sex attraction issues. I was told by a school counsellor that there was nothing I could do about it. I had to accept I was gay. That made me want to die."

At 18, he joined a local Christian group in Florida and was convinced that it was possible to change. He renounced his previous sexual leanings, and within eight years he was married.

He now has two children under two. "My life couldn't be more different," he said. "I am one of tens of thousands of men and women who have overcome homosexuality."

Melissa Fryrear, of Focus on the Family, a Christian conservative group, was a lesbian for a decade.

She attributes her former orientation to "having been violated by a man outside my family when I was a child", a lack of an emotional bond with her mother and a frequently absent father. "I had 30 or 40 relationships in those years. I didn't see any stability around me.

When I was coming to the end of my proverbial rope, I discovered there was a biblical sexual ethic outlined in scripture and I started to hear wonderful stories of people who had overcome homosexuality."

Regina Griggs, the executive director of PFOX, said: "People are not born gay and there's never been a test that has found a gay gene. It's a free speech and equal access issue. We want children to have all the facts, not just the outlandish statements and bias of one side."

She became involved in PFOX when her teenage son announced that he was gay. 'But he's at the point where he admits now that change is possible.

"I have never sat him down and handcuffed him and said, 'I'm taking you to a therapist'. His decision is his decision. We love one another and we're no different from any other family."

Miss Fryrear, 40, said she faces more discrimination as an "ex-gay" than she did as a lesbian. "It seems that gay and lesbian activists want me to go into the closet. I have been called things I could never repeat to my mother.

"I have had death threats. I have to travel with personal security. I get a Christmas card each year with human faeces smeared on it."

Unlike some hardline Christians, Mr Chambers and Miss Fryrear accept that homosexual feelings may be genuine, arguing that they are a complex mixture of innate tendencies, childhood factors and personality traits.

Mr Chambers suggested that he would never completely shake off his past. "I'm not above being tempted. I'm human," he said. "But it's not something that rules my life.

I am attracted and committed to my wife and I have developed heterosexual feelings in general. I choose to live beyond these things and they don't control me any more."

Ron Schlittler, the deputy executive director of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said the "ex-gay" arguments were potentially damaging to young people. "Conversion therapy is snake oil - it's really suppression therapy.

Their basic premise is that gay people don't exist but are basically confused heterosexuals who need help."

[Soldier4Christ]

New state law allows credit for off-campus Bible education

While other students learn how to conjugate French verbs or navigate a musical scale, nearly 6,500 S.C. students a year leave campus and learn about the Bible and its Ten Commandments.

Now South Carolina has became the second state to allow schools to give students academic credit for that instruction.

The South Carolina Released Time Credit Act, signed into law June 2 by Gov. Mark Sanford, permits schools to give students an elective credit for participating in the religion class.

“The (new law) just eliminates any questions of the legality or viability of Bible curriculums.” said Grayson Hartgrove, a member of the national organization Bible Education in School Time Network and program director for the Midlands Christian Learning Center.

In the Midlands, the elective course is available at the middle school level in three Lexington County school districts and in the Newberry County school district.

Supporters around the state hope the new law will revive high school enrollment in Bible education, encouraging churches and school officials to create more programs for those students.

“Part of the problem is that if you can’t get credit for it, then you can’t afford to take the time to take the class,” said Robbie Muncatchy of Columbia.

Her grandson, Andrew Harrison, attended the Bible education program at CrossRoads Middle School.

No high schools in the Midlands offer a Released Time program.

Both Spartanburg 7 and Greenville school districts have had high school Released Time programs.

Students can take part in the Released Time programs because of a 1952 court ruling, saying it is constitutional for students to leave campus to take part in religious education courses.

But because of scheduling conflicts and graduation requirements, religious organizations have had smaller-than-expected participation from high school students.

For example, less than 10 percent of the 1,130 students in Greenville’s Christian Learning Centers are in high school, officials said.

Coordinator Troy Bridges said Spartanburg’s Bible Education in School Time program had to stop serving Spartanburg High School after the state started its phase-in of increased graduation requirements in 1997.

Now with the Credit Act signed, Released Time groups are scrambling to get more high school programs approved by superintendents and school boards.

Spartanburg’s Bridges said he’d like to have a high school course available by January 2007. However, Hartgrove said it likely will be the 2007-08 school year before a class is available for high school students in the Midlands.

That’s because it’ll take more churches, money and resources to offer a high school elective. It takes the participation of at least two churches and $7,200 to operate CrossRoads’ Bible education course.

An independent program, Kids 4 Christ, is available to Sandhills Elementary School students in Lexington 4. That program costs about $2,000 to offer. In addition, teachers buy some of their own materials.

The availability of New Released Time courses “will depend on the interest in the local churches,” Hartgrove said.

Lexington 3 officials said they haven’t been approached by church organizations to offer Released Time programs. But, beginning in August, the Old Testament and the New Testament will be taught as a history elective to high school students. The Bible will be used as a historical text.

“The need was there,” said school board member Randy Fox, adding the fall class is full. “It’s a good thing to have more of.”

Spartanburg’s Bridges said Released Time programs will fill a gap in high school course offerings.

“Our moral values are so eroded by what’s happening in our country,” Bridges said. “We need something to offset it and this is one way of doing it.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Are liberals beating up children of their political opponents?


According to an article in TownHall, Libs’ new strategy: Assault 7 year old , Jun 18, 2006, by Kevin McCullough, one has to ask the question, are liberals beating up children of their political opponents?

This story started several months ago when Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, Lexington, Massachusetts, decided to have second graders read a “fairy-tale” about two princes involved in a homosexual lifestyle, “King and King.”

    A teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children’s book, ‘’King & King,” as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association’s list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 , because of its homosexual theme. Source: Boston.com

Several of the parents protested use of the book and felt that the book was inappropriate for 2nd graders. The parents wanted parental notification and a way to opt out of controversial subjects. The superintendent told them in no uncertain terms to buzz off. The superintendent later issued a news release that:

    “Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed. Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.”

Apparently one of the parents was later arrested because he refused to leave the Estabrook school grounds until administrators allowed him to opt his son out of discussions about families with same-sex parents. According to TownHall, alternative lifestyle advocates jumped on the parent’s position and mounted a nasty letter writing campaign to a local newspaper in an effort to get the parent to back down.

Turn the calendar forward to May 17, 2006. There was an assault at Estabrook Elementary School. Townhall claims that:

    10 children grabbed the parent’s 7 year old son, dragged him behind the corner of the school, well out of sight from the school officials, and proceeded to punch him in the groin, stomach, and chest, before he dropped to the ground when they then kicked and stomped on him. Several of the alleged were supposed to be children of the adults who had been protesting the parent’s position (against alternative lifestyle instruction), several of them - not even in the same class as parent’s child. The article went on to say that the school district “investigated.” Shockingly the school decided no punishment necessary for the 10 children involved with the assault. Source: Townhall

Turn the calendar forward to May 16, 2006, and a news release from Paul B. Ash, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools

    Some of you may be aware that the press has received a news release related to a playground incident at Estabrook. The Estabrook principal has investigated the issue over the past two days, talking to the adults and children involved. The following are the facts as she understands them.

    On May 17, several first graders were involved in a disagreement over who would sit where in the cafeteria. As a result, upon going outside one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see. (The student who was hit said that he went willingly.) All children who saw agreed that the third student then hit the student who had been brought to him two to four times in the chest/abdomen (children’s accounts vary) and he fell to his knees. The student who was hit says he was hit when down; the other children say he wasn’t. One child reports that one student held the arm of the student who was hit; however, the child who was hit and the other children did not report this. The children involved named five children who were nearby watching but not directly involved. Several other students were close enough to see a cluster of students but not close enough to see what was happening. The student who did the hitting suggested that others also hit, but none of them did so. Based on the children’s accounts, this all may have happened in under a minute. The aide on duty saw a group of children gathering, and as she walked toward them was approached by a child that said someone was being bullied. When the aide inquired what was going on, the child who was hit identified one student who hit him, and the other children agreed. The child who was hit said he was not hurt and did not want to go to the nurse. He reported that his feelings were hurt, because the child who hit him was his friend.

    The child who did the hitting was sent to the assistant principal’s office and while talking with her acknowledged his behavior. As a result, he filled out a “think sheet,” to reflect on his behavior and choices, missed recess on two days, and wrote an apology. In addition, the classroom teacher called both sets of parents and a class discussion was held about not hitting and speaking up when there is a problem on the playground. The teacher indicated that both parents took the matter seriously and seemed satisfied with the outcome. Following the incident the boys were observed arm in arm at school and subsequently the child who was hit went to the house of the child who hit him for a play date.

    On May 31, the parents of the child hit casually inquired of the assistant principal as to the consequence given to the other child, and they were told that the child’s parents were informed and a consequence given. Other than this brief interaction, between the times of the phone call by the teacher to the parents on May 17 until June 14, there were no complaints of injury or dissatisfaction with the process to the teacher, nurse, or the administrators. On June 14, school administration received a call from a local paper stating that they had received a press release that a child had been assaulted at Estabrook.

    In this case, we followed all of our usual procedures and worked with both sets of parents to resolve this issue. We are surprised that it has resurfaced in a press release issued by a group calling itself Mass Resistance without any prior contact with the school. The press release states that the incident was “fueled and incited by adults (and yes, school officials).” We have found nothing in our investigation that would support this allegation in any way. Nonetheless, in the interest of an open and thorough review of the incident, the matter has been referred by the superintendent to the Lexington police, District Attorney’s office, and the Department of Social Services for independent investigation.

The two versions of the story are somewhat different. Everyone agrees that an assault occurred. Where Townhall got its information is unknown. Now it is in the hands of the Lexington Police, District Attorney’s office, and Department of Social Services for independent investigations. Was this an overreaction? Was it a rush to judge? Or, was it something else? One has to hope that the real story will eventually come out and clear the air in Lexington, Massachusetts.

[Soldier4Christ]

New Senate complaint prepared against Hillary
Major donor Peter Paul seeks ethics action by Democrat's colleagues

Accusing government watchdog Judicial Watch of incompetence after the Senate Ethics Committee rejected the group's complaint against Sen. Hillary Clinton, business mogul Peter Franklin Paul says his new counsel is working with him to file his own complaint, accusing the New York Democrat of direct personal involvement in her campaign's intentional misreporting of his multi-million-dollar contributions.

The chairman of the Senate panel, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, and the vice chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, replied to Judicial Watch in a letter stating, "The committee has concluded that this matter lacks substantial merit."

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said Clinton's "friends in the Senate decided to give her a free pass in the run-up to 2006 and 2008 elections."

"They first tried to ignore the issue, and then failed to undertake any serious investigation of the matter," Fitton said.

In January, responding to a complaint by Paul, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to a joint fund-raising committee that included Clinton's campaign, New York Senate 2000, for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from Paul.

In May 2005, Clinton's former top fundraising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul points out the trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Sen. Clinton's campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.

Paul contends the Senate letter responding to Judicial Watch's complaint ignored the duty of the Senate to make its own inquiry into Sen. Clinton's actions, which he detailed in a declaration in his pending business fraud suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton, producer Gary Smith and others set for trial March 27, 2007.

Paul said the panel's letter was based on "superficial conclusions" from the Rosen trial and the FEC conciliation agreement.

The Senate panel's dismissal, he said, "was a clear effort to hide Hillary's role in directing the frauds and obstruction of justice that elected her and then protected her from indictment."

"The Senate Select Committee has a duty to inquire and investigate in matters where the conduct of a senator diminishes or demeans the Senate – and that standard is quite different than the standard used by the FEC and the Justice Department," Paul argued.

The Senate panel ignored the fact, Paul said, that Sen. Clinton did not deny the allegations in his civil-suit declaration but, instead, only swore she had no recollection of certain conversations.

"Her failure to deny the overt acts, alone, requires that the Senate Ethics Committee review what the FEC had no jurisdiction or interest in," Paul asserts.

He said his civil suit against the Clintons provides sworn allegations and "corroboration of misconduct the senator has never denied or refuted."

Paul also contends the committee ignored the following:

    * David Smith, FBI investigator in the Rosen case, testified Hillary never reported two fund-raising events Paul hosted and paid for in addition to the Hollywood gala, a lunch and a tea in June 2000.

    * No reference was made to an illegal foreign contribution and attendance at the Hollywood fund-raiser by a Japanese citizen tied to the business deal Paul says former President Clinton sabotaged.

    * No reference was made to a report filed with the FEC that states Paul's business partner Stan Lee, of Marvel Comics fame, personally contributed $225,000 even though Lee denied it under oath.

"The committee at a minimum should question me as the only first hand witness to her personal conduct – and they never did," Paul said.

Paul says Judicial Watch filed the complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee without his permission, basing it on information they acquired as his legal counsel from 2001-2005.

In an e-mail to Fitton, Paul said he found it "morally and ethically repulsive" that the legal group continues to "make deceptive and misleading statements regarding Judicial Watch's victories."

Paul claims Judicial Watch unethically abandoned him in March 2005, jeopardizing his civil case against the Clintons.

Fitton insisted, in an interview with WND, Paul made it "impossible" for them to cooperate, and suggested Paul was free to file his own complaint, arguing the material used to support it consisted of public documents.

Paul contended that as his former lawyers, the Judicial Watch team was in a unique position, unable to separate their knowledge and interest in the case from their legal relationship and had a "fiduciary responsibility not to interfere with his claims against Senator Clinton with shoddy pleadings."

"Even though they made those documents public, they obtained that information from me as their law client," Paul said. "Their interference in my claims has damaged me by allowing the Senate Ethics Committee to more easily shirk their responsibilities in addressing my claims"

Fitton dismisses Paul's arguments, saying his "credibility is zero when it comes to matter of ethics."

"We won't be lectured on ethics by someone who has multiple felonies for fraud," Fitton said.

Paul argues "these are the people who spent four years vetting my credibility and asserting it. Now I'm not credible because they don't like what I'm saying?"

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

When his new representive, the U.S. Justice Foundation files his own complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, Paul asserts, "people will be able to compare and see what a bona fide complaint is."

Paul charges Fitton's response is the same defense Clinton attorney David Kendall used to dismiss complaints against Sen. Clinton, saying "Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions."

[Paul has pleaded guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held stocks in his company, Stan Lee Media. He has maintained that everything he did was under the aegis of Merrill Lynch management, compliance officers and corporate securities counsel. Under the Carter administration, he was convicted for cocaine possession and an attempt to confiscate more than $8 million from Fidel Castro in a black market coffee transaction the Cuban dictator was using to defraud the Soviet Union. He ascribes that to politics, arguing he subsequently was embraced by Ronald Reagan and his kitchen cabinet, which "realized the problems I had were more related to being gung ho about removing Castro." While still on parole, he said, he worked directly with Chief Justice Warren Burger and visited President Reagan in the White House.]

"It doesn't matter how you characterize my past, the facts speak for themselves," Paul said. "Judicial Watch has violated legal and ethical requirements in connection with their four-year representation of me."

Paul charges Judicial Watch raised millions of dollars specifically for his case that never were used for that purpose or refunded to donors.

Fitton says Paul is lying, maintaining Judicial Watch spent more than $1 million on his case in one year alone and that all of the money came from the group's general funds.

Paul responded: "The problem with Tom Fitton is he has the same interest in twisting the facts and truth as his nemesis Hillary Clinton, and both need to be held accountable for their actions."

Paul – who says Sen. Clinton made false statements in two Washington Post articles to hide his million-dollar-plus contributions in 2000 – sued Bill Clinton for reneging on a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote Paul's public company in exchange for massive contributions to his wife's Senate campaign.

Last month, the United States Justice Foundation filed an appeal with the Appeals Court of California to challenge a trial court decision in April granting Sen. Clinton First Amendment immunity as a defendant in the landmark civil suit upheld by the California Supreme Court.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed Sen. Clinton as a defendant in the civil lawsuit, but she will be deposed as a material witness in preparation for the March 2007 trial.

Paul, claiming Sen. Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, separately is preparing to file a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides and misattributes his personal multi-million dollar contributions to the three Hollywood fund-raisers he hosted on her behalf.

For the civil suit, Bill and Hillary Clinton head a list of potential witnesses that includes celebrities such as Muhammad Ali, Brad Pitt, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, George Hamilton, Olivia Newton John, John Travolta, Diana Ross, Shirley McLaine, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Paul Anka and Larry King.

Also on the list are former Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, former California Gov. Gray Davis, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terrence McAuliffe, CBS News reporter Mike Wallace and ABC News reporter Brian Ross.

Paul has compiled his charges, with documentation, on a website.

The Clintons' longtime attorney David Kendall has told WorldNetDaily he would not comment on the case. He stopped commenting to the media last December when the senator's campaign was fined for filing false reports. Kendall had maintained consistently since 2001 that New York Senate 2000 had filed "proper reports" and that Paul was not credible.

In her declaration, Sen. Clinton admitted spending time with Paul on several occasions prior to the gala and during the event but refused to deny any of Paul's numerous sworn allegations outright. Instead, she declared that if there were any discussion of her husband's employment with Paul, she would have remembered it.

Paul stated in his declaration to the court, "Mrs. Clinton personally assured me she would specifically discuss with her husband, the President, my interest in making a post-White House business proposal to him. She told me her understanding that such a proposal would include my offer of substantial support for her Senate campaign as a good-faith advance on the business arrangement he would be agreeing to."

[Soldier4Christ]

Congressman defends 'foreign-link' hearing
'Third Terrorist' author calls probe 'sham' to bury Islamist-plot theory

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher defended sharp criticism of the integrity of an upcoming congressional hearing on an alleged foreign connection to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, insisting evidence of involvement by Muslim terrorists posed by author Jayna Davis will be taken seriously.

The California congressman was responding to Davis' contention that the hearings will be nothing more than a "sham" designed to bury a potentially explosive political issue that could expose officials who ignored signals that might have prevented the bombing and possibly even the 9-11 attacks.

"Jayna Davis doesn't seem to know the way Washington works," Rohrabacher said by telephone from his House office. "There is a lack of knowledge and a little instability in her remarks about the way I am handling my position."

The congressman argued that until now, the issue has been only a matter of personal inquiry. With a hearing set for September by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Rohrabacher says he will pursue many of the relevant leads presented by Davis' book "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing" and other sources.

In her book, Davis asserts Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the lone conspirators but part of a greater scheme involving Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq. The explosion April 19, 1995, at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured another 684.

As WorldNetDaily reported, in June 2005, Rohrabacher visited Nichols in prison and discussed with him the Arab-terrorist theory.

"Timothy McVeigh on a number of occasions, had talked about Middle Easterners," Rohrabacher told Davis after the visit. "Terry didn't say anything that would dispel the theory, the central theory of your research, which is these [witnesses featured in 'The Third Terrorist'] actually saw Tim McVeigh and he was with Arabs, and these are the people that you tracked down."

But Davis, who said Rohrabacher has not communicated with her since last July, told WND she has a number of reasons for believing the congressman is not taking the investigation seriously. Those include giving equal credence to a "debunked" theory involving neo-Nazis, ignoring all but two of 22 witnesses of an Arab accomplice of McVeigh, not submitting crucial unanswered questions to the FBI and refusing to initiate declassification of an anti-terror alert issued months before the bombing.

"I'm not going to play this charade about getting to the bottom of things," Davis told WND. "This is the largest criminal cover-up of the 20th century."

Davis, who began her investigation while covering the bombing as a local TV reporter, is particularly unhappy that Rohrabacher's probe into foreign involvement gives equal credence to a theory involving a German national who was in the U.S. illegally in 1995, Andreas Carl Strassmeier, and domestic neo-Nazis at a white supremacist compound in Oklahoma called Elohim City.

Another theory

As WorldNetDaily reported, in a memo written to Hyde, Rohrabacher said an investigation should focus on the fact that "Timothy McVeigh appear[ed] to have had contact with Arab, Muslim or Middle Eastern terrorist elements prior to and during the implementation of the bomb plot," and, "just as significant, there is evidence of a personal relationship between Timothy McVeigh and Andreas Carl Strassmeier."

But Davis maintains there is "no tangible evidence that implicates" Strassmeier, who has a provable alibi.

"FBI agents have testified the neo-Nazi, Elohim City connection is nothing more than a dry hole," she said. "There's not one motel log, one phone log, one fingerprint or eyewitness account that can tie any of these Nazi conspirators or Strassmeier to overt commission of a crime."

Rohrabacher replied that Davis' "insistence that only her theories be taken seriously in the investigation takes away from her own credibility."

"I have had serious doubts about the Oklahoma City bombing all these years, and reading Jayna Davis' book certainly encouraged me to move forward on this," Rohrabacher said. "That should be good enough for her, but she seems to be insisting that she's the only person to be taken seriously."

Regarding Davis' questions for the FBI, Rohrabacher said he believes some of them have been pursued, but, he emphasized, now that it's no longer a personal inquiry, "I will certainly put questions that are valid before the FBI."

Rohrabacher said he spoke with a few of the 22 witnesses Davis has on tape claiming to have seen an Arab-looking person with McVeigh at the site of the bombing, a suspect designated by the FBI as "John Doe No. 2."

"I found them to be very credible and was very impressed by them," Rohrabacher said of the witnesses. "One of the reasons I decided to move forward was their credibility."

Addressing Davis' concern, the congressman said, "I don't need to talk to all 22. Some of them were confirming others, that they had seen Timothy McVeigh with an Arab person."

Rohrabacher said he indicated in his memo to Hyde he wanted some of those witnesses to testify.

In May, attorney David Schippers, a former federal prosecutor who served as chief counsel for the 1998 impeachment trial of President Clinton, conducted videotaped interviews with 14 confidential witnesses Davis used in writing her book. Though Schippers has expressed confidence in the veracity of the testimonies, Davis says she believes Rohrabacher has little interest in them since he has not paid to have her flown to Washington to present the videotapes.

Rohrabacher said this is an illustration of Davis' misunderstanding of how Washington works, arguing he had no budget to fly her to the capital.

Davis insists she could save taxpayers a lot of money by presenting the tapes of witnesses who won't testify unless their anonymity can be ensured.

The congressman dismissed Davis' contention that it's within his power to initiate a process to declassify spring 1995 alerts in the possession of a panel on which he formerly sat, the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.

Davis contends an alert warned weeks before the bombing that Iran-sponsored Islamist terrorists had recruited 'two lily whites' – i.e., McVeigh and Nichols – to carry out the bombing of an American federal building.

Davis said the task force also was made aware in 1998 that John Doe No. 2 purportedly had foreknowledge of 9-11 – specifically a connection to Boston Logan Airport, from which two of the hijacked airplanes embarked. The suspect had a nervous breakdown, Davis said, because of his apprehension something dire would happen at Logan.

"What is she complaining about?" Rohrabacher asked. "We may well follow through on those particular items. We've got a number of things we are going through. Which ones we will proceed with, right now, I cannot tell you, because we have not made determinations."

Davis responded: "That's Washingtonese for saying, 'I am not going to declassify these warnings.' And until he declassifies them, it shows he's not serious about getting to the bottom of the Middle East connection. That is a vital piece of intelligence that independently corroborates my book."

Evidence 'holds up'

Attorney Schippers, who wrote the forward to Davis' book and contends her evidence would hold up in court, told WND he believes Rohrabacher wants to have a serious investigation.

"It is not a sham," he said. "Dana Rohrabacher has been trying to get a hearing going for a long time."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Schippers has high praise for Davis' work, calling her one of the bravest and most competent investigators he's seen.

"I've worked with federal agents all my career," said Schippers, "and she was ten times better than the best."

Schippers, who successfully investigated the mob for former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, said that to his "great disappointment," the Arab connection has gone nowhere with the executive branch, and it will take the cooperation of Congress to get to the bottom of it.

Referring to Davis' criticism, Rohrabacher said "irrational outbursts" of this kind almost scuttled his proposal for hearings, suggesting to some that maybe it's only "fanatics and fringies out there pushing for this."

"The only reason I got this approval is people trust me to do a professional job," he said. "I'm not grandstanding, I don't plan to run for Senate. I think it's really important we give a second look to various theories of what happened and who was involved and to see which theories have the most merit.

Rohrabacher said the various schools of thought on who is responsible for the bombing have been "fighting each other and heaping dung on each other for so long they've lost sight of what honest consideration means."

"Because you look at [a theory] doesn't mean you agree with it," he emphasized.

Rohrabacher said he's beginning to do serious research in preparation for the September hearing.

"We are moving forward now, and there is some solid information that Jayna has provided us, from first-hand witnesses and her personal investigation of Iraqi immigrants in Oklahoma City."

Rohrabacher said he's likely to get only one day to conduct the hearing and will be happy if he gets two.

But if "we can prove some significant things, if people are willing to tell us some things under oath, I would expect I could expand the hearing," he said.

Davis contends only a special prosecutor and grand jury could adequately address the case.

The congressman said the hearing could very well lead to that development.

"At this moment, I cannot say that it will, but if some of the areas we're looking into do bear fruit, then yes, I think there would be ample room for that because it would mean, frankly, somebody's been lying to the American people."

[Soldier4Christ]

Police Group Wants McKinney Scuffle Probed

 Police labor officials, angry over a federal grand jury's refusal to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney for assaulting a police officer, said Monday said they want the House ethics committee to review her conduct.

And they said the grand jury's decision last week sent the message that "it's okay to hit a police officer."

"We hope that members of Congress will review her actions in light of their rules within their own ethics committee," Andrew Maybo, chairman of the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee, told reporters Monday at a news conference in Washington.

Maybo said the Fraternal Order of Police would send a letter later this week to the ethics committee suggesting that McKinney's behavior violated an item in the chamber's ethics manual that calls for members to "conduct (themselves) at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives."

Such a letter would not trigger an inquiry unless a member of the House authors it, or the chairman and ranking Democrat move to review the matter.

McKinney has not disputed accounts that she hit Officer Paul McKenna May 29 when he tried to stop her from entering a House office building unrecognized. McKenna did not arrest McKinney at the scene.

"Congresswoman McKinney's assault on Officer McKenna was not only unprofessional for her position as a member of Congress, but we believe it puts out the wrong message across America, that it's okay to strike a police officer," said

"It's not okay to strike a police officer, regardless of who you are," he added.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cheney Sees Success in Warding Off Attacks

 Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that aggressive U.S. action is responsible for preventing new terror attacks since the Sept. 11 strikes.

"Nobody can promise that we won't be hit," Cheney said. But he credited a determined offense against terrorists abroad, improved intelligence-gathering and preventive steps at home for thwarting or discouraging terror attacks on U.S. soil.

 Answering questions at a National Press Club luncheon, Cheney also said that, when President Bush and he took office in January 2001, the balance of power in government was tilted in favor of Congress.

The unpopular Vietnam War and the Watergate scandals allowed Congress to take more authority at the expense of the executive branch, Cheney said. He and the president believed it was important to "have the balance righted, if you will. And I think we've done that successfully," he said.

Democratic critics of the president and even some Republicans have questioned the administration's assertion of expanded executive power in the name of combatting terrorism. These include warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, detention of suspected terrorists without charges, expanded powers under the Patriot Act and alleged secret CIA prisons overseas.

Cheney defended the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program, which the administration calls its "terrorist surveillance program" as important in the war on terror, while conceding it was controversial.

"We have been engaged in a debate about the wisdom of the program and whether or not it's legal, but it clearly is legal, we believe. It is consistent with the Constitution."

Under the program, the NSA has been monitoring communications of Americans without obtaining warrants so long as least one of the participants is overseas and at least one is a suspected terrorist.

The program, along with "very aggressive campaigns overseas," has helped to protect the country against new terror attacks, Cheney asserted.

He was asked if the United States is winning the war on terrorism.

"I believe we are," Cheney said. "I think we've made significant progress, if you look back over the last _ nearly _ five years now."

"The fact of the matter is we have been safe and secure here at home," the vice president added. "That's not an accident. It didn't happen just because we got lucky."

Cheney said the biggest terrorism threat now "is the possibility of an Al Qaida cell armed with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent in the middle of one of our own cities."

Cheney defended his comment last year, often ridiculed by administration critics, that the Iraqi insurgency was "in its final throes."

He said he was referring to a series of events _ including elections and the drafting and acceptance of a new Iraqi constitution _ that he believes history will show to be pivotal.

But the vice president did say that he underestimated the strength of the insurgency in some of his earlier remarks.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered," Cheney said. He said much of the continuing violence has its roots in "the devastation" that 30 years of Saddam Hussein's iron- fisted rule "had wrought on the psychology of the Iraqi people."

Asked if there was any possibility that the military draft would be restored, Cheney said, "No, none that I can see. I'm a big believer in the all-volunteer force. I think it's produced a magnificent military."

[Soldier4Christ]

Sen. Clinton supports ``benchmarks'' for U.S. presence in Iraq

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized by some Democrats because of her refusal to call for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, said Monday that she favored setting a series of "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government to meet if the U.S. is to maintain its military presence in the war-torn country.

Speaking to reporters on Long Island, Clinton, a likely 2008 presidential contender, reiterated her contention that setting a deadline for troops to leave Iraq "is not smart policy."

But she said the Iraqi government must meet a series of requirements for preserving American military support, such as securing Baghdad within a "reasonable" time period and ridding the Iraqi army of sectarian militias and death squads.

"We have to set some benchmarks, have to put some requirements on the Iraqi government, so they know they have to reach certain goals for us to be supportive. And we have to redeploy our troops, as possible, so that we don't add to the problems there," Clinton said.

Clinton's comments came as Senate Democrats, led by Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, prepared to unveil a plan to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and require the Bush Administration to offer plans to continue redeployment next year. Levin and Reed were expected to offer the plan as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.

Clinton said she'd been involved in crafting the Democratic plan but would continue working with colleagues "to make sure what I think should be in there is in there."

Last week, in a speech to a left-leaning political conference in Washington, Clinton was booed when she said it would be a mistake to set a firm timetable for troops to leave Iraq.

Clinton has generally been viewed as the early favorite among potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2008. But her vote in 2003 authorizing military action in Iraq and her refusal to call for the removal of American troops have alienated many of the left-leaning activists who help form the party's base.

By contrast, the party's 2004 presidential standard-bearer, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, has become a vocal critic of the war.

With polls showing voters increasingly unhappy with the course of the three-year old Iraq conflict, both the House and Senate firmly rejected a proposal last week to remove troops from Iraq before the end of the year.

Clinton said Monday that there was a significant difference between setting a timetable for withdrawal and establishing goals for progress in Iraq if American military support there is to continue.

"You can't count on an open ended commitment from us," Clinton said must be the message to the Iraqi government. "You can count on us to be supportive of you and providing logistical support, intelligence support and other mutually agreed upon support but only under these circumstances."

Clinton, who is seeking re-election to the Senate this fall, spoke to reporters after conducting the third in a series of health care forums she has held around the state.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush Travels to Vienna for EU Talks

President Bush is on his way to Vienna for talks with leaders of the European Union that are expected to focus on Iran's nuclear program, the war against terror and trade. There is a full agenda for the annual trans-Atlantic summit, including security and economic issues.

White House National Security Adviser Steve Hadley says promoting freedom and democracy and winning the war on terror top the list.

"We are seeking to enhance cooperation in promoting democracy in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Latin America," he said. "On the security front, the leaders will set priorities for U.S. - EU counter-terrorism cooperation, particularly countering terrorist financing and efforts to prevent terrorist access to weapons of mass destruction."

Hadley says diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program will be reviewed in Vienna. Iran is now studying a package of incentives designed to convince Tehran to suspend uranium processing. The package, which was drafted by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, was formally presented to Iran by the EU's top foreign policy official, Javier Solana.

"Iran will certainly be a topic with the EU leadership, but I think it will be simply to review the bidding, where we are, and reaffirm what has been very good cooperation and solidarity on the international community," he said.

Hadley made clear no major announcements on Iran are expected.

"I think what you will hear is simply an opportunity to assess where we are headed with the EU leadership and a reaffirmation of where we are," he said.

Trade is another issue that will come under scrutiny in Vienna, particularly the outlook for progress in the current round of world trade negotiations.

Members of the World Trade Organization are struggling to meet a year-end deadline for completion of the so-called Doha round of trade talks. In a recent Washington address, President Bush acknowledged the talks are in trouble, and called on all nations to make concessions.

"Now is the time for the world to come together, and make this world a free trading world, not only for the benefit of our own economies, but as an important part of the strategy to reduce poverty around the world," the president said.

But European trade officials complain the United States is calling on others to take action, but is not willing to make enough concessions of its own, particularly in the area of agricultural trade.

President Bush will be discussing all these matters and more in Vienna with Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who holds the revolving presidency of the European Union. European Commission President Jose Barroso and other officials will also take part in the summit, part of a regular series of consultations between the United States and the EU leadership.

Mr. Bush will remain in Vienna for less than 24 hours, before heading on to Budapest, Hungary, where he will take part in ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian revolution that was crushed by Soviet troops. Aides say the overriding theme of his stay will be the power of democracy.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate defeats Democrats' minimum wage increase

The Senate on Wednesday defeated a proposal pushed by Democrats that would have given some of the lowest-paid hourly workers a boost in their wages for the first time in nearly a decade.

A majority of the Senate, 52 senators, voted in favor of incrementally raising the federal minimum wage -- unchanged since 1997 -- 40 percent from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 by January 1, 2009.

But the measure needed 60 votes to win under a procedural agreement worked out earlier.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, unsuccessfully tried to attach the proposal to a defense authorization bill that is expected to be passed by the Senate in coming days.

Kennedy acknowledged to reporters that it will be "pretty difficult" to win a minimum wage increase this year. He said the pay raise for about 7 million workers and their families would be a top priority if Democrats win control of the Senate in November's elections.

Democrats must pick up six seats from Republicans to reclaim the chamber.

Trying to rebut Republicans' arguments that raising the minimum wage would largely help teenagers working part-time jobs while being supported by their parents, Kennedy focused on teaching assistants, nursing home aides and office building maintenance workers who work full time at wages that earn them less than $11,000 annually, well below the poverty line.

Kennedy also chastised Republican leaders for blocking a minimum wage increase while pursuing repeal of the estate tax, which mostly helps the wealthy, and taking "plenty of time to debate flag burning. I don't know the last time a flag was burned in my state of Massachusetts," Kennedy said.

Republicans countered that raising the minimum wage would end up backfiring by forcing small businesses to hire fewer workers.

The Senate also defeated a Republican-backed amendment to raise the minimum wage in two steps to $6.25. That measure also would have changed some work rules, drawing Democratic opposition.

Only 45 senators supported that plan by Republican Michael Enzi of Wyoming, chairman of a Senate labor committee.

His amendment had a minimum wage increase, but Enzi said that Congress instead should focus on ways to lower high-school dropout rates and get more job training to low-skilled workers.

With congressional elections less than five months away, Democratic candidates are likely to highlight the minimum wage and contrast it to House of Representatives and Senate members' salaries, which have risen by nearly $35,000 since 1997.

House Democrats, like their Senate counterparts, are pushing a $2.10-per-hour minimum wage increase. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee voted to include the wage hike in a fiscal 2007 labor and health spending bill.

House Republican leaders, who oppose raising the minimum wage, have put that bill on a back burner because of the amendment.