Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

'$1 million' gospel tracts dealt court-setback
Wheelchair-bound man claims Secret Service said, 'You're passing out counterfeit money'

A federal judge in Dallas yesterday ruled against a Christian group whose "million-dollar" gospel tracts were seized by the U.S. Secret Service as "counterfeit money," and a wheelchair-bound man in Las Vegas claims a Secret Service agent threatened him with arrest for passing out the same tracts.

Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, which is representing the Denton, Texas-based Great News Network, had asked the judge to order immediately the return of 8,300 tracts seized by the Secret Service and to prevent the government agency's local field office from arresting anyone who distributes them.

Fahling told WorldNetDaily he's unsure at this point what the judge's negative decision will mean for the Christian evangelists who have been using the tracts, which mimic U.S. currency but have disclaimers along with a gospel message on the back.

"I can't fathom how the judge went their way," said Fahling, who added, nevertheless, he's confident "we'll get relief."

Meanwhile, Fahling is in contact with a man who claims a Secret Service agent threatened him with arrest in downtown Las Vegas for passing out the tracts.

Fahling said he will appeal the rejection of a preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a process that will take at least a few months. In the meantime he'll continue with the discovery phase of the case, in preparation for a hearing.

There is no order preventing Great News Network from distributing the tracts. But the Secret Service's Dallas field office, which has no judicial authority, has issued a letter advising the group that it believes the tract is illegal.

The Secret Service insists the tract violates a federal law that says reproductions of currency cannot be regulation size and cannot be two-sided.

Fahling contends 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 the gospel message on the back, he points out.

The judge in Dallas yesterday, in his rejection of the preliminary injunction request, indicated the tract is not sufficiently distinct from actual currency.

Fahling said that judgment would "separate him from 5 million people who would conclude otherwise."

The attorney explained the legal test is whether a reasonable person would be deceived.

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.

But in Las Vegas, 35-year-old Chris Bowen said he was passing out the tract on the city's pedestrian Fremont Street when a Secret Service agent came up from behind, flashed his badge and threatened him with arrest.

Bowen, who is wheelchair-bound, told WND the agent said distributing the tract was illegal: "You're passing out counterfeit money."

Bowen said it appeared the plain-clothed agent, who would not give his name or badge number, was vacationing with family.

The Las Vegas man said he explained the tract was "about Jesus."

According to Bowen, the agent replied, "I don't care, it's counterfeit money. It's the same as any other money."

When Bowen further argued that $1 million bills don't exist, the agent repeated that it didn't matter, "It's counterfeit. I can arrest you right now and charge you with a felony."

Local security officers then showed up and, after consultation with their superior, told Bowen the Secret Service officer was legitimate and he had to turn over the rest of his tracts, which numbered about 30.

Bowen said he then contacted the man from whom he acquired the tracts, who later wrote a letter to Comfort.

Comfort put Bowen in touch with Fahling, who said he wants to talk to the Secret Service before deciding on any legal action.

Bowen, who regularly goes to Fremont Street on weekends to pass out gospel tracts of different kinds, said he's been warned by security officers there that if he passed out the million-dollar tracts they will notify the metro police and have him arrested.

During the seizure in Dallas, the field officer 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.

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]

Murtha finds support among vets in his district

While Staff Sgt. Randy Myers was dodging roadside bombs in Iraq, his congressman was calling the war a lost cause.

Sixteen-term Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and military hawk, has become the face of the Democrats’ anti-war movement since he called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops last fall. His oft-repeated criticism of the Bush administration’s war policies also has earned him the wrath of Republicans.

In Murtha’s southwest Pennsylvania district, however, many share the war critic’s views.

At a welcome home ceremony this week for Myers and other troops from the Johnstown, Pa.-based 876th Engineer Battalion, the crowd cheered when a Murtha aide welcomed the troops on the congressman’s behalf.

Myers said he backs Murtha, an opinion echoed by a number of other troops and their families. Several share his frustration with the conflict.

“I’m not sure we’re doing a whole lot of good,” Myers, 46, said of the U.S. presence in Iraq. “Everybody thinks we are. We’re trying to, but we’re not going to change what they want to do, and if they don’t want to change, they’re not gonna.”

Said Sgt. 1st Class George Wozniak, 36, of Murtha: “He’s definitely for a strong military and he definitely supports the troops.”

Patriotism runs deep in Murtha’s district in the Allegheny Mountains, where joining the military is a family tradition and often an economic necessity. Many served in Vietnam and that war exacted a heavy toll, with Allegheny County losing 421 men and Washington County, part of Murtha’s district, losing 67. Memorials to those killed are scattered throughout the towns and cities of western Pennsylvania.

Not far from Johnstown was the setting for the Oscar-winning 1978 movie “The Deer Hunter,” which explored the impact of Vietnam on the young men of an industrial town.

Doubts about Iraq have surfaced in the region. A Quinnipiac University Poll released Wednesday found that 25 percent in southwest Pennsylvania said all troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, while 38 percent in Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs said they should all be withdrawn.

The battalion was part of the Pennsylvania National Guard’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team, the largest group of the state’s Guard troops to fight in a combat zone since World War II. The approximately 2,000 troops were based in Anbar Province, one of the most dangerous sections of Iraq. Fifteen Pennsylvania troops from the brigade were killed during the deployment.

“I would like them out of there,” said Bonnie Shable, 53, whose husband, Army Sgt. 1st Class James Shable, served in Vietnam and Iraq and returned home with the battalion this week. “I think we’ve done what we’re going to do over there and it’s time for everybody to come home.”

Divisions over the war and a timetable for pulling out U.S. forces have roiled the Democrats. Republicans, looking to capitalize on the issue in an election year, have accused Democratic critics such as Murtha of espousing a “cut-and-run” approach, hoping the argument will resonate with voters.

His criticism has angered some in the district. Unopposed in 2004, Murtha has a GOP rival this time — Diana Irey, a Washington County commissioner.

Ruth Ann Biesinger-Sliko, 55, a physical education teacher who came to see a fellow teacher and six of her former students return from Iraq, said Murtha has lost her vote because of his negativity about the war.

“I think that makes the guys feel terrible when he starts, you know, bashing. I think you need to support the guys,” Biesinger-Sliko said. “I think it’s created a lot of bad feelings for the people whose families are over there.”

Vice President Dick Cheney and White House adviser Karl Rove have assailed the congressman, with Bush’s political adviser saying Democrats like Murtha “may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles.”

Murtha, a Marine who did two tours in Vietnam, fired back. “He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, ‘Stay the course.’ That’s not a plan,” Murtha said of Rove on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Murtha remains popular in his district, in large part because of the federal dollars he has delivered. The homecoming ceremony this week was at an armory on a hillside dubbed “Fort Murtha” because of that largesse. Next to the armory is the John P. Murtha Airport, which is a few miles from the John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute.

“I just believe everything he says is very true,” said Cindy Saylor, 49, whose 19-year-old son was among those who returned home. “I think we need to get out of there. People are getting killed needlessly.”

Not everyone in the district is happy with Murtha’s outspokenness or higher political profile. The congressman has said if Democrats capture control of the House, he will seek the job of majority leader. Murtha also plans to speak at Democratic meetings in New Hampshire and Florida in the next few weeks.

A banner proclaiming, “Welcome Home Soldiers: Got-R-Done,” greeted the troops when they returned. Many of the soldiers declined to be interviewed. Or, when asked about Murtha, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.

Tom Geiger, a 79-year-old World War II veteran, said he thinks Murtha is “50 percent right and 50 percent wrong.”

“Maybe they should have searched a little bit more” for weapons of mass destruction, Geiger said. “But once you’re into it, you’re stuck with it.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Democrats form unified front against administration's war strategy

At times passionate and at times partisan, Democrats and Republicans squared off Wednesday in an unprecedented Senate debate on the war in Iraq, as Democrats pressed the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of this year.

Democrats squabbled among themselves about deadlines for withdrawal, but formed a unified front against the Bush administration's war strategy. Republicans assailed any talk of a pullout as a dangerous signal of weakness to terrorists and Iraqi insurgents that would forsake the thousands of American soldiers who've been wounded or killed.

"This administration's refrain that we're in Iraq as long as the Iraqis need us is creating a dependency of unlimited duration and gives the Iraqis the impression that their security is more in our hands than in theirs," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., one of the lead authors of a measure to begin withdrawing troops this year.

Republicans countered that any timetable, even an open-ended one such as Levin's, would embolden al-Qaida and insurgent fighters in Iraq, who want U.S. troops out.

"They are likely to say, `We'll wait out the timetable and then we'll resume the violence and every means we can to destabilize this (Iraqi) government,'" said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Votes on two Democratic withdrawal proposals are scheduled for Thursday.

The give-and-take was high-minded and serious amid pleas from both sides to end the political name-calling that had marked the buildup to the debate.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., his voice cracking with emotion, eulogized Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, Ore., one of two soldiers who reportedly were brutalized, tortured and killed this week after being kidnapped in Iraq. Smith also called for politicians to temper the rhetoric that's characterized the war debate.

"My soul cries out for something more dignified," he said. Of advocates of withdrawal, he added: "I don't believe their dissent is unpatriotic." But he said a pullout would be "a tactical mistake of monumental proportions."

The floor exchanges hid a subtext of election-year and presidential politics.

Levin faced a competing Democratic proposal from Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both possible presidential contenders in 2008, who urged withdrawing troops by July 1 of next year.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., whom liberals have criticized for not taking a stronger anti-war stance, said she opposed the hard-and-fast deadline that Kerry and Feingold proposed but would support Levin.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who's considered the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and is a strong supporter of U.S. intervention in Iraq, vigorously opposed the Democratic proposals. But he distanced himself from the Bush administration by arguing that the level of violence "remains unacceptably high."

"We've made serious mistakes and the costs have been very high," he said.

The debate prompted varying descriptions of conditions in Iraq, with senators variously sounding optimistic or pessimistic to make their case for pulling out or staying put.

Warner argued that "there is clear proof" of "concrete, visible results."

"We're moving toward establishing a secure and prosperous nation," he said. Any timetable to withdraw, he said, would "set back that momentum."

But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, painted a different picture: "Does anyone in this body believe that Iraq is totally in the control of Iraqis today? Does anyone believe that there aren't insurgents and agitators from other parts of the world - al-Qaida, Iran, other terrorist organizations - with the specific purpose of destabilizing that country?"

Democrats cited an op-ed article in The Washington Post by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie that said the Iraqi government envisioned foreign troop reductions this year and withdrawal of most of them by the end of 2007.

"I don't know if my colleagues will accuse the Iraqi national security adviser of cutting and running from his own country," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Levin's co-sponsor. "This is what a leading figure in the government of Iraq is suggesting, a phased redeployment beginning this year, hopefully concluding by the end of 2007."

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, one of several Democrats who oppose Kerry's proposal, said a specific deadline would backfire:

"For my friend to say get out at a certain time, I say I understand your frustration, but what do you do after that? What do you do if things go to hell in a hand basket quickly, and there is a civil war that turns into a regional war? What is your plan?"

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who was criticized during his 2004 presidential run for not disavowing his vote to authorize force in Iraq, said it was time for him to take a position.

"I believe young lives are being lost needlessly," he said. "I'm not going to stay here as a U.S. senator and add names to the Iraqi wall or whatever memorial we have because I didn't take a stand."

[Soldier4Christ]

Bolivian President Claims U.S. Is Disguising Soldiers

LA PAZ, Bolivia — President Evo Morales' latest anti-U.S. diatribe came in a speech to thousands of peasants in his political stronghold: The United States is sending soldiers disguised as students and tourists to Bolivia.

The accusation, rejected Wednesday as unfounded by the U.S. Embassy, comes as Morales faces attacks by political opponents for his cozy relationship with President Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, including accepting aid from that country's military.

It's not clear how many Venezuelan troops are in Bolivia, but Venezuelan pilots have been ferrying Morales around the country for the past two weeks in two loaned military helicopters as he campaigns ahead of July 2 elections for an assembly that is to retool Bolivia's constitution.

Morales' accusation also comes as Bolivia seeks to extend a preferential trade agreement that has been a big boost to South America's poorest country, helping Bolivia export $380 million in goods to the United States last year.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera is expected to head to Washington next month to lobby for an extension of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which expires Dec. 31.

Relations between the two countries have been frosty since Morales took office in January, and U.S. officials have said it's unlikely Bolivia will get an extension. Washington wants Bolivia to join Peru and Colombia in signing bilateral free-trade agreements.

During Morales' speech Tuesday in Cochabamba state, home of his political base, he mentioned that U.S. Ambassador David Greenlee had sought a meeting with him.

"He asked for a meeting. I don't know what he's looking to discuss. I'm not at all afraid of talking or perhaps he's angry," said Morales.

"But I also have the right to complain because U.S. soldiers disguised as students and tourists are entering the country," said Morales, a leftist Aymara Indian whose plan for Bolivia includes the nationalization of its natural gas industry.

Morales offered no evidence to back up the claim. His spokesman, Alex Contreras, said Morales would be providing evidence, though he did not say when.

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement calling Morales' accusation "unfounded."

"We reiterate once more that we are supporting Bolivian democracy in a consistent way," the statement said.

On Sunday, during a meeting with coca growers, Morales had uttered a phrase in the native Quechua language that may have irritated the U.S. ambassador.

"I shouted, 'Qausachun coca (long live coca!), wanuchun yanquis (die Yankees!),' and perhaps that could have angered him," said Morales. "If he complains, I, too, have the right to complain."

Morales often intoned the incendiary Quechua phrase in speeches during his years as head of the coca growers' union, a post he continues to hold today.

Coca is the basis of cocaine. But it is also a widely used stimulant with traditional medicinal and spiritual uses in Bolivia. Morales' government and Washington have been at loggerheads over his promotion of coca leaf for export in products including tea, toothpaste and shampoo.

Tuesday's remarks were Morales' second direct reference to the United States in recent days. Last week, he told a crowd that he was prepared to defend his revolution with arms against any U.S. threat.

Earlier this month, Morales said without offering specifics that the United States had tried to assassinate him in the past.

Morales' main political opponent, former president Jorge Quiroga, accused him this week of compromising Bolivia's sovereignty by inviting so many Venezuelan soldiers.

Venezuelan Embassy officials did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on how many of the country's soldiers were in Bolivia.

Military cooperation with the United States, meanwhile, has ebbed. The U.S. Embassy would not specify how many Department of Defense employees it has in Bolivia, saying only that they number about a few dozen.

Morales has taken advantage of widespread resentment of the foreign policy of U.S. President George W. Bush's government to boost his populist agenda to fight poverty and hunger in Bolivia.

Morales nationalized the country's natural gas industry on May 1 and has vowed to turn over to landless peasants parcels owned by absentee landlords who have let them lie fallow.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate votes on two Democratic amendments

CAPITOL HILL The Senate is expected to reject two Democratic proposals designed to get U-S troops out of Iraq.
One, which is supported by most Democrats, calls for a "phased redeployment" of U-S troops to begin this year but sets no deadline.

The other, introduced by Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold, calls for all U-S combat troops to be out of Iraq by July first of next year.

Democrats say Congress must send a clear signal that the U-S presence in Iraq is not indefinite.

Republicans oppose both ideas.

They warn that even starting a pullout would risk all-out civil war and cripple the Iraqi government just as democracy is taking hold.

[Soldier4Christ]

House GOP delays renewal of Voting Rights Act
Ballots in several languages, interpreters at polls among issues holding up approval

The Voting Rights Act, which has protected minority voters from discrimination since its passage more than 40 years ago, appeared headed for an easy reaffirmation in the House on Wednesday -- until conflicts old and new clouded its future.

Amid wide bipartisan support -- the House Judiciary Committee approved the measure last month by a 33-1 vote -- House Republican leaders scheduled floor debate Wednesday, hoping to use the bill's passage for an election-year outreach to minority voters. The landmark legislation is due to expire next year, and an array of advocacy groups has been pressing for its renewal for another 25 years.

But in a private morning meeting, Republicans raised objections that forced House leaders to yank the bill from the floor.

One concern had its roots in the bill's origins, which require nine states with a documented history of discrimination against black voters, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, to obtain Justice Department approval for their election laws.

Another, a spillover from the current contentious debate on immigration, had to do with requirements in some states for ballots printed in several languages and the presence of interpreters at polling places where large numbers of citizens speak limited English.

Some members of the Republican caucus also suggested delaying the debate until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in a controversial 2003 Texas redistricting case. That decision, expected in the next two weeks, will examine the issue of whether Hispanic voters were disenfranchised.

Whatever the fuel, the delay set off a series of brush fires on Capitol Hill.

"It was heated," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., who supports an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to end a requirement for bilingual ballots in jurisdictions where at least 5 percent of the population speaks a different language. "I've been in meetings for two hours. There are meetings going on all over the Hill."

Civil rights groups across the nation also expressed disappointment over the decision.

"Those members who held up today's vote represent retrogressive forces that America hasn't seen at this level since the 1960s," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "Many of those trying to derail the Voting Rights Act represent states with the most egregious records of discrimination in voting -- discrimination that continues to this day."

Officially, House Republican leaders said in a statement that they are "committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible." Unofficially, some aides said the leadership could schedule the vote again after the July 4 recess.

Although dismayed by the delay, Democrats seized the chance to spotlight the rare public dissension in Republican ranks.

"I hope that the Republicans will be able to quickly resolve their differences and that the Congress will be able to pass this vital legislation," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. "It is critical that we do so as soon as possible, because our democracy depends on protecting the right of every American citizen to vote."

"Apparently, the leadership of the Republican Party cannot bring its own rank-and-file members into line to support the Voting Rights Act," said Rep. Arthur Davis, D-Ala., who represents Selma and Birmingham, the sites of seminal events in the civil rights movement that produced the bill in 1965. "That ought to be a significant embarrassment as they fan around the country trying to skim off a few black votes in the next four months."

Part of the problem, according to some GOP congressional aides, was that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., was unavailable to answer questions and allay concerns. In addition, they said, he consulted more often with his Senate counterparts than with members of his own party during deliberations over the bill.

In a statement issued later Wednesday, Sensenbrenner defended both the bill and the process.

Noting that the committee has held 12 hearings and amassed more than 12,000 pages of testimony, Sensenbrenner said that the bill was one both Republicans and Democrats "can be proud of because it ensures that when discriminatory practices of the past resurface, they are quickly put to rest. I hope the House leadership will bring (HR9) to the floor in the near future."

Sensenbrenner believes opponents "keep moving the goalpost," said an aide who asked not to be identified. Some of the issues now being raised -- such as bilingual ballots -- first came up in committee, where efforts to change them were defeated, the aide said.

The House delay could complicate matters in the Senate, where Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had planned to bring up an identical bill next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have made the renewal a priority this year. "We hope that this is only a temporary delay in the efforts to ensure that this law, critical to protecting the voting rights of all Americans, is renewed," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Senate OKs rewritten marriage proposal


The state Senate last night voted to let Pennsylvanians decide if they want to insert language into the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But unlike the House, the Senate didn't include language explicitly barring civil unions.

The Senate passed the legislation on a 38-12 bipartisan vote. It mirrors the state's 1996 marriage-protection law, but supporters said the legislation would prevent courts from declaring it unconstitutional. All midstate senators supported the bill.

The Senate bill is narrower in scope than a measure the House approved this month. The House bill included language that also would have prohibited any legal recognition of a marriage equivalent, such as a civil union.

 Critics said the Senate bill is weaker and could delay a constitutional amendment.

"We believe the people of Pennsylvania deserve the opportunity at the ballot box to effectively protect marriage. The House version would permit that. The Senate version won't," said Michael Geer of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.

"Things don't look hopeful that Pennsylvanians will be able to vote on protection of the institution of marriage in 2007," he said.

Amending the constitution requires both chambers to pass an identical bill in two separate legislative sessions before it can be placed on the ballot for voters to ratify.

Both chambers must pass the same bill 90 days before the general election, which means they would have to agree on the wording before leaving for the summer recess to get it on the ballot next year.

Opponents of the amendment acknowledged the restraint shown by senators.

"There will be no doubt what the intention is," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union.

 He and others argued the broader wording that the House passed would have affected unmarried heterosexual couples and gay couples by taking away hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for their partners, among other rights.

For Sen. Jane Orie, R-Allegheny, leaving out wording to ban civil unions was tantamount to allowing fathers to marry their daughters and aunts to marry uncles, in addition to legalizing civil unions.

The Senate bill "would not prevent civil unions," Orie said.

 Orie said three states -- California, Connecticut, and Vermont -- have allowed unions identical to marriage.

Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, said the additional wording would guard the traditional view of marriage "against litigation and challenges that may come and certainly will come in the following years."

Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, said there is no threatened lawsuit and no court challenges prompting the move to amend the constitution in a way that he maintained discriminates against some citizens.

"If anyone's marriage is threatened because two people love each other and they happen to be the same sex, then God help your marriage," Fumo said, dismissing the argument that this is about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If that's the case, he said maybe the state should outlaw divorce.

"This legislature needs to get off its high moral horse and stop telling the people how to live their adult lives," said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny.

JAN MURPHY: 232-0668 or jmurphy@patriot-news.com

IN OTHER STATES

Fourteen states have banned same-sex marriage and won't recognize any relationships similar to marriage, such as civil unions. Six states have approved the more limited marriage definition that the state Senate backed, defining marriage as a man and woman.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate panel poised for Net neutrality vote

The tussle over Net neutrality regulations appears to be nearing its final stages in Congress.

The Senate Commerce Committee plans to begin on Thursday afternoon what is likely to turn into many hours of debate on a broad, contentious communications bill (click here for PDF). Committee aides said they expect scores of amendments and, if feasible, a final vote by day's end--though some said the proceeding could stretch into next week.

Net neutrality, the idea that network operators must treat all content equally, has become a pivotal issue as Congress attempts to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Some say the 10-year-old law is outdated because it could not take into account the explosion of the Internet. The bill also tackles other hot-button issues such as municipal networks, broadband subsidies and the broadcast flag.

So far, the Republican-dominated legislative body has proved largely unreceptive to the idea of detailed new regulations sought by a broad array of Internet companies and consumer groups. Those organizations, allied under slogans like "Save the Internet," want a blanket ban on a new business model that large network operators have been openly contemplating--charging sites and services a premium fee for priority placement and speeds across their pipes. The Net neutrality issue has backing from an array of businesses and celebrities ranging from Google to the musician Moby.

Failure to legislate would lead to unprecedented Internet gatekeeping and higher prices for consumers, Net neutrality advocates say. Network operators counter that there's no evidence of any discriminatory behavior and that regulations will stifle companies' ability to offset vast investments in expanding their offerings.

The House of Representatives earlier this month rejected an amendment that would have put Net neutrality principles into law. The final version of its telecommunications bill would give the Federal Communications Commission exclusive power to levy fines on network operators that interfere with their customers' ability to surf the Web, connect devices and run applications as they please, within certain parameters. The FCC would not be permitted to make new rules addressing the subject.

The Senate could be on pace to take a similar, if slightly more regulatory, approach. The latest version of the 159-page Communications, Consumers' Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 would establish an "Internet consumer bill of rights" that would write a number of specific Internet access principles into law and give the FCC policing--but not rule making--powers.

But a handful of mostly Democratic committee members, including Co-chairman Daniel Inouye, have pledged to continue to push for the additional rules requested by tech heavyweights like Google, Amazon.com, eBay and Microsoft.

"Under the current language, network operators will have the ability to dictate what the Internet of the future will look like, what content it will include and how it will operate," Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, said in a statement earlier this week.

Inouye is one of eight Democrats who have joined Maine Republican Olympia Snowe in backing a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which would impose stricter regulations. Committee aides said North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan, that bill's other chief sponsor, is likely to offer an amendment that would tack his proposal onto the Senate bill.

Just as forceful on the other side of the debate are a number of the committee's Republicans. They argue that any new regulations will stifle the growth of broadband networks and the spread of new, high-bandwidth services, such as video.

"We have principles that have already been put forward by the FCC supporting Internet freedom, if that's what we want to call it," New Hampshire Republican John Sununu said at a hearing last week.
Broadband for all

Only a fraction of the Senate's mammoth bill actually deals with Net neutrality.

The overarching goal for much of the legislation, backers say, is speeding the deployment of broadband services to every corner of America, however poor or remote. In tackling that goal, the bill covers far more territory than does its House counterpart.

Among other provisions, the Senate bill would:

• Give local governments the right to deploy their own broadband networks. The measure is designed to preempt existing laws in a number of states which, under pressure from large network operators, have decided to restrict the ability of cities to set up shop. Under the Senate proposal, cities would have to publish notice of their proposals, seek public comment, explore partnerships with private companies and disclose the estimated cost to taxpayers.

• Set aside up to $500 million per year from the Universal Service Fund especially for broadband in "unserved" areas. The bill also seeks to expand that multibillion dollar pool of money, which currently comes from fees passed on to wireless, wireline and pay phone customers, and soon, to voice over Internet Protocol subscribers as well. The fund has come under tough criticism because of allegations of fraud, waste and abuse, and others question expanding the subsidies in a marketplace where broadband prices appear to be decreasing.

• Allow wireless devices to operate on unused broadcast television airwaves, or "white spaces." Companies interested in deploying Wi-Fi networks covet those bands of spectrum because the inherent scientific properties could enable cheaper and easier setup--and thus more-widespread access for rural and low-income areas. But the politically powerful National Association of Broadcasters has voiced resistance to the idea, arguing that the devices would muddle the reception of over-the-air TV stations.
The flag is still there

Another hot-button issue buried in the bill is the revival of a now-defunct FCC copy-protection regime known as the broadcast flag. The FCC's original rules would have made it illegal to "sell or distribute" any digital TV product that lacked the technology to limit a person's ability to redistribute video clips--particularly over the Internet--made from recorded over-the-air broadcasts.

A federal court yanked down the flag last spring after concluding that the FCC didn't have the authority to require manufacturers to include the flag in their products. The bill, however, would expressly grant regulators that power. It would also permit the FCC to make similar rules for digital radio receivers.

A coalition of librarians and public interest groups filed suit against the original flag regulations last year, arguing that they would threaten, among other things, consumers' ability to make "fair use" of copyright works.

"It puts Hollywood, acting through the FCC, in charge of how consumer electronics manufacturers should build their devices," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

Senate committee aides said earlier this week that a number of Republicans share concerns about the government's wading into technological mandates. They would rather not see the provisions in the bill at all but added them after pressure from Democrats like Barbara Boxer, who counts a large chunk of the entertainment industry in her California constituency.

"Piracy is a dagger in the heart of all the industries that rely on intellectual-property protection," Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the politicians at a hearing last week, "and we believe that your bill will help us in the fight against piracy."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate sniffs at minimum wage hike

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from the current $5.15.

The current minimum translates into an annual gross income of about $10,700 per year, said plan booster Sen. Ed Kennedy, D-Mass., which is 'almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.'

Kennedy`s proposal would have lifted the annual gross income of minimum wage earners to $13,910, which is still $3,000 beneath the poverty line.

'We have had debates on gay marriage, we have debates on flag burning, and we have debates on estate tax,' Kennedy said. 'We`re saying that it`s time we take action to increase the minimum wage.'

[Soldier4Christ]

 Constitutional ban on gay marriage approved by PA Senate

A proposed state constitional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by the Pennsylvania Senate on Wednesday, although changes were made to the House version that will send it back to the lower chamber.

The proposal passed the Senate 38 to 12, but supporters of a simlar ban on civil unions failed to put their provision back in the bill.

Republican Senator Stewart Greenleaf of suburban Philadelphia said he was disappointed that the amendment emerged without the language on civil unions. "Unfortunately," Greenleaf told fellow Senators, "the history of litigation in this nation has shown that it's not enough."

Senator Vincent Fumo, a Philadelphia Democrat, said that in supporting the constitutional ban on gay marriage, Republicans were not being true to their roots. "You know, the great conservative Republican philosophy was, 'Get government off your back.' I never heard the extra phrase, '...and into the bedroom!'"

If lawmakers want to present the issue to Pennsylvania's voters in 2007 or 2008, they'll have to act on it prior to the end of budget negotiations and the beginning of the summer recess.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate to Challenge Bush Spending Again

 Less than a week after winning a spending clash, President Bush is sparring again with lawmakers who want to shift money from defense and foreign aid to domestic programs such as education and flood control.

The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has prepared a plan to cut about $9 billion from Bush's request for the Pentagon. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., would spread that money among the departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture and elsewhere as he prepares to advance this year's round of spending bills.

An additional $2 billion would be cut from Bush's request for foreign aid.

Cochran is not planning to award any of the money to the Homeland Security Department, whose budget would face a near-freeze.

The move is running into a fresh threats of a veto by the White House, which promises to reject legislation that "significantly underfunds the Department of Defense to shift funds to nonsecurity spending."

If past patterns hold, Bush is going to win the battle in the end.

Just last week, for example, a veto threat was successful as Congress passed a $94.5 billion bill for war spending and hurricane relief. That capped a long debate in which the threat forced the Senate to drop most of its $14 billion-plus worth of add-ons such as farm aid and help for the Gulf Coast's seafood industry.

"We all know it's just a game," said Tom Gavin, spokesman for top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Still, lawmakers _ especially senators _ are chafing at Bush's demands for domestic agency budgets passed by Congress each year. Despite Congress' reputation for spending profligacy, Bush and GOP leaders have succeeded in clamping down on the operating budgets of Cabinet agencies except for the Defense Department and Homeland Security.

The House has shifted $6 billion _ $4 billion from defense and $2 billion from foreign aid _ to domestic programs that Bush had promised to cut by about 1 percent. That drew objections from the White House, but not an outright veto threat.

The latest threat was against the House-passed Pentagon spending bill, if it's not generous enough. But it actually was aimed at the Senate Appropriations Committee, which was set to approve on Thursday the first of 12 spending bills for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

The Agriculture Department was line to be the beneficiary, with 2 percent more than the House's spending version.

The biggest single winner over Bush's budget would be labor, health and education programs, potentially getting $5 billion more than Bush's request.

Bush's request was so tight, supporters of these programs say, that spending for the annual education and labor-health-education bill remains below levels enacted two years ago.

More than one-half of the Republicans in the Senate endorsed a plan earlier this year by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to add $7 billion to health and education programs. The House has fought off this move.

"We need the $7 billion," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "We got $5 billion. We're going to be much less than what we need, less than what we were in (fiscal) 2005."

Though disappointed, Specter says he is going to accept the $5 billion rather than pick a fight with Cochran.

Meanwhile, there's little indication that Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is going to free up the Senate to pass more than a few spending bills before the start of the 2007 budget year. That would spare GOP senators up for re-election from difficult votes on domestic agency budgets before Election Day.

The defense and homeland security bills are expected to make it through before the elections.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress reaches pact on wind farm
Accord would give Coast Guard head a say, not Romney


Congressional leaders reached an agreement on the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm that would give the head of the Coast Guard -- but not the governor of Massachusetts -- the power to order changes to the project or scuttle it entirely if he finds that it would interfere with navigation.

Though the bill would pose another potential obstacle to the Cape Wind Associates project, the agreement is being viewed as a victory for supporters of the wind-energy proposal because it does not award the governor veto power.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, had sought to give Governor Mitt Romney -- a Republican, and a fellow opponent of the project -- the right to veto the project, which would have effectively killed it. But Kennedy was forced to retreat on that point after leading Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined the Bush administration in objecting.

Kennedy said yesterday that he would have preferred to give Romney veto power over the Cape Wind project to set a precedent in which offshore energy projects can't move forward without a state's consent. But Kennedy said that granting more authority to the Coast Guard should allay concerns about whether the wind farm will jeopardize public safety.

``We've always been concerned about issues of safety," said Kennedy . ``The Cape Wind project has been moving forward irresponsibly, before any safety rules for such large off-shore developments have been established."

The bill would give the Coast Guard the authority to mandate ``reasonable" changes to the Cape Wind project if it finds that the 417-foot-tall wind turbines to be built about 5 miles off the Massachusetts coast would pose a hazard to navigation, emergency communications, or rescue operations.

The Coast Guard has been one of the 17 state and federal agencies involved in an environmental review of the proposal, but it alone did not have the authority to compel changes or block the project. So far, the Coast Guard has not raised any major objections to the project, but its review will be more comprehensive under the new measure.

Pete V. Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, said the compromise will allow an important wind project to move ahead without political interference, something he contended should be the model for future proposals.

``The Coast Guard is only allowed to address navigational safety concerns," said Domenici, a New Mexico Republican. ``It prevents local special interests from torpedoing a reasonable and much-needed energy project in federal waters."

The agreement will allow the annual bill authorizing Coast Guard operations to move forward in Congress; it had been stalled since April because of the standoff over Kennedy's proposal to give Romney veto power. Legislative leaders said they expect the House and Senate to pass the bill in the coming weeks, though no schedule has been set.

Sue Reid, a staff lawyer with the Conservation Law Foundation, which supports Cape Wind, said her group worries that the project will be subjected to more scrutiny than other proposals. But she applauded the decision to let the Coast Guard order changes instead of allowing Romney to stop it.

Cape Wind has been trying for five years to construct 130 giant turbines in Nantucket Sound over some 24 square miles of ocean. The project, however, has drawn intense opposition from those who question its potential effect on public safety, fishing, tourism, and other industries.

A Cape Wind spokesman, Mark Rodgers, said the company will meet whatever obligations are imposed under the bill. ``We will follow the instructions from Congress and move forward in our permitting process," Rodgers said.

The agreement closes one chapter in the political debate over the project, but the controversy surrounding it is unlikely to dissipate.

Representative William D. Delahunt, a Cape Wind opponent whose district includes Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket, said that other concerns must be addressed but that he is pleased with the latest agreement.

``The real priority here was navigational safety," said Delahunt, a Quincy Democrat.

[Soldier4Christ]

Terror cuts defy logic, he tells Congress

Accusing the Department of Homeland Security of engaging in "dysfunctional bureaucratic logic," Mayor Bloomberg denounced the agency's decision to slash the city's anti-terror funds by 40% as "nonsensical" yesterday during testimony before Congress.

In a hearing room that contained a haunting photo of the World Trade Center burning on 9/11, Bloomberg blasted the department for increasing the number of high-risk cities from seven to 46 this year - while cutting New York's funds.

"Is this the spirit of 'high-threat' allocation? No," Bloomberg told the House Committee on Homeland Security. "Instead, it makes the program the kind of political pork barrel it was specifically designed to avoid. It's a typical example of say one thing for the press avail and do something quite different."

Bloomberg - along with Washington Mayor Anthony Williams and the top police officials from both cities - told lawmakers that the method for distributing these funds is broken.

Both mayors lambasted the department for its unwillingness to help the cities pay for day-to-day personnel expenses, with Bloomberg saying "old-fashioned boots on the ground" is the best defense against terror.

Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), the committee's chairman, asked Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman if the department's grant reviewers were given any classified intelligence about threats New York may face.

Foresman replied, "I don't believe they were provided threat information," but he insisted that was not necessarily the reviewers' job.

Foresman praised Bloomberg and Williams for their efforts to protect their cities from terrorism, but he said: "The Department of Homeland Security must do the same for our entire nation."

King called the cuts "disgraceful" and "indefensible."

"It raises very, very real questions about the competency of this department in determining how it's going to protect America," he said.

King offered little hope yesterday that the department will reverse the decision, saying he's focusing his attention on finding other federal dollars that New York can use to combat terrorism.

"We're still working on that," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

US Congress OKs $427.6bn defence bill

The House of Representatives late Tuesday approved a $427.6bn defence bill for fiscal 2007 that included an extra $50bn for Iraq and Afghanistan, but was 4bn short of what the White House had requested.
Passed by a 407-19 vote, the bill, excluding the extra money for Iraq, brings the Pentagon’s budget for the fiscal year beginning in October to $377.6bn, almost 20bn more than the 2006 defence budget.
The bill – the Senate has to pass its own budget measure – was $4bn short of what the administration of President George W Bush had requested for fiscal 2007, but it included an additional $50bn for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The extra money would bring congressional budget authorisations for the war on terror waged by the United States since September 11, 2001, to $438bn, according to congressional researchers.
“This bill underscores Republicans’ commitment to supporting our men and women in uniform and making sure they have every available resource at their disposal to fight the global war on terror and protect America,” said House Majority Leader John Boehner.
Despite the nearly unanimous vote, Boehner seized the moment to criticise opposition Democrats for “working overtime on how best to concede defeat in the Global War on Terror,” referring to the heated debates Congress held last week on the Iraq policy.
The Senate was expected yesterday to vote on two Democratic resolutions calling for US troops to withdraw from Iraq.
Democratic leaders want the pullout to begin at some unspecified date this year, while two potential presidential candidates in 2008 John Kerry and Russ Feingold call for US troops to pull out of Iraq in the next 12 months.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawmakers Come Together on Supplement Bill

 On Capitol Hill, lawmakers who have been on opposite sides of a long-running battle have now come together on a bill that would require reporting of deaths or other ill effects linked to supplements and over-the-counter medications.

The bill would require that reports be filed to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days about what it calls "serious adverse events." If defines those as death, hospitalization, or what it calls a significant disability or incapacity, among other things.

Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch says the premise is simple. He is a longtime backer of the diet supplement industry -- which has a major presence in his state -- and is a well-known consumer of supplements, as well. He wrote the 1994 law that specifically exempted makers of diet supplements from having to prove to the FDA that they are safe and effective.

So for him to be advocating what amounts to increased government regulation is significant.

But even more surprising is that Hatch unveiled the bill Wednesday with Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, one of the most outspoken opponents of the 1994 law. Durbin helped lead the charge against the supplement ephedra, which the FDA outlawed two years ago.

Durbin has made no secret of the fact that he'd like supplement makers to have to meet the same standards for safety and effectiveness as makers of prescription drugs. But he says that reporting adverse events is an important first step, as he discovered during his own investigation of companies that sold products that contain ephedra.

Durbin was also quick to add that he thinks the bill will not only be good for consumers, but for the supplement industry, as well.

The supplement industry appears to agree.

"We represent a class of goods that has a remarkable safety record," says Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association. "But we're also really a mature industry, and we think it's time to take on this responsibility. I'm just thrilled that we've gotten to this point."

Consumer groups, which have long been critical of the government's lack of oversight over supplements, are also backing the bill. That improves its chances of getting signed into law this year.