Other Political News

[Shammu]

That may be for state law but this is a Federal offense and therefore Federal Laws pertain. The minimum they could get on a conviction of this sort is life in prison.

Yup thats for my state.........................

Life in prison sounds great for them, as long as it isn't a country club. Maybe a prison like Rykers island. 

Brother, lets take this where our posts don't count.  See ya there.......

[Soldier4Christ]

Yup thats for my state.........................

Life in prison sounds great for them, as long as it isn't a country club. Maybe a prison like Rykers island. 

Even that would be to much of a vacation for them.

[Soldier4Christ]

US court to rule on pivotal case on global warming

 The US Supreme Court decided it will weigh whether the federal government must regulate emissions of new cars to combat global warming as demanded by environmental groups and some state and city authorities.

The case could open the way for the high court to deliver a crucial ruling on how the US government enforces environmental laws.

 Since 2003, 12 US states, several cities and a dozen environmental groups have waged a legal battle against the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has chosen not to curb greenhouse emissions on new cars.

The EPA maintains that the federal Clean Air Act does not address global climate change and that carbon dioxide is not defined as a pollutant under the law. The administration of President George W. Bush has advocated voluntary controls instead of mandatory limits on emissions.

The plaintiffs in the suit, which include the states of California, Massachusetts and New York, argue that the Clean Air Act obliges the EPA to regulate emissions from cars and power plants such as carbon dioxide and three other gases linked to global warming.

Carbon dioxide and similar emissions are believed to trap heat in the earth's atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise.

A federal appeals court in Washington ruled in July 2005 that the EPA's policy was justified, saying the agency was not legally required to regulate causes of global warming and that scientific evidence was lacking to support such measures.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, the US government called the lawsuit "speculative" as it remained unclear if global warming could be traced to emissions from new cars and even if the link was proven, it was not clear that requiring more fuel efficient cars would have a major impact on climate change.

The issue of global warming could be better addressed through international efforts supported by the United States, the government said.

The case will have a "far-reaching" effect on the US approach to global warming, according to the environmental group Sierra Club.

"The Bush administration has continually tried to say that it's not their job to fight global warming. In fact, they have both the legal and moral responsibility to tackle global warming pollution," David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

[Soldier4Christ]

DeLay Testifies He Lives, Votes in Va.

 Former Rep. Tom DeLay testified Monday that he lives and votes in Virginia, bolstering the Republican Party's claim that he is ineligible to appear on the November ballot in Texas.

DeLay resigned from Congress and decided against re-election earlier this year while under indictment on campaign-finance charges.

GOP leaders want to select another Republican to replace DeLay on the ballot. They say they are permitted to do that under state election law because DeLay has moved out of Texas.

But the Democrats want to block any other Republican from being listed on the ballot for the suburban Houston district, where former Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson is running.

Democrats would be helped by keeping DeLay's name and legal troubles before the public. The former congressman is awaiting trial on charges of illegally funneling corporate campaign contributions to candidates for the Texas Legislature, and he has also come under suspicion over his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks not not immediately rule on the dispute.

DeLay testified in federal court that he has registered to vote in Virginia and that he cast a ballot in that state's recent primary. He said he has a Virginia driver's license, has state tax withheld in Virginia and lives in a condominium in Alexandria, Va.

Lawyers for the state Democratic Party pointed out that DeLay and his wife still have a home in Sugar Land near Houston.

DeLay acknowledged that he spent the weekend there but testified that his wife is devoted to helping abused and neglected children and that she is continuing that work in the Houston area.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fox's Cavuto: Tancredo 'just might well be president'
Congressman's hot new book 'In Mortal Danger' shoots up best-seller lists

With "In Mortal Danger" skyrocketing up the bestseller charts and public concern growing daily over America's illegal immigration problem, the book's author, Rep. Tom Tancredo – the nation's undisputed heavyweight champion of the border security issue – just may be elected president, a popular cable TV newscaster said yesterday.

Since the official launch of his sensational book Monday, Tancredo has been on a media blitz – his book bulleting up the Amazon bestseller list from 7,311 on Monday to 25 yesterday.

On Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" yesterday, host Neil Cavuto introduced Tancredo this way: "Illegals coming into America are sure to be front and center in the next presidential election here. And Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo certainly knows it. He owns this issue. And straw polls show that, if he were to run for president, he just might well be president."

Cavuto asked Tancredo: "Over the months I have talked to you, as this immigration issue has heated up, your poll numbers have moved up. Will you run for president?"

Responded the Colorado House member and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus: "Neil, I will run for president if I cannot get ... any of the serious candidates to really take this on. My purpose is to make immigration the focal point of any national debate on a presidential election."

Tancredo added: "Your responsibility as a candidate for president is to do every single thing you can to tell the people what you believe to be the greatest threats to the nation and how you would deal with them. And then, you know what? If they buy it, OK, you're elected. If they don't, you have done your best."

The congressman also didn't mince words the previous night on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" show, saying: "Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. In fact, they are creating situations along that border, using their own military, to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion."

Stressing that the problem facing America is not just illegal immigration – but a massive invasion of foreigners who come to the U.S. with no desire to become Americans. That, in the larger context of what Tancredo calls the "cult of multiculturalism," is what is radically and dangerously transforming the very character of life and culture in America within a single generation, he says.

In his book, published by WND Books, Tancredo warns that America is on a course to the dustbin of history. Like the great and mighty empires of the past, he writes, superpowers that once stretched from horizon to horizon, America is heading down the road to ruin.

English historian Edward Gibbon, in penning his classic "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (ironically published in the year America's Founding Fathers declared independence from Great Britain), theorized that Rome fell because it rotted from within. It succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue, its citizens became lazy and soft, hiring barbarian mercenaries to defend the empire because they were unwilling to defend it themselves.

Tancredo says America is following in the tragic footsteps of Rome.

Living up to his reputation for candor, Tancredo explains how the economic success and historical military prowess of the United States have transformed a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles of right and wrong into an overindulgent, self-deprecating, immoral cesspool of depravity.

His recipe for turning things around?

Without strong, moral leadership, without a renewed sense of purpose, without a rededication to family and community, without shunning the race hustlers and pop-culture sham artists, without protecting borders, language and culture, the nation that once was "the land of the free and home of the brave" and the "one last best hope of mankind" will repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the past, he writes.

Today, Tancredo is scheduled to appear on Fox News' popular "Dayside" show at 1 p.m. Eastern.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Rejects Amendment to Ban Flag Desecration

 A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a cliffhanger vote in the Senate Tuesday, one week before Independence Day, one vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification.

The 66-34 vote in favor of the amendment was a single vote short of the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map


The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like - not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, the justices said.

"We reject the statewide challenge to Texas redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander," Kennedy wrote.

However, he said the state's redrawing of District 23 violated the Voting Rights Act.

The 2003 boundaries were approved by the state Legislature and its Republican majority newly elected with DeLay's help. In the next congressional elections, Republicans picked up six additional seats in the House. The contentious map drawing also contributed to the downfall of DeLay.

He was charged in state court with money laundering in connection with fundraising for legislative candidates. Although he is fighting the charges and maintains he is innocent, DeLay gave up his leadership post and then resigned from Congress.

After Texas decided to redraw its congressional district boundaries, two other states - Colorado and Georgia - also undertook a second round of redistricting.

"Some people are predicting a rash of mid-decade redistricting. I am skeptical," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School. "It would be seen as a power grab in a lot of places."

The justices have struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries. Two years ago, they split 5-4 in leaving a narrow opening for challenges claiming party politics overly influenced election maps.

The court was also fractured Wednesday with six separate opinions, covering more than 120 pages, on the Texas boundaries.

The court's four most conservative members opposed the part of the decision that found a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Antonin Scalia complained that the court should have shut the door on claims of political gerrymandering in map drawing.

Justice John Paul Stevens took the opposite view.

"By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially," he wrote.

Kennedy's decision did not specify how quickly the lines must be redrawn, but he said that more than one district would be affected.

"The districts in south and west Texas will have to be redrawn to remedy the violation in District 23, and we have no cause to pass on the legitimacy of a district that must be changed," he wrote.

He also said that the Texas plan's "troubling blend of politics and race - and the resulting vote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve (the law's) goal of overcoming prior electoral discrimination - cannot be sustained."

"We see this as a very major victory for the Latino community, which is the main reason we were in this case," said attorney Rolando Rios, who represented the League of United Latin American Citizens. "Latinos are responsible for the fastest growth in Texas and the state of Texas refused to give us another district."

[Soldier4Christ]

News Agency Apologizes to Ariz. Candidate

 A Spanish news agency apologized for a report that described a Republican gubernatorial candidate's proposed work program for illegal immigrants as "concentration camps."

The story last week caused an international stir when EFE, a national news agency of Spain, quoted candidate Don Goldwater as saying he wanted to hold undocumented immigrants in camps to use them "as labor in the construction of a wall and to clean the areas of the Arizona desert that they're polluting."

EFE Executive Vice President Emillio Sanchez said a freelance writer for the news agency inaccurately described Goldwater's plan.

"Upon further reflection, our investigation has determined that your plan to house illegal prisoners in a tent city is consistent with accepted practices for nonviolent American prisoners in your area," Sanchez said in the letter released Tuesday by Goldwater's campaign.

The letter also acknowledged that the freelance reporter never interviewed Goldwater or any of his staff for the story.

Sanchez confirmed the letter's contents when contacted by The Associated Press by phone on Tuesday.

Goldwater, nephew of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, said he accepted EFE's apology and hopes that several Republican members of Arizona's congressional delegation also will apologize for criticizing him following the report.

Goldwater is one of four Republicans seeking his party's nomination to challenge Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

[Soldier4Christ]

States facing new welfare regulations

The Bush administration is tightening regulations that could soon require states to adjust their welfare-to-work programs, which in some cases now allow bed rest and motivational reading to qualify as work.

The regulations will require that all education and training programs be directly related to a job before states can take credit for the recipients meeting work requirements. The regulations will also require that a recipient's work activities are supervised.

States will, however, still be allowed to place recipients in counseling for substance abuse, or psychological problems, and count those people as participating in job readiness programs.

Health and Human Services Secretary
Mike Leavitt cited bed rest and reading in a recent speech in which he signaled that he wanted stricter definitions of work.

"Needless to say, I think we can all agree we need to have a better definition of what constitutes work," Leavitt told officials at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

In the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, states are supposed to have at least half of their welfare recipients in approved work activities or face cuts in funding of up to 5 percent. However, states have been on their own in defining those work activities.

Congress recently instructed the
Department of Health and Human Services to draft regulations that would explicitly define the 12 work categories cited in federal law. For instance, on-the-job training will be defined, as will community service and unsubsidized employment.

The
Government Accountability Office said last year there were too many differences in how states defined work.

For instance, of 10 states reviewed, five said caring for a disabled family member would meet work participation requirements. Five did not. Six states counted substance abuse treatment as work, but four did not.

Such inconsistent definitions make for unreliable comparisons when determining which states do a good job of helping residents find work, the GAO said.

Wade Horn, the HHS assistant secretary who oversees welfare, said in an interview that the regulations will reflect the average American's definition of job training, community service, or any of the other work activities already established in law.

"The average person doesn't believe that bed rest is what they would understand as a job-readiness activity," Horn said. "The danger in not using commonsense definitions for these categories is that the American people start to believe that the government is playing games with them."

But some social services analysts worry that the new approach could stifle innovative programs undertaken by the states. They say such approaches have helped reduce the welfare rolls by 57 percent over the past decade.

"Every state's economy is different and states are dealing with different challenges among the welfare recipients that remain on the caseload," said Sheri Steisel, director of human services policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Steisel said there can be logical explanations for some activities the administration has ridiculed. Consider the administration's example of bed rest, she said.

"If a woman is in her ninth month of pregnancy, some states, for example, used bed rest as a way of making sure the recipient didn't lose their welfare assistance while they were either out ill or on bed rest, similar to the real work world where sometimes women have to go on leave prior to the birth of a child," Steisel said.

Changes approved to the nation's welfare program in 1996 set limits on how long people could obtain cash assistance. Since the law went into effect, the welfare rolls have dropped from about 4.4 million families to under 2 million.

[Soldier4Christ]

Va. Senate race heats up over flag burning

Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) attacked his Democratic challenger's opposition to a flag-burning amendment, and James Webb retaliated by calling Allen a coward who sat out the Vietnam War "playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada."

The statement by a senior adviser to Webb, a decorated veteran and former secretary of the Navy, went to extraordinary lengths to question Allen's fortitude, even repeatedly using the middle name the senator detests and never uses, Felix.

"While Jim Webb and others of George Felix Allen Jr.'s generation were fighting for our freedoms and for our symbols of freedom in Vietnam, George Felix Allen Jr. was playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada," said Webb strategist Steve Jarding in the statement Tuesday.

Allen adviser Dick Wadhams called Jarding's comments pathetic and said they raise questions about Webb's fitness for office.

"They're saying we questioned (Webb's) patriotism, and that's a lie," Wadhams said. "We just raised a legitimate question about whether he supports a flag amendment or not. How is that questioning his patriotism?"

The rhetorical crossfire began after an Allen news release noted Webb's opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag.

Allen voted in favor of the amendment Tuesday evening when the measure failed by one vote to get the two-thirds majority required.

The news release by Allen's campaign said Webb's opposition to the amendment shows he is beholden to liberal Sens.
John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer, who all voted against the amendment.

Within hours, Webb lashed back, calling Allen's news release "weak-kneed attacks by cowards."

"People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield," Jarding said.

Webb left the Republican party over Bush's handling of the war in
Iraq. He has written novels informed by his Vietnam experience and a recent non-fiction book "Born Fighting."

Allen is a first-term senator mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. While he was a student at the University of Virginia, Allen worked summers at ranches in the Southwest.

[Soldier4Christ]

Flag amendment fails by single vote

The narrow defeat of a proposal to ban flag desecration marks the second time in a month Senate Republicans have lost bids to amend the Constitution in ways designed to inspire social conservatives to vote in the midterm elections.

The 66-34 tally on the flag amendment Tuesday was one less than the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification. The House cleared the two-thirds threshold last year, 286-130.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, the amendment read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A proposed amendment earlier this month to ban gay marriage suffered a more decisive defeat, killed on a test vote.

Winning isn't the only goal for those measures or other social policy proposals congressional Republicans will bring up this year in an effort to energize their base of voters.

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm elections.

The "American Values Agenda" also includes the gay marriage amendment, a prohibition on human cloning and possibly votes on several popular tax cuts.

The flag amendment's cliffhanger defeat a week before Independence Day represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecration of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage.

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware,
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin,
John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The House meanwhile passed by voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (news, bio, voting record), R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

It's unclear how many of the controversial bills might clear Congress and reach
President Bush's desk. Still, political strategists argue that by bringing controversial issues to a vote, one party can broadly emphasize differences with the other on an issue such as abortion, and increase the determination of its own supporters to go to the polls.

For their part, Democrats maneuvered successfully last week for a Senate vote on raising the minimum wage. Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the party's leader, said Tuesday they would "do everything within our power to stop a congressional pay raise from going through this year, and we're going to tie it to minimum wage."

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge tentatively rules Christian students can sue UC system

A federal judge's tentative ruling would allow six students from a Christian school to sue the University of California over its refusal to recognize religious-based courses in the admission process.

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero tentatively decided Tuesday that the students from Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta could pursue their claim that the UC system violated their free speech and discriminated against them.

At the same time, Otero expressed concern that no other schools had joined Calvary's suit.

No Catholic, "Islamic or Jewish (schools) are part of the litigation," Otero said during a hearing. "They seem to have students move through the (UC) system with no problem."

Otero did not indicate when he would issue a final ruling.

UC attorneys argue they have a right to set standards. They say the problem with the rejected courses was not based on ideology but that they didn't teach adequately.

The students' lawsuit claims the UC system violated their rights by rejecting as "too narrow" Calvary classes such as "Christianity's Influence on American History" while approving other schools' courses such as "Ethnic Experience in Literature," "Jewish History" and "Issues in African History."

Their complaint challenges a UC admissions requirement that private schools maintain a core of state-approved courses including math, history and biology. The suit asks the judge to order the system to recognize the Christian-themed courses.

None of the Calvary Chapel students has been denied admission to a UC campus.

Co-plaintiffs include Calvary Chapel and the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents 800 religious schools nationwide.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mayor's traffic-ticket scheme
targeted soldiers, Hispanics
Suit seeks to oust Tennessee official
over shady plan to generate revenues

DA files ouster complaint against Coopertown mayor


Prosecutors have started the legal process that could remove the embattled mayor of the small Robertson County city of Coopertown from office.

On Tuesday in Robertson County Chancery Court, District Attorney General John Carney’s office filed a petition to oust Mayor Danny Crosby from office.

In the 17-page ouster complaint, Crosby is accused of, among other things harassing and threatening political adversaries, making racist remarks, telling officers to target Hispanics and soldiers for traffic fines, and lowering speed limits to “shakedown” motorists for the city’s financial gain.

Contacted Tuesday evening, Crosby called the ouster complaint “foolishness” and a waste of taxpayer money.

“This is all full of garbage and lies,” Crosby said.

“I’ve done nothing wrong. They better be able to prove every word in that document.”

Coopertown – and Crosby himself – found themselves in the national spotlight in January, when the national motorist group AAA announced it might make the town of 3,100 its third “Traffic Trap” – a negative designation the group gives to American towns it feels unfairly targets drivers in order to make money. During the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the town expected to generate more than $450,000, or nearly 30 percent of its revenue, in traffic fines – an amount that far overshadows other towns in the area.

Crosby was tied to the speed trap flap through his decision to lower speed limits along Highway 49. He lowered limits without a vote of the city’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Since then, he’s been accused publicly and on the Internet of harassment, intimidation and misusing city funds.

In early spring, a group of citizens started a petition drive to remove Crosby. According to the ouster complaint, 536 people ended up signing the ouster petition.

Based on several stories and complaints, the DA’s office had already started looking into a possible mayoral ouster in Coopertown, Carney said. Once the petition was filed, he said his office was bound by law to investigate the claims it set forth.

As part of that probe, Carney said, his office interviewed several who alleged Crosby threatened them, as well as some who say they witnessed the mayor step out of line – including some city employees.

The result of those investigations is a writ of ouster that accuses the 52-year-old Crosby of:

• encouraging police to write tickets, especially to Hispanic drivers, drivers from out of town and soldiers, presumably from nearby Fort Campbell, who would be more likely to pay tickets rather than going to court.

• Fostering an atmosphere of racial intolerance. The complaint specifically accuses him of displaying an “anti-black prejudice” to police officers. The DA’s filings also accuse Crosby of using slurs against homosexuals.

• Violating state public meeting laws by meeting behind closed doors with aldermen to discuss city issues. He’s also accused of failing to publicise ordinances, a misstep that could make some city ordinances invalad, according to the ouster paperwork.

• Violating child labor laws by hiring several teens, including his stepson and the son of the town’s vice mayor, to mow grass. When some of those teens were involved in an accident that damaged a city vehicle, the complaint claims, Crosby replaced the truck without putting it out for bid or getting approval of the town’s board of mayor and aldermen.

• The document alleges that Crosby “has told a Coopertown Police Officer, ‘They’re dragging my son into this. I’lll just get my gun and shoot all of them.’” The ouster complaint does not clearly state to whom Crosby is allegedly referring.

• Awarding maintenance work on city vehicles and towing business to a political supporter without putting that work out for bid.

• Threatening and/or attempting to intimidate a number of people with whom he was at odds. The complaint lists the names of about 30 people whom Crosby is accused of threatening, including a former Coopertown mayor, two city aldermen, a Coopertown teenager, a former Coopertown police chief, a high-ranking employee of the state Department of Labor and a government consultant. In several cases, ouster documents claim, the mayor told police officers to watch, ticket or arrest those people.

Throughout the process of building a case to oust the mayor, which has proceeded for several months, prosecutors have considered the possibility that some of the allegations outlined in the ouster complaints could lead to criminal charges.

“We are still looking at that,” Carney said Tuesday afternoon.

But Crosby says all of the allegations are false.

“I have never made any statements about any race or lifestyle,” Crosby said. “I have friends who are black and gay. I intend to fly a friend out here who is gay. I don’t agree with his lifestyle choice, but I still love him like a brother.

“As far as the claims that I have made threats and intimidated people, those are lies. I want the people who said that I made those statements to be present in court and say that. To say that I targeted soldiers, Hispanics and blacks (for the purposes of writing tickets) is a lie,” the mayor said.

"I have never told anyone, police officer or otherwise, to lock anyone up."

Robertson County resident Susan Slawson is among those Crosby is accused of threatening.

She’s referenced several times in the petition. Some of those stories, she said, she told authorities. Others, she learned of for the first time after reading it.

“There were several things I saw that made my jaw drop,” she said.

She’s been an outspoken critic of Crosby through most of his administration. Now, she says, she fears for her safety and her freedom because of the mayor’s threats.

The ouster filings claim Crosby told police officers to arrest her, even if it meant planting evidence of a DUI in her car.

And Slawson was arrested June 14 for disorderly conduct as a result of an altercation with a Coopertown street crew working near her home.

She was charged with disorderly conduct and harassment. According to an affidavit attached to her arrest warrant, Slawson yelled at a road crew working on the streets near her home and photographed them.

Slawson says she believes the crew was set to that location to set her up for an altercation. The area where they were working is near her home and not inside Coopertown’s city limits, she said.

“If this ouster proceeds the way we expect it to, I’ll be in seventh heaven,” Slawson said. “We’ll be able to get our city back. We’ll be able to get it out of the control of thugs.”

A court date for the ouster proceedings had not been set Tuesday afternoon. Prosecutors have indicated they’d like the proceedings to move quickly.

Crosby said he has an attorney and intends to go down fighting. He would not release the name of his attorney.

“It (the ouster) is basically from a bunch of police officers who are no longer with the city who were let go from the city for various reasons and are doing this for revenge. I have their personnel files and if General Carney had just read the files, he would see that this is all lies. I will take these personnel files to court,” Crosby said.

“They ain't seen nothing yet. I welcome this day in court. The truth will be presented. I have not done anything wrong. If I said something, I would admit it because I don't have anything to hide,” the mayor said.
“God bless them because they¹ve got a fight on their hands.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate panel passes indefinite ban on Internet taxes


The Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment that would indefinitely extend a ban on Internet access taxes and ensure that most customers of Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online don't see state and local levies on their monthly bills when the current moratorium expires in 2007.

The amendment, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, was attached to legislation that would repeal a $7 billion excise tax on local telephone service. The measure will go to the full Senate for a vote; a similar measure was introduced in the House last year.

``The last time I checked the Internet shows no sign of riding off into the sunset, or becoming obsolete,'' Wyden said in a press release. ``You can bet that once discriminatory taxes are slapped on Internet users, those discriminatory taxes won't be going away any time soon.''

Starting in 1998, federal law has blocked state and local taxes on Internet connections for customers of such companies as AOL and EarthLink Inc. Since a series of temporary measures lapsed in November 2003, state and local governments have stood pat, hesitant to impose new levies until Congress acted. President George W. Bush signed a law in December that extended that ban until 2007.

``Discriminatory and double taxation of the Internet has been banned for 8 years now,'' Wyden said. ``In all that time no one has ever come forward with evidence to show that the failure to impose discriminatory taxes has hurt them.''

Proponents such as Virginia Republican Senator George Allen have said the moratorium would allow high-speed broadband technology to expand to rural areas and keep it affordable. Bush has urged Congress to make it permanent.

Opponents of a permanent ban on Internet access taxes, including Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, said the Internet has grown to the point where it doesn't need protection from taxation and that ending state and local levies would drain $18 billion in revenue from state and municipal coffers that the federal government wouldn't replace.

[Soldier4Christ]

Some heirs won't like tax bill before Senate

If the estate tax bill passed last week by the U.S. House of Representatives becomes law, it will benefit many wealthy families and cost the government a lot of tax revenue.
 
But there are likely to be other winners and losers as well.
 
Charities may find it harder to attract donations and some heirs may have to wait years, or even decades, longer to collect inheritances as surviving wives or husbands inherit more than they might have. States that impose estate taxes will face new pressures to repeal them.
 
The bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where a vote to cut off debate on a bill to repeal estate taxes fell three votes short. House leaders, who had wanted a complete repeal, pushed the bill that passed in the hope it could pick up additional votes in the Senate.
 
Under current law, people who die in 2006 can leave as much as $2 million to their heirs without incurring estate tax. In addition, unlimited amounts can be left to a surviving spouse and to charities without incurring tax.
 
Advisers to wealthy people often counsel them to leave the maximum exemption amount to heirs, with the remainder going to the surviving spouse. When that spouse dies, another $2 million can be left to heirs tax free. If the first spouse to die left everything to the surviving spouse, then only a total of $2 million could be passed on to heirs tax free.
 
Under the House bill, the exemption rises to $5 million, and will be indexed to inflation in later years. But the important change for heirs is that the spousal provision would become portable. If the first spouse to die left everything to the survivor, that person would have a $10 million exemption upon death.
 
The practical effect of that could be to delay bequests to children, said Evelyn Capassakis, a tax expert at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Rather than get some money when Dad died, and the rest when Mom passed away, the kids might have to wait until both parents were dead.
 
Charities now get billions of dollars in bequests from estates each year. How much of that money flows from generosity, and how much from a desire to reduce taxes, is impossible to know. But in 2004, 47 percent of estates of more than $10 million that were required to pay taxes had at least some charitable contributions, in contrast to just 22 percent of such estates that escaped taxation.
 
With higher exemptions, it seems likely that the level of donations from estates could fall sharply. For those with no estate-tax liability, tax advisers would be likely to recommend that any giving be done before death, when there would be a deduction that could reduce income taxes.
 
One aspect of the current law that would be preserved by the House bill is an increase in the tax basis for capital assets. Under current law, when a person leaves assets to an heir, the heir's tax basis is what determines the asset's worth when the person died, regardless of what it originally cost. That would continue.
 
But the current law also provides that for one year, in 2010, there will be no estate tax, before the estate tax returns the following year. In 2010, only $1.3 million in assets can get a stepped-up basis. Others would pass to heirs tax free, but would retain the original cost basis.
 
Thus, if an entrepreneur died in 2010 with stock in a family business worth $10.3 million that had cost only $10,000 when the company was started 30 years earlier, there would be no estate tax. But the heirs would owe capital gains tax on virtually the entire proceeds above $1.3 million if they sold the stock.
 
Those heirs would be far better off with the House bill than with the complete repeal.
 
Assets that have gained in value but are not sold before death now escape capital gains tax entirely. Since the House bill calls for an estate tax rate equal to the capital gains rate on estates from $5 million to $25 million, in effect many taxable estates would be simply paying the taxes that they would have owed had the assets been sold before death. Estates worth more than $25 million would face a tax rate of double the capital gains rate on the excess amount.
 
The tax rate on long-term capital gains is now 15 percent. If it were to rise, the estate tax rate would also increase.
 
Until 2001, the federal estate tax law allowed a credit for U.S.-state estate taxes paid, up to certain limits. Most states imposed the maximum allowed, which had no effect on taxpayers since it merely redirected money from the federal government to the states.
 
Since 2001, however, the law has allowed only a deduction, rather than a credit, for state estate taxes. So an estate that owed $1 million in state estate taxes could reduce the amount of estate subject to federal taxation by that amount. Since the maximum federal estate tax was 46 percent, it meant that the most it would save the taxpayer was $460,000 in federal estate taxes.
 
But under the House bill, there will be no credit or deduction for state estate taxes, meaning that there will be no savings. That will increase the incentive for the wealthy to move to states without state estate taxes, like Florida, and it will also put pressure on state governments to reduce or eliminate their taxes.