Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

'Senate will clear N-deal with substantial margin'

A senior US law maker expressed confidence that the Senate will clear the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal with a "substantial margin" but has warned against pushing Senators "too hard" to pass the legislation as it will give a feeling that it is being forced on them without time for adequate deliberations.

Senator John Cornyn, who is the founder and co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, also agreed with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar that the relevant legislation may not be taken up by the full Senate prior to it going on recess on August 4.

"I think this legislation looks very good. Things move slowly in the Senate -- it is the nature of the beast. It is also a function of the narrow windows of time available to bring things to the floor. But I think it is moving very well. It is getting good bi-partisan support and that to me is an indication that it will be successful," Senator Cornyn said.

He was responding to a query after addressing war veteran groups pushing for the clearance of the nuclear deal.

Asked about the possibility of the Senate taking up the legislation prior to the start of its August recess the Texas Senator replied, "I think that will be hard to get it done by then. We have so many other issues that have been pressing for a long time."

He cautioned, "...What we have to be careful about is that we have to push as hard as we can, but we don't want to push it too hard and have Senators feel like we are trying to force this on them without adequate time to understand and adequate deliberations."

"I haven't counted the votes yet but I am confident that before it is all said and done, it will pass by a substantial margin," Cornyn said.

In his formal remarks to the veterans groups, he expressed hope that the legislation will "quickly be ratified " by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

"I believe it is in our national security interests and I also happen to believe that India has an outstanding record when it comes to non proliferation and in efforts to be a nation that shares the values of the United States.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out one day recently how the quest for energy has distorted our geo-political relationships and it is important that we recognise the contribution that nuclear power can make.

"It is a great opportunity for not only American companies doing business in India, it is an important symbolic step towards this whole strategic partnership between the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy. This is clearly in my view in the United States' national interests," he added.

Eight veterans groups ranging from the 2.4 million strong Veterans of Foreign Wars to the Gold Star Wives announced their strong support to the nuclear accord.

The eight groups signed on to an advertisement in a major Capitol Hill publication, Roll Call, the cost of which was paid for by the Indian American Security Leadership Council.

[Soldier4Christ]

Offshore bill opposition grows in Senate


WASHINGTON - Louisiana lawmakers are hailing a compromise on offshore drilling that would bring the state millions in new revenues, but opposition from other lawmakers could scuttle the proposal.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wants to set a vote on the compromise bill before Congress breaks for its summer recess in August. But opposition to the bill has mounted since the agreement was announced last week.

The bill needs backing from at least 60 senators to overcome that opposition and move to the floor.
"It's not easy. I'm just going to try to get the 60 votes we need," said U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-Metairie.

Vitter said he is lobbying Republican senators and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans, has targeted Democrats.

The bill would open an 8 million-acre area in the western Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas production. It would give Florida a drilling-free "buffer zone" ranging from 125 miles to 230 miles from the state's shoreline until the year 2022.

It also would give the oil-producing states of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi a share of royalties generated from the new production.

Louisiana's senators were heartened by the compromise and by the support that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne expressed for the revenue sharing provisions in the Senate bill during his visit to the state this week.

But several senators from coastal states have threatened to block a Senate vote on the legislation.

"We have concerns that any attempts to move such legislation will not provide adequate protections for the state of New Jersey, its shoreline and its beaches," U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J. wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Lautenberg and Menendez said they would put a hold on the bill unless their state receives the same protections offered to Florida. Maine's Republican senators - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - also said they oppose any proposal that would threaten the current ban on drilling along most of the nation's coastline.

The House bill, approved last month, would allow coastal states to decide whether to allow oil and gas exploration off their shores and would give them a share of royalties from new drilling.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate bill would exempt livestock farms from Superfund

A group of 23 members of the U.S. Senate Tuesday, July 18, introduced a bill to pave the way to livestock operations gaining exemption from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

If passed, the bill would free livestock operations from additional pollution standards provided in CERCLA, otherwise known as the Superfund law. Livestock emissions are currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the bill isn't an altogether revamping of livestock regulation, but a clarification of current law to protect an already heavily regulated industry from further regulation.

"The clarification outlined in this bill is badly needed to protect America's agriculture industry from onerous and frivolous lawsuits. Without it, livestock operations could be fined up to $27,000 per day per violation, which could bankrupt many of them," Domenici said July 18. "This industry is already one of the most regulated with regard to environmental quality. Additional penalties and liability assessments under CERCLA, which is designed to clean up toxic industrial pollutants, are unwarranted and unfair."

The Senate bill, identical to a version making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, specifically clarifies that animal manure is not a toxic waste substance, therefore not requiring emergency response treatment like other toxic substances. State and local permit processes for livestock producers would remain unaffected by the bill.

In addition to bipartisan support in the Senate, Domenici's bill conjured praise from livestock industry stakeholders. American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman said current EPA regulation of livestock emissions is sufficient, and the CERCLA exclusion will be important to the industry's future.

"Public safety and health, as well as water and air quality, are protected by the federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, along with extensive environmental laws and regulations that apply to agriculture," Stallman said July 18. "We work very hard to comply with those laws. Congress did not intend Superfund to apply to agriculture and it is not necessary for environmental protection."

[Soldier4Christ]

Key U.S. House committee approves NorCal wilderness bill

WASHINGTON - A key House committee voted Wednesday to set aside nearly 277,000 acres in far northern California as federally protected wilderness. It was a long-fought advance for a bill that has passed the Senate twice but stalled, until now, in the House.

The legislation passed the House Resources Committee on voice vote after its author, St. Helena Democrat Mike Thompson, made a deal with committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, to drop about 27,000 acres of wilderness and add 79,000 acres of "recreation management area" for off-highway vehicles and mountain bikes.

Although the resulting compromise was not as sweeping as the version of the legislation that passed the Senate, its approval was cheered as a major victory by environmentalists and Democrats. The bill is expected to pass the full House as soon as next Tuesday, then return to the Senate for final passage and go to President Bush for his signature.

"I'm very excited about it. This is going to protect some of the most beautiful federally owned property in my congressional district. ... It's a great bill," said Thompson.

"The balance provided in this broadly-supported bill is very important to me. Just as we are protecting wilderness areas in statute, we're also protecting recreational areas in statute," Pombo said in a statement, calling the outcome "a fair compromise."

The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Act would protect some of the most breathtaking and remote areas in California, including portions of Mendocino National Forest and Six Rivers National Forest and stretches of undeveloped beach and coastal bluffs in Humboldt and Mendocino counties. The Black Butte River in Mendocino County would be designated a wild and scenic river.

If it becomes law it will be the first designation of federal wilderness area in California since passage of the Big Sur Wilderness and Conservation Act of 2002, which protected 54,000 acres in the Big Sur area, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer's office.

"We are inching closer and closer to protecting more than 275,000 acres of precious California land as wilderness," said Boxer, who introduced the Senate version with fellow California Democrat Dianne Feinstein. "I am more optimistic than ever that we will soon see this bill signed into law."

Thompson long had urged Pombo, who has been skeptical of wilderness designations, to move on the bill. The final compromise leaves out about 12,000 acres in Del Norte County and 15,000 acres in Humboldt County that were in the Senate version. There were objections from Del Norte officials to the designation in their county, and the Humboldt acres included some recreation areas, according to Pombo aides.

The recreation management area in the bill would codify the off-road and other activities that already happen at the Cow Mountain Recreation Area in Mendocino County.

[Soldier4Christ]

 State House approves bill to protect families at military funerals


RALEIGH — The state House has unanimously approved a bill aimed at protecting families from protests at military funerals.

The bill will now go to Gov. Mike Easley.

“This bill is patterned after the federal law,” Rep. Ronnie Sutton, D-Robeson, told fellow House members.

Sutton said that the proposal would prohibit protests within 300 feet of a funeral, graveyard or funeral procession.

The protest ban would begin one hour before the funeral and end one hour after the conclusion of the funeral.

“Thirty-one states this year have filed bills similar to this,” Sutton said. “Fourteen states have already passed their bills.”

Sutton said that the North Carolina bill is patterned after a Georgia law.

The federal law, enacted earlier this year, applies only to national cemeteries. State laws would have a broader effect.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Jim Jacumin, R-Burke.

Violators of the proposed law would be subject to being charged with disorderly conduct. The first and second offenses would be misdemeanors. Subsequent offenses would be felonies.

While the bill is aimed at preventing protests at military funerals, it would apply to all funerals.

The federal government and states have been passing such laws in response to protests at military funerals by Westboro Baptists Church in Topeka, Kan. The church members claim that military deaths are a sign that God is angry at the United States for tolerating homosexuals.

Specifically, protesters could be charged with the offense if they have signs showing “fighting words” or threats. Disruptive chants, songs, abusive language, whistling and yelling would also be illegal.

In a committee meeting on Tuesday, one lawmaker and a lobbyist raised concerns about the bill’s constitutionality.

During debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, asked Sutton if the bill had any constitutional problems.

Sutton responded that the General Assembly’s legal staff had researched the bill “exhaustively” and concluded that there was no constitutional problem.

The final vote in the House was 108-0.

[Soldier4Christ]

Tensions Rise Between US Congress, President Over Balance of Powers

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Bush administration's plans to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists is the latest example of how one branch of the U.S. government can check another.  In the second part of his series on the challenges facing Congress, VOA National Correspondent Jim Malone has more on the tensions between the legislative and executive branches of government from Washington.

In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush took strong measures to protect the country from further attack.

But in recent years, Bush critics have charged that the administration has too often bypassed Congress and the courts in the name of national security.

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law expert at George Washington University in Washington.

"This is a president who seems very uncomfortable with sharing power in our type of system," he said.  "But that is the job he took.  That is the oath he took.  We have a system that denies each of the branches enough power to govern alone, but this is a president who does not seem to accept that."

In recent months, even a few Republicans have complained that the Bush White House has often been dismissive of the role of Congress in shaping security policy.

Mr. Bush responds that the nation is at war and will be for a long time and that he will do what is necessary to both protect the American people and their civil liberties.

"My job is to protect you," said Mr. Bush.  "My job is to defend the civil liberties of the American people.  My job is to act within the confines of the Constitution and the law and that is precisely what I am doing when it comes to making sure we understand the intent of the enemy."

Two formerly bitter political rivals came together recently to urge Congress to vigorously exercise its constitutional duty of checking the power of the executive branch.

Democrat Tom Foley and Republican Newt Gingrich both served as speaker of the House during the 1990s.  They discussed the current state of Congress and the presidency at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Former Speaker Gingrich is among several Republicans considering a run for president in 2008.  But for now, Gingrich is urging the Republican-led Congress to do a better job of acting as a check on the presidency no matter which party is in power.

"I am a passionate creature of the House," he said.  "I believe the House is the center of freedom on the planet.  I think the 435 people who shove against each other and argue with each other and learn to respect each other are at the core of freedom.  And I think it is important to remember that a presidency is, in a sense, an elected kingship.  It is a very dangerous institution to grant too much power to."

Gingrich, from the southern U.S. state of Georgia, was elected to Congress in 1978, the same year as another Republican, from Wyoming, by the name of Dick Cheney.

But Cheney, who now serves as vice president, has a different view of the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.

"I clearly do believe and have spoken directly about the importance of a strong presidency and that I think there have been times in the past, oftentimes in response to events such as Watergate or the war in Vietnam, where Congress has begun to encroach upon the powers and responsibilities of the president, and that it was important to go back and try to restore that balance," said Mr. Cheney.

Republican Gingrich has found an ally in former rival and Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley.

Foley argues that Congress should assert its constitutional authority as a check on the presidency, especially during wartime.

"I do also think that it is terrifically important that Americans realize that the founding fathers created a separation of powers and that it is not just a lot of congressional interference with a wartime president, but an essential part of the functioning of our government that each branch, each branch has its relative strengths and role, and that for one branch to over dominate, to over control the other two is not healthy for the society," said Mr. Foley.

There are some encouraging signs of greater cooperation between Congress and the White House.

Some lawmakers are working with the administration to set up a system of military tribunals for suspected terrorists that would meet the standard set by the recent Supreme Court ruling.

And the administration is also working with key senators on legislation that would allow legal challenges to a terrorist tracking program that allows the monitoring of international phone calls without a court warrant.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress Debates Minimum Wage Hike

U.S. law has guaranteed most workers a minimum wage since the 1930s. The last increase in the wage was in 1997. Now Democrats in the U.S. Congress say it's time for another raise.

Minimum wage workers in America: food service, hotel workers, security guards, and sales clerks all earn at least the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, a figure set in 1997.  But Democrats in Congress are arguing that figure has not kept up with the times.

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute.  "The role that it plays is that it provides a modicum of wage support for our lowest wage workers, many of whom are the most disadvantaged workers in our society.  And if you look at who earns the minimum wage, you are going to find that it is disproportionately minorities."

Economic Policy Institute statistics predict a minimum wage increase would affect about 15 million people in a workforce of 150 million.  Only a few million workers actually depend on minimum wage jobs as their sole source of income. 

William Niskanen is chairman of the CATO institute, a policy center in Washington D.C.  He is opposed to raising the minimum wage.  He says it's bad economic policy. "It increases the price of hiring low skilled labor.  That leads employers to do two things.  One is to hire less low skilled labor.  A second is that it leads them to economize on non-wage compensation and working conditions."

Twenty states in the U.S. have set their minimum wage higher than the $5.15 per hour mark.  Jared Bernstein argues that figure is not a livable wage in today's economy. "The economy looks great from 40,000 feet, but on the ground, you have got some problems.  We have quite strong growth in gross domestic product, which is a measure of economic growth.  Productivity growth has been really quite stellar.  But the wages and incomes of folks on the bottom half of the scale have been plodding along and in many years and quarters have been falling behind inflation."

Bernstein does not believe raising the minimum wage will result in job losses.  He argues that jobs were added after the last increase in 1997. "We have just never found these job loss effects.  It is just an argument that completely lacks evidence."

William Niskanen says improving the educational opportunities for low income families is a better way to fight poverty than raising the minimum wage.

"The United States spends way more for public schooling than any nation in the world.  And we place 15th, 20th in international tests in reading and mathematics.  We have compared to the rest of the world a very poorly performing public school system."

Democrats are using the issue to rally their base for the upcoming midterm congressional elections.  Recently they threatened to block a congressional pay hike if Republicans would not relent on the issue. They say congressional salaries have raisen almost $32,000 a year since the last increase in the minimum wage

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress set to pass sex offender tracking

Key members of Congress have agreed on a sweeping bill that would create the first national Internet database with strict rules to keep better track of sex offenders.

A chief aim is to help police locate more than 100,000 convicted sex offenders who are registered but fail to update their whereabouts.

The compromise, reached this week after months of negotiations, would increase penalties for molesters who cross state lines or fail to register. It also would boost the number of investigators and prosecutors fighting child pornography.

Supporters expected quick passage in the Senate and House. They hope President Bush, who has signaled his support, will sign the bill July 27th, the 25th anniversary of the abduction of 6-year-old Adam Walsh, son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh, whose.

"It's going to change the way the country deals with sex offenders," says Walsh, who spent years lobbying for the bill. His son was taken from a shopping mall and murdered.

"This is the most important child protection legislation in a quarter-century," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He says police lack current addresses for at least 100,000 of the 563,000 registered sex offenders.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act would set uniform rules for when and what information sex offenders would report and would make non-compliance a felony. It would create a searchable national Web site that may include DNA samples.
All states have registries, but they offer varying information. Many don't make non-compliance a crime.

"Pedophiles use the Web to hunt our children. Now we will start using the Web to hunt down sexual predators," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress makes Saturday 'National Day of the American Cowboy'

This is the week for the big Cowboy Day ... or as Congress would say of this coming Saturday: "National Day of the American Cowboy."

There will be much hoo-rahing and cheering, and that's good. I'll be at Devils Tower that day to help observe the landmark's 100th birthday, but the next day I'll head for Kaycee, Wyo. That's plenty enough cowboy for me. And the Deke Latham Memorial Pro Rodeo, where I'll get to do the steer roping and try to stay out of the announcer's way.

* Speaking of cowboys, there's a sort of hush-hush effort in Hollywood to do a reality show about "real cowboys." They're asking quietly, not publicly, for real cowboys to apply to be in the running for a TV series and $50,000 to the winner. I will let you know as I know more.

* You've probably already heard, but an old friend has the new job as manager of the NILE in Billings, Mont. Justin Mills, a native of Crook County, Wyo., and most recently with Northern Broadcasting Systems, has accepted the head of that livestock show and rodeo. Justin is a good choice.

* I've also heard from Ken Fitting about NFR bull fighter Jerry Norton. Jerry is working with troubled kids for the state of South Dakota. He gets some personal time off so he is still working Dodge City and some of the big rodeos, plus some smaller local ones. The transition from full time rodeo into civilian life can be tough, but knowing Jerry Norton, he'll do well.

* More about Wayne Herman, the Golden Valley, N.D., native and his bid to be nominated for the Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame.

If I were an elector, I'd look for dominance in a career. Someone who was always in the fight for the title. Consider Herman: He qualified for his first NFR in 1985 when the Finals moved to Las Vegas, and his last time was in 1997. In that 13-year span, he finished in the Top 5 seven times, including the world title in 1992, and finishing second in 1991 by a margin of $1,000. Herman was hurt in two of those years and so qualified 11 times for the NFR, winning almost a million dollars during that span. He also took enough time to win three circuit titles in his Badlands Circuit. Hall of Fame credentials? Absolutely!

* A follow up from Lois Hills' report on Lisa Scheffer's injury. If you want to write to her it is St. Pat's Hospital, Room 401, 500 W. Main, Missoula, Mont., 59802. or write 4676 Store Lane, Stevensville, Mont., 59870. I don't know when she will be home, but Steve will bring the cards to the hospital if she is still there.

Lisa was sure down tonight when she told me about the skin graft. She got pretty emotional today, she said. I can't blame her - it is kind of like "enough God, enough." So know the cards will be appreciated. Her phone number at the hospital is 1-406-543-7271, Room 401.

* For years, Mike Freidel, football coach from Vermillion, has been spending his summers working on ranches in Kaycee. I first met Mike at the Deke Latham rodeo many years ago. Truly a nice man, with a wife and five kids. Sometime in the middle of June, he was airing up a tire when it exploded. Joyce Reclusa told me before July 4th that he was still in a coma in Casper, Wyo. Gosh, what a tragedy.

* Here's some more information on Dale Small's death. An honorable tribute to a man who shaped Montana rodeo - rodeo cowboys, fans, friends, and family, young and old, from near and far, from youth competitors to PRCA World Champions, gathered to pay their respects to "Grand-dad," who made us laugh, made us appreciate a "better" rodeo production, and made many of us try harder and achieve more.

Stan Rasmussen and Lois Hill are both past presidents of the Northern Rodeo Association. Stan a 30-plus-years' rodeo announcer, and Lois, a former rodeo secretary, barrel racer, and force of regional rodeo, shared fun stories about Dale and the year's of following Small Rodeo Company down the rodeo trail.

* A sad note on the death of a long time friend. From the Pierre Capital Journal: LaFola Korkow, 94, of Pierre and formerly of Blunt, died Monday, July 3, 2006, in Pierre, SD. She was a ranch wife, a town wife, a trucker's wife and a rodeo wife. Many people have worked with Erv and LaFola through the years. LaFola, always a gracious lady, was friends with everyone - a good wit, very articulate and believed that everyone should have breakfast before they left for the day!

As her husband's memorial was to the Casey Tibbs Rodeo Center 4-H Room in Fort Pierre, LaFola would like her memorials to be placed there as well to continue to honor the youth who participate in rodeo.

LaFola Korkow was a grand lady, one I respected a lot. Korkow Rodeos will continue of course, because son Jim learned a lot from his mom and continues the tradition. Our condolences.

[Soldier4Christ]

Campaign seizes on 'super-state' highway
Opponents of Texas governor point to plan's foreign control

Challengers to incumbent Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry are seizing on the planned Trans-Texas Corridor as a major campaign issue.

The 600-mile mega-highway from the Oklahoma border to Mexico is one section of a larger transportation network seen by some critics as part of a movement to integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The exact route of the highway has not been set, but it is expected to cut a quarter-mile wide swath through the state, employing as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, the Associated Press reports. It also will include railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, and broadband cables.

The stretch through Texas, running parallel to Interstate 35, would be the first link in a 4,000-mile, $184 billion network. Supporters say the corridors are needed to handle the expected NAFTA-driven boom in the flow of goods to and from Mexico.

But as WND has reported, opposition is mounting to a little-publicized effort by the Bush administration to push North America into a European Union-style merger.

The contractors building the Trans-Texas Corridor have made large contributions to the campaigns of Texas politicians, including Perry.

The transportation plan, proposed by Perry in 2002, has been a major focus of the campaign as rivals – including Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman – call it a "$184 billion boondoggle" and a "land grab" of historic proportions, the AP said.

Strayhorn calls the plan the "Trans-Texas Catastrophe" and has dubbed Perry's appointees on the transportation commission "highway henchmen."

"Texans want the Texas Department of Transportation, not the European Department of Transportation," she says to enthusiastic response on the campaign trail, according to the AP.

Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, says his opponents are spreading bad information.

"The governor recognizes the concerns that rural Texans have. Remember, he's from rural Texas," Black said.

Some opponents, including many Texas farmers are concerned about property rights, but many point to the project's foreign control. It's being built and operated by a U.S.-Spanish consortium, Cintra-Zachry. Opponents also point out part of the contract with the firm is secret.

A state attorney general has ruled the Cintra-Zachry contract be made public, but Perry's administration has gone to court to prevent the disclosure of what is says is proprietary information.

[Soldier4Christ]

Specter falsely accuses church to knock Bush
In stem-cell debate said medieval pope held back science 300 years

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., made a false accusation against the Catholic Church during debate on the Senate floor over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, according to Catholic News Service.

Arguing President Bush's opposition to the federal funding on moral grounds could seriously set back scientific discovery, Specter said: "Pope Boniface VII (sic) banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s. This stopped the practice for over 300 years and greatly slowed the accumulation of education regarding human anatomy."

Specter not only misidentified the pope, the Catholic news site asserts, but most historical sources indicate no pontiff in history was responsible for the type of ban cited by Specter.

Boniface VII, CNS explained, was an antipope who held the papacy during three separate periods in the late 900s. Boniface VIII served from 1294 to 1303.

The news service said some sources cite the possible cause for confusion in "De Sepulturis," a papal bull issued in 1300.

"Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously cooking them in order that the bones being separated from the flesh may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very fact excommunicated," says one translation of the document.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says the "only possible explanation of the misunderstanding that the bull forbade dissection is that someone read only the first part of the title and considered that ... one of the methods of preparing bodies for study in anatomy was by boiling them in order to be able to remove the flesh from them easily, (and) that this decree forbade such practices thereafter."

According to German author Heinrich Haesar, in his 1845 textbook "The History of Medicine," dissection of cadavers continued without hindrance during the Middle Ages in European universities, run under the direction of church leaders.

Guy de Chauliac, considered the father of modern surgery, was the personal surgeon to three popes in the 14th century and a promoter of dissection in anatomical studies.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says "this fact alone would seem to decide definitely that there was no papal regulation, real or supposed, forbidding the practice of human dissection at this time."

In his Senate speech, Specter said one of the victims of the papal ban was Spaniard Michael Servetus, who "used cadaver dissection to study blood circulation" in the 1500s and was "tried and imprisoned by the Catholic Church."

Servetus, however, encountered trouble with Catholic officials not for his medicine but for his theological questioning of the Trinity, infant baptism and original sin, according to the Servetus International Society, founded to promote his legacy.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pledge of Allegiance bill pending in Congress questions origins

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed legislation that would prevent federal courts from hearing cases on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance -- such as whether the words "under God" violate the separation of church and state.

The bill has its origins in that very question. Federal courts ruled in 2002 and 2005 that those two words amount to a government endorsement of religion, although the Supreme Court didn't rule on that question when it took up the challenge -- justices instead said the person bringing the case didn't have legal standing to sue.

The proposed legislation is one of several "jurisdiction stripping" bills pending in Congress. It brings up a number of thorny questions, such as whether it was proper for "under God" to be added to the Pledge in 1954, or whether it violates the constitutional separation of powers for Congress to tell federal courts which cases they can accept.

No one expects the legislation to move forward in the Senate. Perhaps that's why other thorny questions have gone mostly unasked: If the bill passes and interpretation is left to state courts, would the result be a different Pledge of Allegiance for each state? And since the Pledge is meant to promote national unity, wouldn't that be silly?

It could happen, agreed Marilyn Ireland, who teaches First Amendment law at the California Western School of Law in San Diego. But as a practical matter, the difference would probably come down to the "under God" debate.

"If it did pass the Senate, the likelihood that there would be more than two versions of the Pledge would be small," Ireland said. "You could have one with 'under God,' and one without 'under God.'

"That's the conundrum that has always been in this country -- 50 states of disunity. Maybe it would even be appropriate to have it that way."

All three of Utah's congressmen voted for what's being called the "Pledge Protection Act," which is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo. It passed the House 260 to 167.

"This bill reserves the state courts' authority to decide whether the pledge is valid within each state's boundaries," said a statement from Alyson Heyrend, a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "If different states come to different decisions regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge, the effects of such decisions will be felt only within those states.

"A few federal judges sitting hundreds of miles away will not be able to rewrite a state's Pledge policy."

A news release from the office of U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said the same thing using almost identical language.

"If different states come to different decisions regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge, then their decisions hold sway only within those states, and not on the whims of activist federal judges," Cannon was quoted as saying.

Cannon spokesman Charles Isom said he hadn't considered the possibility of multiple versions of the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I guess I had not thought of it in that sense. That would probably be a bridge that would have to be crossed at some point if this goes through the whole process," he said.

"This is a state's rights issue, and as we've said, we stand behind this kind of action on this kind of case."

U.S Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, did not respond to a request for comment.

"Jurisdiction stripping" bills are nothing new. Pending legislation in Congress includes proposals to keep federal courts from hearing cases about prayer in schools, Ten Commandment displays and gay marriage. Cannon recently introduced a bill that would remove a federal court's ability to review state anti-pornography laws.

The constitutionality of such proposals is fiercely debated, however.

Language in the Constitution appears to give Congress some authority over the reach of courts. However, there's a widely held view, as well as scholarship to back it up, that limiting a court's jurisdiction because of an unpopular decision amounts to a subversion of the Constitution.

"That question is mired in weird constitutional cases going back to the Civil War," Ireland said.

She said Congress probably could succeed at stripping jurisdiction from lower federal courts, but "whether they can take it away from the Supreme Court is another matter."

The question is important because if state courts arrive at different versions of the Pledge, the Supreme Court would be expected to issue some kind of final interpretation.

Akin's legislation would remove that option.

Whether that removal would stand scrutiny is an open question.

"You find 10 different constitutional law professors," Ireland said, "and you'll get 10 different answers."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate drilling plan could give states billions


WASHINGTON: Republicans in the US Senate who want to expand offshore oil and gas production will seek a vote next week on a measure that may shift billions of dollars in drilling fees to the states from federal coffers.

Taking steps to boost domestic energy supplies may help Americans feel better about the economy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday in discussing the measure on the floor.
The Senate legislation follows a House bill approved last month that would divert as much as $400bn in drilling fees to states including Louisiana and Texas in coming decades.

“These royalty and bonus payments are a big item in the budget,’’ said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York. “If the federal treasury doesn’t have that revenue, if that revenue goes to the states, it’s got to be made up somewhere.’’

Republican lawmakers, having struggled to form a response to rising energy prices that they can show to voters, are trying to expand drilling before congressional elections in November.
The revenue-sharing plan won them support from Gulf Coast Senators, including Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, while risking the alienation of some fiscal conservatives.

Expanded access to offshore deposits was dropped from President George W Bush’s energy bill prior to passage last August. Florida lawmakers blocked the drilling provisions, citing possible harm to the state’s tourism.

Senator Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican who objected to prior Gulf of Mexico drilling proposals, is now a cosponsor of the Senate bill, which was introduced on Thursday.
“I don’t mind a revenue-sharing component personally, as long as Florida has the protection that Florida needs,’’ Martinez said on July 11.

The Senate and House measures would open a section of the eastern Gulf of Mexico that includes one of the biggest untapped US natural gas prospects, while prohibiting drilling within 125 miles of Florida’s coast for 16 years.

If approved, the Senate bill must be reconciled with the House plan, sponsored by California Republican Richard Pombo, which would allow individual states to decide whether drilling would be allowed off their shores. That provision is controversial because it might open waters off the coast of Virginia or elsewhere.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bolton Hopes for Vote on U.N. Nomination

Grateful that a Senate holdout no longer opposed his nomination, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Sunday the turnabout represented "a fairly dramatic change in the political dynamic."

"I think the main thing is allowing the nomination to come to a vote on the floor of the Senate, and then people can vote how they wish," Bolton said.

"The problem last year, of course, was we couldn't get a vote at all. I'm hoping we can avoid that this time and let there be a vote on the floor," he said.

The GOP-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing Thursday on Bolton's nomination.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, frustrated his GOP colleagues last year when he opposed Bolton in the committee. That led President Bush to install Bolton through a temporary appointment that expires in January.

But the senator has had a change of heart, saying last week that he would not block Bolton's nomination this year because of an urgent need to ease tensions in the Middle East.

Voinovich said pressing diplomatic issues with Iran, North Korea and in the Middle East require a smooth approval process for the man he once called a bully.

"Obviously, I much appreciated it, and I think it represents a fairly dramatic change in the political dynamic in the Senate," Bolton said.

"All of the Republicans, I think, are now supportive, and I think a number of Democrats will be as well. So we'll do this one step at a time, have a hearing this coming Thursday and see what happens after that," he said.

Voinovich said that his observations are that "while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally."

Bolton appeared Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition" and "Fox News Sunday."

[Soldier4Christ]

Activists put the squeeze on firms
Groups on the left and right pressure companies over social issues, especially gay rights

Focus on the Family is known for its advocacy on social issues in the political arena, such as opposition to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.

But the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group, which claims millions of daily listeners to its radio programs, also has flexed its muscle with corporate America, targeting companies such as Wells Fargo and Procter & Gamble for supporting gay causes.

Its latest foray is against Liberty Media chairman John Malone, who was recently described in a Focus publication as "one of the biggest pornographers in America" because of Liberty's ownership of On Command Corp., which supplies hotels with pay-per-view programming, including X-rated material.

Focus is asking supporters to call or write Major League Baseball and lobby the league to block a potential bid by Malone for the Atlanta Braves, currently owned by Time Warner Inc.

Focus - and other groups on the right and left - have stepped up pressure on American businesses, sometimes successfully. They use grassroots lobbying techniques proven effective in political campaigns and ballot initiatives.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for a boycott last month of 12,000 gas stations owned by BP in the U.S. He claims a lack of blacks in the company's upper ranks, which BP disputes.

Ford Motor Co. has been caught in the crossfire over gay issues. After meeting with leaders of national gay and lesbian organizations in December, it resumed advertising its vehicles in gay-oriented magazines after having stopped such advertising.

Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss., has been pressuring Ford to end such advertising. It set up a website, www.boycottford.com, which states: "Ford could have easily avoided this boycott had they desired to do so by simply remaining neutral in the cultural battles."

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, said: "By and large, these boycotts are not only reprehensible, they're unsuccessful. They have not produced anything besides increased donations, I assume, for the American Family Association."

Focus on the Family is often allied with the AFA and other conservative Christian groups but says it did not advocate for the Ford boycott.

"Our purpose in many cases isn't so much to boycott. That's not our philosophy," said Gary Schneeberger, director of media and constituent communications for Focus Action, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family.

"Our philosophy is for ... constituents to write to the company management, the company board of directors, and tell them you don't appreciate their values," he said. "It's more letting the grassroots get involved."

In September 2004, Focus founder and radio show host James Dobson did call on supporters to boycott Crest toothpaste and Tide detergent, sold by Procter & Gamble, based in Cincinnati.

That boycott, in partnership with the AFA, was based on the company's contribution of $10,000 to a gay-rights cause in Cincinnati, as well as its sponsorship of gay-pride parades and TV shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Focus and the AFA called off the boycott in April 2005, claiming that Procter & Gamble had dropped those affiliations and that more than 400,000 supporters had signed a boycott pledge provided by AFA.

Procter & Gamble did not return a call for comment.

While companies targeted by activist groups may not suffer financially, they are often forced into a defensive position.

"Groups are trying to persuade these companies to go either way on these issues, so the companies are between a rock and a hard place," said Brett Clifton, a Brown University political scientist who has studied Focus on the Family and Dobson.

Focus took direct action in 2005, when it pulled an estimated $146 million in bank deposits from Wells Fargo because the San Francisco-based bank contributed to a gay-rights group.

The action apparently did little economic harm to Wells Fargo, which reported record quarterly revenues of $8.79 billion, according to a recent earnings report.

"We feel very strongly in diversity and supporting diverse organizations, said Cristie Drumm, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo in Colorado. "It's just part of what we do and who we are as a company."

In the case of Malone and Liberty Media, it's unclear what will come of the Focus on the Family campaign targeting the company as a pornographer unworthy of owning a major-league baseball team.

Sports business analyst David Carter said such a call to action by Focus seems misplaced because virtually all cable and satellite companies, including Time Warner, current owner of the Braves, sell X-rated entertainment.

Schneeberger at Focus referred questions to other groups involved in the issue, including the Concerned Women for America, Georgia chapter.

"We want to make people aware that a potential buyer for the Braves is someone who deals with pornography," said Tanya Ditty, Concerned Women's state director in Georgia. "It's a moral issue."

Liberty Media spokesman John Orr said the company had no comment about the Focus campaign.

In March, Liberty said it would put On Command Corp. up for sale, with one analyst estimating it could fetch $480 million. Liberty acquired On Command in 2000 as part of a deal that left Liberty with a 6.5 percent stake in the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche.

And while Malone has expressed interest in buying the Braves, no deal has been announced.

Liberty owns a 4 percent stake in Time Warner. A transaction to buy the Braves would be structured in large part to avoid taxes. Liberty would return a big portion of its Time Warner stock, receiving more than $1 billion in cash and the Braves, valued by Forbes at more than $400 million.

Focus' scrutiny of Malone is unlikely to make a difference to baseball owners who would have to approve a deal to sell the Braves, said John Higgins, business editor at Broadcasting and Cable magazine.

"I'd rather bet on the Yankees winning the division than this type of pressure on John Malone being an issue," Higgins said. "John Malone's religion is tax minimization."

cont'd