Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

Holding the line: Virginia Guard troops man the U.S.-Mexican border

U.S. Senior Border Patrol Agent Jim Hawkins pointed Monday to the shallow, chocolate brown waters rushing north through a concrete tunnel entrance.

Last Thursday, Hawkins explained, a group of 34 Mexican immigrants waded through the water - dark with mud and industrial waste - for about a mile to breach a pair of metal flood gates and enter the United States.

While they pushed along in knee-high water, heavy rains started a flash flood, filled the tunnel and burst open the storm gates. A small army of U.S. border patrol agents waited on the concrete banks. They pulled dozens of men and women from the rushing waters as they spilled into the shopping district of this small border town. At least two died trying to reach the United States.

Such rescues are common, Hawkins said.

"The flooding happens very quickly," he said. "You can't escape."

The Virginia National Guard has jumped into this vortex.

On Monday, the last large group of 440 Virginia troops arrived in southern Arizona to support border patrol agents in a mission known as Operation Jump Start.

President Bush announced in May a plan for 6,000 National Guard troops to supplement border and customs duties by Aug. 1, although only about half have reached duty stations along the border, Guard officials told T he Associated Press.

The operation is designed to bolster federal border patrol with reserve units from around the country by establishing new observation posts and barriers along the Mexican-U.S. line in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

It also serves to highlight a contentious and long-standing issue - illegal immigration - during a congressional election year.

The reserve forces will act as extra eyes and ears along the rugged terrain. Guard troops will build new walls in cities and patrol roads and barriers in the desert.

Virginia mustered volunteers for the operation. They trained at Fort Pickett for two weeks in July. The last of three units arrived in Tucson on Monday on a KC-135 cargo plane.

About 30 guardsmen were delayed by troubles with their aircraft, said Col. Mike Harris, commanding officer of the Virginia unit, which will serve until Sept. 30. Harris also will direct troops from other states deploying on two-week rotations.

The Virginia guardsmen are based in Tucson and spread out at posts between the Arizona border towns of Nogales and Lukeville.

"We're already working," Harris said.

Troops have begun to man observation posts in Nogales and the desert. The Tucson corridor is the busiest crossing for Mexican immigrants. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended 439,000 immigrants last year in this section of the desert, more than three times the number of detainees caught in San Diego.

As of late July, border agents had captured 794,000 immigrants trying to cross into Southwestern states.

Virginia and other hurricane-prone states were initially exempted from the operation until after storm season. But slow responses from a stretched N ational G uard forced leaders to ask E ast C oast states for volunteers.

Virginia officials say they can handle their emergency responsibilities at home during the southwestern deployment. The Virginia Army and Air National Guard have about 8,200 troops.

The small, run-down border towns and mesquite and rattlesnake-filled desert will be their workplace out west.

As Hawkins drove along the streets of Nogales early Monday, small crowds gathered along a small-town Main Street shopping district lined with Spanish boutiques and grocers.

Less than a half-mile away, up a few steep hills, stood a 15-foot steel fence, topped with metal grating that hung over into Mexico.

The 4.5-mile fence testified to the long relationship the border patrol has had with reserve units, Hawkins said. National Guard engineers and Marine Corps reservists built large sections of the steel barrier, which was finished in 1999.

Along its base, large patches have been welded over openings cut through by smugglers. Border agents have shifted some of their efforts to tunnels dug underneath the wall.

Drug smugglers also have hired children to toss balls of heroin over the fence and into a waiting dealer's yard, Hawkins said. Agents drive along the fence in "rock-proof" trucks, up-armored with metal grates across the windshields to survive melon-sized stones lobbed over the wall.

About a mile west of Nogales, the steep, rocky hills and green valleys have held smuggling paths for generations. Virginia troops have set up new observation posts, Hawkins said.

Agents also have several unmanned cameras with infrared sensors stationed on the desert ridges. Senior Border Patrol Agent Shannon Stevens said apprehensions of illegal immigrants have dropped 9 percent in the Tucson region compared with the same time last year.

Stevens said the border patrol believes the National Guard troops have played a role in reducing the number of illegal crossings. The summer heat, which can strike 120 degrees in the desert, also discourages illegal immigration.

On Monday, a group of Kentucky guardsmen and border agents trudged cut railroad rails up steep, mud-and-rock trails around Mariposa Canyon.

Hawkins, who has patrolled the area for seven years, said it's a favorite place for smugglers to pack hundreds of pounds of marijuana into pick up s and speed for the border.

If they avoid the mesquite bushes, mudslides and authorities, they can break on to the city streets and melt into traffic. The Kentucky guardsmen brought heavy equipment and welding materials to build steel barriers across the smuggler's trails. They arrived Sunday and began working the next day.

Hawkins said the border patrol constantly tries to stay steps ahead of Mexican gangs moving people and drugs. Guard troops from Virginia and around the country will help free border agents to work the front lines, he said.

"We have to improvise," he said. "These ideas don't come from think tanks."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Approves More Offshore Drilling


The Senate voted Tuesday to open 8.3 million acres of federal waters in the central Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling, setting up a confrontation with the House which wants even more drilling in waters now off-limits.

Supporters said the measure would be a major step toward producing more domestic energy and forcing down natural gas prices that have soared in recent years.

The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 71-25. It now must be reconciled with much broader drilling legislation passed by the House in June. Those negotiations are likely to begin in September.

"This bill will substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas. … It brings more American energy to American consumers," declared Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Likewise, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., called the legislation "welcome news for the people of the United States" for homeowners facing high heating bills as well as for manufacturers and chemical companies that have seen natural gas costs soar.

Some critics of the legislation noted that it will be years before any oil or gas will be taken from the 8.3 million acres and that the legislation falls short of addressing many of the country's energy problems.

At best "this will supply a small amount of gas years from now," said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who decried the inability to broaden the legislation beyond drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Still, the bill attracted wide, bipartisan support as lawmakers sought to show the flag on energy as they prepared to leave for the monthlong summer recess. The House is already gone.

Some senators noted that natural gas prices jumped by 11 percent this week amid concern about supplies because of the intense summer heat. The price was at more than $8 a thousand cubic feet on the spot market, compared to under $6 a few weeks ago.

[Soldier4Christ]

Marine to get revenge for flying U.S. flag?
Law signed by Bush could help man at war with homeowners association

A patriotic Marine who has been at war with his homeowners association and local government for flying an American flag on his property may finally be able to wave his troubles good-bye and recoup thousands of dollars, thanks to a new law taking effect Monday.

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 – signed by President Bush last week – prevents a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real-estate management association from denying an owner or resident from displaying the U.S. flag on their residential property within the association.

The measure is a huge relief to George Andres, a 69-year-old veteran who has spent some $70,000 in legal fees and fines since the homeowners association in his Indian Creek subdivision objected to the flagpole on his front lawn at the start of the millennium.

"It wasn't worth it, but it was worth it," Andres told the Jupiter Courier. "How can somebody sue over a flag?"

Andres has been battling since 2000 when his homeowners association ordered him not fly the flag on a flagpole, suggesting he instead fly it on his house. But Andres says that suggestion violated municipal codes in this south Florida town.

The Indian Creek homeowners association had placed a lien on Andres' home, but failed in court to foreclose on the property.

Andres is now hoping the new federal measure will help him as he seeks to get back the money spent for defending his ability to fly Old Glory.

"Too many people have died protecting that flag," Andres told the Courier. "It's a passion that gets into you."

Andres has online support from people posting messages on the paper's website:

# "Good for him. These people need to get a life and worry about real things like the wars we've got going on." (Chris Mangen)

# "This is an example of how HOA abuse their power. Instead of using HOA fees in a positive manner, they attempted to foreclose on the property. It just goes to show that HOAs are really out for themselves." (Paul Bennett)

# "HOAs are mini governments with the power to tax and levy fines but without the checks and balances to ensure they represent the people fairly. ... A hostile HOA board can destroy the harmony of a community and drive home values down. In this case, the HOA wasted association funds to harass one individual and only the lawyers profit." (Ed Blackburn)

# "Go for it, George. You are a man to be admired for your courage and determination. I really hope you bankrupt your oppressors."

[Soldier4Christ]

CDC Conference Dismisses Abstinence Education
Witness Claims Traditional View Mocked


(AgapePress) - Though the federal government spends millions of dollars promoting abstinence to America's youth, it appears that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to get the memo.

That is the conclusion of Focus on the Family sexual health analyst Linda Klepacki, who attended the 2006 National STD Prevention Conference, sponsored by the CDC in May. With the laudable goal of preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), the conference was attended by more than 1,300 public health professionals and academics.

Klepacki, however, was shocked at the ideological tone permeating what was supposed to be a conference based on scientific fact. "It was blindingly clear that the majority of the attendees wished Christian conservatives would go away and let them tell our young people how to have sex at any age, at any time, with anyone," she said.

As the dates for the CDC conference approached, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), a supporter of abstinence education, noticed that the conference appeared to promote a lopsided view of the entire issue. The conference's symposium on the subject was titled, "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" There wasn't a single speaker scheduled who favored either abstinence-only education or the federal support of such programs.

According to online magazine Slate's Amanda Schaffer, Souder proceeded to contact an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and demanded more ideological balance at the symposium. Apparently, the CDC acquiesced, adding two pro-abstinence speakers: Dr. Eric Walsh, an instructor at the Family Medicine School of Medicine at Loma Linda University, and Dr. Patricia Sulak, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Texas A&M University's College of Medicine, and founder of the abstinence program Worth the Wait.

Souder's attempt to add balance apparently failed, according to Klepacki's account of the conference in an article in CitizenLink. Despite the views of the two token abstinence proponents, the entire approach of the conference was a haughty, sneering indictment of traditional beliefs about sex and marriage. For example, Klepacki said:

    * Dr. Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health said the government should not be about the business of promoting marriage, which, he said to cheers, is a homophobic institution anyway.
    * Dr. John Santelli of Columbia University told the gathered conference attendees that when it came to the subjects of sex and marriage, "You know a whole lot more than parents."
    * Dr. King Holmes of the University of Washington, the last plenary speaker, told the conference that he hoped that one day "a gigantic condom would cover the Washington Monument."

Santelli recently made waves with two articles he wrote for the Journal of Adolescent Health. In them he dismissed abstinence programs as failures and "morally problematic" because they deny adolescents the "fundamental human rights" to a full explanation of contraceptives and access to condoms, with or without parental approval. Santelli said federal funding of abstinence programs in schools should be repealed.

His charges were answered by a paper issued by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health titled "The Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact or Fallacy?" That report analyzed Santelli's criticisms of abstinence programs and "found a significant number of serious omissions, misrepresentations, deviations from accepted practices, and opinions presented as facts."

With such a biased approach so prevalent at the conference, how did attendees respond when Sulak spoke? At one point during a question-and-answer session, Sulak said, "I think we can all agree, even from a purely medical standpoint, that high schoolers ought not to be having sex."

Klepacki said, "She was shouted down with a boisterous and unified ‘No!'"

"It's clear that tolerance and inclusion extends only so far in the world of public health," Klepacki noted. "There is no tolerance of conservatives, especially if they are religious. We were clearly an un-tolerated minority [at the conference] that was mocked, booed and smeared."

That an anti-family ideology should have taken root so deeply at the CDC and among the medical professionals who are working to halt the epidemic of STDs among the nation's youth is distressing. Klepacki said the response to Sulak's view was "just a further demonstration of the political and social push for our children to be sexually active."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Rejects Minimum Wage Hike, Estate Tax Cut


Senate Democrats late Thursday refused to accept a bill raising the nation's minimum wage because the bill also would have eliminated the "death tax" on estates up to $5 million.

Republicans needed 60 votes to cut off debate and bring the bill to a vote -- but in the end, they managed to muster only 57 votes.

Furious Democrats called it "sham" legislation and they accused Republicans of "trickery."

"Americans are too smart to be tricked into foregoing middle class tax relief, so America can borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to give tax breaks to a wealthy few," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

According to Reid, the bill would have "bankrupted" the country by adding $800 billion to the national debt.

"It's unimaginable Republicans would deny millions of small business a research and development tax credit, it's unimaginable Republicans would deny 15 million workers a $2.10 raise, it's unimaginable Republicans would deny millions of middle class families tax relief, if 8,000 of their wealthy friends don't get billion-dollar tax breaks first," Reid said.

Reid said the American people will "see through these political games."

The Senate has now adjourned for its August recess, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he worries what kind of message senators are sending to their constituents by refusing to bring the minimum wage/estate tax bill to the floor for a vote: "That's tantamount to saying, 'We don't care about America's economic security.' And I'm deeply ashamed that we, the United States Senate, would ever dare send such a message to the American people," Frist said.

The Washington Post reported that 38 Democrats, one independent and two Republicans -- Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) -- refused to support the bill, while four Democrats joined a majority of Republicans in trying to let the bill proceed to a vote.

Conservative groups such as the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) oppose increases in the minimum wage. Government wage controls are no different than government price controls, IPI contends, adding that minimum wage increases end up harming the people they are designed to help.

"The minimum wage is a tricky issue, because everyone wants workers to get a 'fair' wage (enough to live on), but not to the extent a mandated minimum destroys jobs by making the cost of new hires too big for some businesses," IPI Senior Research Fellow George Pieler wrote in an email to Cybercast News Service.

"Raising the minimum wage doesn't make it harder for people to look for work, but it means (other things being equal) fewer jobs available at the given price point when the minimum wage goes up," Pieler stated.

Most liberals who favored a higher minimum wage opposed the estate tax cut. They were also strongly opposed a provision in the Senate bill that they say would have eliminated state-approved minimum wages for employees who receive tips.

The Senate bill would have superseded minimum wage laws in California, Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, according to liberal Democrats such as Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Boxer was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as labeling the measure dealing with the state minimum wage laws "a devastating proposal."

The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) described the estate tax cut and other measures submitted by the Senate's Republican majority as "sweeteners to purely attract votes." But CBPP Executive Director Robert Greenstein warned that middle-class taxpayers eventually would have to pay more in order to compensate for the reduction in taxes on wealthy estates.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which bills itself as "nonpartisan," has released a study showing that 8.3 million workers would benefit from the minimum wage increase by 2009, when the average yearly income for full-time minimum-wage workers would rise from the current $10,712 per year to $15,080 per year.

EPI's report also said that estate-tax relief would benefit 8,200 households by 2011. "This [legislation] is more of an excuse to address the estate tax," CBPP Senior Fellow Joel Friedman said.

William Dickens, a senior economic fellow at the "independent" minded Brookings Institution, also supported boosting the minimum wage and rejected the theory that it would reduce the number of available jobs.

"No study I'm aware of has demonstrated that minimum wage increases lead to layoffs. What they show is that the total number of hours worked at affected firms drop," Dickens wrote Cybercast News Service in an email. "The employment reduction can also take place through attrition. But even if someone does lose a job, the low wage labor market is pretty fluid," he added.

Earning power is not based on a higher minimum wage, but rather on education, Pieler noted. There is "plenty of reason to stay at least through high school and preferably beyond ... but a higher minimum wage can reduce opportunities for high-school age workers who may want that option," he said.

The U.S. House on July 28 passed its version of the minimum wage increase bill by a vote of 230 to 180. That bill would hike the minimum wage from the current $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour in 70 cent increments over three years.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pension Overhaul Bill Sent to President

Congress passed major pension legislation designed to assure American workers, including millions of baby boomers nearing the end of their working careers, that the pensions they have been promised will be there when they retire.

The Senate, in its last vote before adjourning for a four-week summer break, approved the 900-page bill that compels employers with defined-benefit pension plans to meet their funding obligations and seeks to prevent companies from terminating plans and shifting the financial burden to the taxpayer. The House passed the bill last week.

The 93-5 Senate vote late Thursday on the pension bill came shortly after the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 needed to advance a Republican-crafted package that combined an estate tax cut with a federal minimum wage increase.

Republican leaders, unsuccessful earlier this year in moving an estate tax cut through the Senate, tried to attract Democratic votes by linking it to a package of popular middle-class tax breaks and the offer to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over three years.

Democrats, backed by unions pushing for what would be the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years, overwhelmingly rejected the deal.

Votes on the pension bill and the estate tax package became possible after leaders from the two parties agreed to put off until September final action on a spending bill for the military.

During three days of debate, senators increased the size of the defense package to almost $469 billion with the addition of $13 billion to supplement the $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $1.8 billion to build 370 miles of triple-layer fencing along the border with Mexico.

The pension bill now goes to President Bush for his expected signature and gives lawmakers returning to their states and districts a major achievement in an election-year session characterized more by partisan politics than legislative accomplishments.

"This bill is the most important action to safeguard the retirement of hardworking Americans in a generation," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said.

The legislation affects some 44 million workers and retirees with defined-benefit pension plans, forcing employers with such plans to meet their full funding obligations within seven years. Currently a 90 percent funding level is deemed acceptable.

Companies that fall seriously behind in their contributions must follow an accelerated funding program and are prohibited from taking steps, such as promising new benefits, that could cause further deterioration in their financial status.

"Promises made will be promises kept by limiting when benefits may be increased," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The bill was the result of years of debate and months of negotiations between House and Senate lawmakers trying to work out a formula that would force companies to meet their pension obligations without driving more companies toward terminating their plans and shifting benefit responsibility to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

The PBGC, the federal agency that insures pension plans, has accumulated a deficit of $22.8 billion, in part from taking over defunct steel and airline industry pensions. There is concern that a rash of future terminations could result in a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout.

The legislation carves out special treatment for the airline industry, giving airlines that are in bankruptcy court and have frozen their pension plans an extra 10 years above the seven years for other plans to become financially whole.

That would directly benefit Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines Corp. (NWACQ), although two others with active defined-benefit plans, American Airlines and Continental Airlines Inc. (CAL), would be eligible for the same break if they decided to freeze their plans. Otherwise they would get 10 years - the seven plus an extra three - to reach full funding after the new rules go fully into effect in 2008.

Northwest, in a statement, said the bill "will save the pension benefits of 73,000 current and former Northwest employees."

"The winners are tens of thousands of employees in the airline industry, confronted within the next 30 to 60 days with the loss of up to 70 percent of their pensions with them going on the back of the PBGC," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., a leading advocate of the airline provision. Delta is based in Georgia.

Critics of the legislation said that it does little to reverse the trend of employers dropping defined-benefit plans in favor of less secure defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s.

"Except for the helpful relief for airlines and multiemployer plans, the new funding regime for most companies will inject more unpredictability into their pension financial obligations," said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents companies with defined-benefit plans.

But the bill also won praise for encouraging Americans, particularly young workers, to save for their retirements through such steps as allowing the automatic enrollment of workers into 401(k) plans.

The bill also:

_Makes permanent provisions in a 2001 tax cut law that raised annual contribution limits for IRAs.

_Ends the legal uncertainty surrounding cash balance pension plans, which have run into legal challenges from employees who have claimed that older workers lose out when employers switch from traditional defined-benefit plans.

_Permits qualified financial firms that manage investment firms to offer face-to-face investment advice to help employees manage 401(k) and other retirement options.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Is Estate Tax Reform Dead?

Senate Republicans' attempt to push through a permanent cut in the estate tax before adjourning was nothing short of a spectacular flop.

Despite having sweetened the tax cut with a minimum wage hike and provisions extending a host of popular tax breaks, the Senate leadership tempted only one senator who hadn't previously supported it: Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., gave in, but only thanks to a last-minute add-on that would have paid for the cleanup of abandoned coal mines.

The defeat seems all the more glaring because it comes on the heels of two other failed attempts to get the estate tax through the Senate--one as recently as June.

And yet Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., seems hardly chastened. Rather, he has exhorted his opponents to "rethink long and hard" during the four-week recess that began early today, suggesting that another vote is in the offing.

All told, supporters were three votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the legislation, which passed the House handily last week. The final tally, 56-42, reflected Frist's switch from yea to nay--a parliamentary tactic needed to preserve his flexibility to bring up the bill again later this session. But will another attempt really stand a chance?

A third of the Senate is up for reelection in November, and legislation to permanently lower the estate tax is popular with voters. If nothing is done, the estate tax will disappear altogether in 2010 before snapping back in 2011 at the older, far steeper rates. Few would relish such a turn of events.

Republicans are betting that Democrats will come back to Washington repentant after taking heat from voters, many of whom might also be dismayed by the defeat of the minimum wage hike. Groups working to repeal what they call the "death tax" will surely pull out all the stops to make August a very uncomfortable month for the waverers. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., are seen as prime targets for such pressure.

But Republicans are also at risk of voter backlash on the issue of policy leadership. Many supporters of estate tax repeal or reform are scratching their heads over Frist's strategy.

"Why would you couple estate tax reform with a minimum wage hike?" asks William Beach of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "If you really want to pass something, you have a standalone bill that the Democrats want to sponsor."

Lost amid all the political rhetoric is the fact that there is a consensus in the Senate for estate tax reform: Democrats want to lower the tax--albeit by a smaller amount than Republicans want--and they prefer to carve out exemptions in special circumstances or for particular industries. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ariz., one of only four Democrats to vote yes on last night's bill, has floated such a plan, and it enjoys widespread support.

Regardless of the merits of the approach, it represents the best chance of compromise on an issue that is important to voters.

"There's no question that there are cases where this is a tough tax," says Gary Bass, executive director of Americans for a Fair Estate Tax, which advocates a moderate lowering of the tax.

With the old rates slated to return in 2011, it won't be long before the need for reform becomes urgent. The Senate leadership would be wise to not put off making a genuine stab at reform, as eventually it will become a consumer issue rather than just an irritant to small-business owners and the wealthy, warns Bass.

"How in the world will a family do estate tax planning?" he asks.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lesbian custody ruling
'tramples' parent rights 
Case challenging reach of civil union law
likely will be decided by Supreme Court

Addressing a dispute over the universality of same-sex civil union laws, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled today the state has exclusive jurisdiction over a child custody battle between two women who were in a lesbian relationship in Virginia.

The case pits Vermont's civil union laws against laws in Virginia that preserve traditional marriage, limiting matrimony to one man and one woman.

"Today's ruling tramples on parental rights and state sovereignty," argued Mathew D. Staver, chairman of the public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel.

Pointing out that Virginia law refuses to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, Staver asserted that under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Vermont does not have the right to impose its same-sex union policy on Virginia.

"The Vermont ruling illustrates that same-sex marriage or civil unions will inevitably clash with other states," he said. "This case will have to be resolved at the United States Supreme Court."

The case centers on a dispute between Lisa Miller, represented by Liberty Counsel, and her former partner Janet Jenkins over Miller's biological child.

In December 2000, the two women, while living in Virginia, obtained a civil union in Vermont, which earlier that year became the first state to establish a legal arrangement offering same-sex couples most of the benefits of marriage.

Miller later gave birth to a girl through artificial insemination, but the child was not adopted by Jenkins.

The relationship ended when Miller became a Christian and claimed Jenkins was abusive. Miller, who says she no longer is a lesbian, lives with her daughter in Virginia.

A Vermont court awarded Jenkins "parent-child" contact and visitation. But a Virginia court declared Miller to be the sole parent, ruling the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act barred recognition of civil unions.

Today, Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the case because the women were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.

"This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court's decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order," Dooley wrote.

Liberty Counsel contends that in addition to state law, the cases involve application of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act – which requires courts to recognize out-of-state custody and visitation orders – and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to reject out-of-state, same-sex unions and any rights from that relationship.

Staver pointed out the Miller-Jenkins case is unique because, in addition to dueling federal laws, it represents the first time the courts of two states have issued conflicting decisions over a same same-sex union case.

[Soldier4Christ]

Reporters Shut Out Of Cuba At Key Moment


CHICAGO At a momentous moment in Cuban history -- with long-time strongman Fidel Castro in a sickbed and transferring his power to his brother -- foreign journalists are being shut out of the Communist island.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa reported Thursday that more than 150 foreign journalists trying to enter Cuba with tourist visas have been turned away at the Havana airport since the government announced Castro had internal bleeding and faced "complicated surgery."

Journalists need a work visa to work legally in Cuba, and a spokesman of the government-controlled International Press Center told dpa there would be no exceptions.

"Across the whole world there is currently great interest (in Cuba), but nowhere on the planet can a journalist report with a tourist visa," the agency quoted an unnamed press center representative as saying.

The representative told the agency that no journalists have been expelled from the country, and none are being denied information. Castro, however, in a statement issued in his name Tuesday said that information about his health is a "state secret" that could be exploited by the enemy U.S. government.

The New York City-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urged Cuba to let foreign journalists into the country.

"We call on Cuban authorities to let journalists do their work without harassment or obstruction," Americas program coordinator Carlos Lauria said in a statement. "It is critical that foreign journalists be allowed into Cuba to report the news on the handover of power by Castro, a story of global importance. We are also troubled by reports that Cuba is denying requests for journalists' visas."

[Soldier4Christ]

Star's man in Havana caught by Castro
Star reporter in Havana gets a taste of official Cuba at its most oppressive


HAVANA—"Mr. Timothy, you must come with me. There is a problem in your room."

I had just tucked into a pork sandwich at the hotel bar when the ominous voice from behind stopped me in mid-bite.

I was about to get a hard lesson in the sensitivity to foreign journalists poking around in Cuba as long-time President Fidel Castro — potentially — lingers near death.

For three days here, the Star was prevented from reporting on the situation in this country, even as other journalists arrived on tourist visas and reported without official detection.

Our crime? Playing by the rules, applying for the needed visa upon arrival in Havana, an instance when honesty did not necessarily pay.

As I was escorted by hotel security from the poolside bar, I was led into the main building where waiting for me were a uniformed member of the Cuban ministry of the interior, an official-looking balding gentleman who may have been his superior and a fourth man who appeared as if he could have been a maintenance worker brought along for an interrogation he may have found amusing.

All the while, the hotel security man mumbled something into his wrist.

I was marched through the lobby of my upscale Havana hotel as if I was some type of flight risk who might try to swim to Miami, brought up six flights on the elevator, directed to my room, told to open it so we could deal with the "problem," and made to hand over my passport to the hotel security agent who interrupted my sandwich in the first place.

It was the fifth time in two days here that some official had walked away with my passport without explanation.

This was official Cuba at its most oppressive — a world away from the welcoming vacation beaches known to most Canadians.

The fact that the interior ministry could immediately find me at a hotel restaurant — not in my room — led me to believe that I had been closely monitored during my stay here.

Who had so easily pointed them in my direction? Hotel security? Perhaps the cab driver with whom I chatted on the way back to the hotel, maybe the two young Cuban men with whom I had shared a beer the evening before?

Were they listening in on my phone calls?

That possibility had led to a roll of the eyes and laughter from a government official with whom I had met earlier in the day, but my visit came five hours after I left her office.

"You are a journalist," the government official kept telling me.

I readily agreed, but time and again I told him I had written nothing, mindful of the half-written report that sat on a computer downstairs in the hotel business office.

Where was my camera? They wanted to know.

Who was my boss? Where did I work? Who had I spoken with?

What was that tape recorder doing on my bedside table?

The official, the little man with the tie — none offered identification or names — would gratuitously and randomly throw out English words and phrases, for no apparent reason.

"Be careful, be very, very careful," he said solemnly, his tone reminiscent of some old black-and-white Hollywood product he had once seen.

The only words in English offered by the man in uniform caught me off guard.

"Are you sick?" he said.

I hesitated, wondering whether he was offering a judgment on my state of mind.

"Are you sick?" Then he pointed to a handful of ibuprofen that sat on my desk, an over-the-counter drug I use to ease back pain.

It was made clear that if I wrote anything about Castro, I would be gone, "bye, bye," the one man said as the other chuckled sardonically, but the tone also suggested that my penalty would not be an air-conditioned limousine ride to the airport.

I would never come back to Cuba. Did I understand?

In the midst of the interrogation, a surreal element was injected when the power went off in the hotel. In the darkness, he didn't miss a beat and continued his questioning.

I could go to the pool and enjoy the hotel, I was told.

Could I go downtown, I asked? Oh sure, I was told after a moment's hesitation.

Eventually, it was explained that I was simply being "reminded" about a promise I made at the Havana airport during a four-hour odyssey after which I was finally admitted as a tourist, while vowing to seek the proper papers.

I did, although it was clear no one was eager to accommodate me.

The questions at immigration included queries about what I knew about Castro's illness, how I found out, what did I think of Castro, what kind of stories about the president does my newspaper publish?

After 90 minutes of appeal, I was granted entry, only to face almost three hours more of waiting and sweating at Cuban customs.

Every piece of paper I had in any bags was scrutinized. At one point, six officials huddled in deep conversation while they studied a scrap of paper on which was written my computer password, a piece of gibberish even to English speakers.

I was questioned about an old travel itinerary from Washington to Ottawa, which had been simply left in the bag for no apparent reason.

In fact, anything that indicated my U.S. address came under intense, microscopic scrutiny, including whether I had been to Miami — the scene of loud anti-Castro protests — and whether I knew the "mafia" there.

After a couple of hours, I forged a relationship with my overly efficient customs officer, who ultimately wanted to know if I was rich. That provided a much-needed moment of levity.

Ultimately, I was convicted of a terrible crime and made to hand over the day's copies of The New York Times and The Washington Post, plus some printouts of wire service stories dealing with Castro's illness.

But first, I was asked to offer a cursory translation and everyone huddled around to look at the newspaper accounts.

The paperwork dealing with the seized newspapers — which I gleefully and politely offered to simply hand over — took another 90 minutes of lecturing, passport seizures by one official after another and endless forms handwritten in triplicate.

Finally, here was the Toronto Star's crime — quickly getting to Cuba to try to tell readers about the mood on the street, the fallout of a protracted illness or death of Castro, and the future of the country.

News of Castro's illness broke very late Monday evening.

Six hours later, at 4:30 a.m., I was headed for the Washington airport to catch a flight to Toronto where I could get a connector to Havana. Clearly no time to obtain the needed papers, an explanation that curried no favour here.

So, at the beginning of the third day here, essentially under house arrest, I did what they wanted.

I left.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fidel Castro "back soon": health minister

Cuban leader Fidel Castro is recovering after surgery and "will be back with us soon," the country's health minister said on Friday.

"We know Comandante Fidel will recover soon and will be back with us soon," Jose Ramon Balaguer said during a visit to Guatemala.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush fetes border security improvements

With 6,000 National Guard troops deployed to Southwestern states, President Bush said Saturday he has fulfilled his pledge to help beef up border security and challenged Congress to give him legislation that will welcome more foreigners into the country.

Speaking in his weekly radio address, Bush said immigration reform can only be successful if the get-tough border security to keep people from sneaking in is combined with opportunities for more immigrants to enter the country legally.

"By passing comprehensive immigration reform, we will uphold our laws, meet the needs of our economy and keep America what she has always been — an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land, one nation under God," Bush said Saturday. He recorded the remarks Friday from his ranch near Crawford, Texas, where he is on a 10-day vacation from the White House.

Bush wants to provide more temporary worker permits for foreigners willing to take low-wage jobs and allow illegal immigrants working in the United States for some time to become citizens. But Congress has been unable to agree on such legislation.

Conservatives in Bush's party have stood firm against his plans and say the U.S. should instead strengthen security along the border to keep illegal immigrants out.

In an attempt to appease them, Bush announced in May that he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border by Aug. 1.

"The arrival of National Guard units has allowed the Border Patrol to move more agents into front-line positions, and this additional manpower is delivering results," Bush said in the radio message. "With the support of the National Guard, Border Patrol agents have seized over 17,000 pounds of illegal drugs and caught more than 2,500 illegal immigrants since June 15th."

Bush didn't mention that only about half of the troops assigned to the four states bordering Mexico are on duty along the border. Many are still in training, the Guard said Monday.

Bush said, "Rational and comprehensive immigration reform must begin with border security, and we have more to do." He said he asked Congress to fund increases in manpower and technology, including high-tech fences, motion sensors, infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.

But he said immigration reform must include four other goals to be successful:

_A temporary worker program.

_More ways for employers to verify whether workers are in the country legally.

_A path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already working in the country.

_Tools to help immigrants learn English and otherwise assimilate.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush happy with draft U.N. resolution

President Bush has signed off on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ending fighting in the Mideast and is "happy with the progress being made," his spokesman said Saturday.

But the president knows there could be a long road before violence stops, White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

"I don't think he has any delusions about what lies ahead," said Snow, accompanying Bush on his vacation to his private ranch.

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser
Stephen Hadley arrived at the ranch Saturday to consult with Bush as the full Security Council began discussions on the agreement reached by France and the United States.

The draft calls for Hezbollah to stop all attacks and for
Israel to stop "offensive military operations." But it would allow Israel to defend itself if attacked.

The agreement broke weeks of deadlock at the U.N., where France and other nations called for an immediate stop to all hostilities.

Israel, backed by the U.S., has insisted it must have the right to respond if Hezbollah launches missiles against it.

"The president knew this was going on and he's happy with the progress being made," Snow said. "He's happy with it. He's signed off on it."

Snow said there would be a second resolution offered at the U.N. "There's still more to do," Snow said. "There's going to be more than one resolution."

Bush did not have any plans to speak to other foreign leaders Saturday, Snow said, including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"I don't know if he needs to," Snow said. "I haven't heard Olmert complaining"

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. planning for post-Castro Cuba

The United States has big plans for Cuba once Fidel Castro is gone for good.

The administration is prepared to assist a pro-democracy transition government in Cuba — assuming one materializes in the aftermath of communist rule.

Just how far the administration is willing to go in support of a democratic outcome was underscored in an official document made public just three weeks before Castro, citing an intestinal ailment, relinquished power to his younger brother, Raul.

The document was written by the Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba, appointed by
President Bush and chaired by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. It was a follow-up to a similar report issued two years ago.

The two reports, neither of which have received much attention, focus on the tasks that the commission believes United States should address in the post-Castro era, so long as Cuban authorities are agreeable.

Very little about Cuba's presumed needs escaped the commission's gaze.

As the panel sees it, the administration should "assist with garbage trucks" to ensure proper trash collection and disposal and water trucks to help thirsty communities.

The aid program also should provide "soap, disinfectant, and cleaning materials to vulnerable groups."

In addition, Uncle Sam's envoys should be on hand to suggest options if food prices on the island spiral out of control.

Obviously, the report also addresses the major issues that Cuba could confront — issues that help define a nation. It recommends U.S. help in the dissolution of Cuba's one-party system and its replacement by "a level playing field for a competitive political process." It also urges the establishment of an American training program on the principles and functioning of a free press.

The administration's byword these days for Cuba is "transition," which appears almost 400 times in the more recent of the two reports, 95 pages long.

In contrast, Cuban officials scoff at the notion that a transition is needed, insisting that a seamless communist "succession" from Fidel Castro will take place.

But the administration sees the prospective demise of Castro, relegated to the sidelines weeks before his 80th birthday, as an opportunity that must not be squandered.

Castro is, after all, the man who dealt a humiliating defeat to the United States at the Bay of Pigs, helped bring the world close to a nuclear holocaust during the 1962 missile crisis and has steadfastly opposed America's blueprint for the world for virtually all of his 47 years in power.

The United States has plenty of resources to toss Cuba's way in the post-Castro era. But its record of nation building in recent years is widely considered to border on failure. Exhibit A is
Iraq.

Cuban officals are only too happy to draw parallels between the American experience with ousting a hostile leader in Iraq and its aspirations for Cuba.

"Regime change: that's the concept that they (the Americans) have applied in Iraq," Cuban National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon said recently, implying that Washington would do no better in orchestrating a transition to democracy in Cuba.

Cuba lacks the sectarian divisions that have played havoc with nation building in Iraq. What is still in question is the number of Cubans who will be willing to scuttle the current system and embrace multi-party democracy.

"We need a reality check here," said Wayne Smith, America's top diplomat to Havana from 1979 to 1982. "Anyone who knows Cuba knows the Cuban people aren't going to rise up against a successor regime."

Rice disagrees, telling the Cuban people Friday an address over U.S.-government run broadcast facilities:

"The United States respects your aspirations as sovereign citizens, and we will stand with you to secure your rights to speak as you choose, to think as you please, to worship as you wish, and to choose your leaders freely and fairly in democratic elections," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Attacks against Iraqi civilians climb

Up to 80 percent of the attacks in one of Iraq's most troubled provinces are against civilians rather than the U.S. military, a deliberate shift in tactics over the past eight months, a U.S. commander said Friday.

The description of kidnappings, assassinations and other attacks in Diyala province followed testimony Thursday by two U.S. generals to Congress that an upsurge in violence in Iraq could drive the country into civil war.

"Initially we were the target of just about 60 percent of the attacks," Col. Brian Jones, commander of the 4th Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, said Friday.

Now, he said, "we are seeing anywhere from 20 to 25 percent of the attacks, and a majority of the attacks are now amongst the civilian population."

The attacks in Diyala, north of Baghdad, often are assassinations or kidnappings for extortion, Jones told
Pentagon reporters in a briefing from Iraq.

The Bush administration and military leaders have been reluctant to characterize the sectarian violence as a civil war. But on Thursday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told a Senate committee that it could lead that that.

Jones said the kidnappings provide money for insurgent operations, but it is not clear whether the abductions are orchestrated by local militia groups or foreign fighters.

"It's very difficult to classify what's being conducted by insurgents as opposed to what's sectarian because there are so many interests that collide here in Diyala," Jones said. He noted that while Sunnis accounts for a majority of the population, the provincial government is run more by Shiites and Kurds.

Jones offered an optimistic assessment of the Iraqi Army units in his region, saying he believes they will be ready to operate on their own by the end of this year or the middle of next year. He said the units are not independent yet because they lack military intelligence capabilities and logistical support, such as the ability to get enough gas to run their trucks.

When asked why the Iraqi Army's progress has not stemmed the violence, he said the situation would be much worse without them.

"I can't imagine what the violence would be like if the (Iraqi) army wasn't working," he said. "I think what you'll see is a peak in the violence, and I think it'll start to drop off.