YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

 House passes Coast Guard bill despite Bush veto threat

Defying President Bush's threatened veto, the House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill making the Coast Guard enforce security zones around eight liquefied natural gas terminals and any arriving tankers _all potential terrorism targets.
ADVERTISEMENT

The White House has complained that the requirement would divert the Coast Guard from other high-priority missions and provide an "unwarranted subsidy" for LNG owners.

The 395-7 vote margin on the $8.4 billion Coast Guard bill was well beyond the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. Seven Republicans voted against the measure.

After the vote, the White House praised the passage of a GOP-backed amendment to the bill that permits the Coast Guard to take into account agency, state and local government security resources when deciding on security plans for LNG sites.

"The administration remains concerned about several key provisions in the House bill," said White House spokesman Trey Bohn. "However, the veto threat prompted members to adopt a Republican amendment which made significant changes to the bill. We will continue to work with members of Congress as this legislation moves forward."

The Senate is considering its own version of the bill.

Democrats scoffed at the White House's objections, saying Bush is ignoring the huge security threat posed by LNG sites on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

"I am simply appalled that this administration would refer to protecting our families as an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who chairs the House Transportation subcommittee that oversees the Coast Guard.

A dozen more LNG terminals are being planned due to increased demand for natural gas and limited domestic supplies.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said the LNG security provision could hamper the flow of much-needed natural gas as energy prices and demand rise. "We're creating more red tape and more impediments," Mica said.

The Government Accountability Office says a terrorism attack on an LNG tanker arriving at a terminal could ignite an explosion and fire so fierce that people a mile away would be burned. But GAO auditors also say the Coast Guard is already stretched too thin to meet its own standards for protecting arriving LNG tankers from attack.

The bill also sets stricter crime reporting requirements for cruise ships and requires double hulls around fuel tanks on large cargo ships to prevent catastrophic oil spills like the one in San Francisco Bay in November.

To address complaints that crimes aboard cruise ships are underreported, the bill makes line operators report to the Homeland Security Department all security incidents, including deaths, serious bodily injuries and sexual assaults.

Cruise lines also are required to post crime statistics on an Internet site maintained by the Coast Guard, with links from the cruise line public Web sites.

"Sometimes, even cruise ships need sunshine," said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif.

Cruise lines last year announced a voluntary agreement with the FBI and the Coast Guard to improve and standardize crime reporting.

"The bottom line is, the crime statistics provided by the cruise industry are inaccurate and inadequate," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn. "This has got to change."

Cruise line industry officials say the reporting requirement is redundant, since they are already doing so voluntarily.

The bill also addresses a problem that has plagued the Great Lakes region: invasive species that sneak into U.S. waters aboard oceangoing cargo ships and wreak havoc. Oceangoing ships would be required to install ballast water treatment equipment to keep foreign species from U.S. waters.

Ballast tanks help stabilize ships in rough ocean waters. But ballast water is widely considered a leading source of aquatic invaders, which compete with native species for food and habitat.

At least 185 invasive species have been identified in the Great Lakes, including zebra and quagga mussels, which clog water pipes and do more than $150 million worth of damage a year.

"This is a great day for the Great Lakes and the coastal areas," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich. "Let's get out there and fight those nasty zebra mussels."

The bill also would increase the Coast Guard by 1,500 members to 47,000. Another provision would tighten agency management controls over Deepwater, the $24 billion program to modernize the agency's aging fleet. It has been plagued by cost overruns, design flaws and lax oversight.

[nChrist]

It sure is nice that we are being given politically correct language to use when we talk about terrorists.  For those wondering, read the article two posts back.

I'm not going to worry about being politically correct, but I will try to be more accurate. Being politically correct will be my LAST CONCERN - IF ANY AT ALL.

How about:

Cowardly lunatics who kill, maim, and torture women, children, and other innocents while claiming to do so in the name of Islam.

or

Those claiming from Islam a Holy Hatred and obligation for genocide and human extermination based on religious beliefs.

Would the above be more accurate?

[HisDaughter]

"Islamo-fascism"

Fascism:                                 

totalitarianism                         
despotism
dictatorship
repression
oppression

I calls em' as I sees em'.

[nChrist]

Fascism:                                 

totalitarianism                         
despotism
dictatorship
repression
oppression

I calls em' as I sees em'.

    

UM? - Is it possible that many of us are suffering from lack of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? NO, we don't SUFFER from telling the TRUTH! It HURTS more if we avoid the TRUTH or act like the TRUTH doesn't exist.

[Soldier4Christ]

Measure would benefit injured, disabled vets

Congressman Steve Pearce is touting a bill that would make it easier for injured or disabled military members to land a non-combat job in their branch of the armed forces.

Pearce (R-New Mexico) says very few of the American young people who are wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan get the opportunity to remain in uniform and make a career. To address that issue, he has introduced the Wounded Warriors Retention Act, a measure that would allow those injured or disabled in combat to get preferential consideration for desk jobs that serve logistical support roles.
 
"We got to looking all the way back to the Vietnam War and found that our disabled vets really did have difficulty just living life," the lawmaker points out. "Now these are the people who we sent over to fight for us, and then we kind of forget them. So we said let's not forget; most of them can make their own way -- they just need some sort of ability to stay in the service."
 
Pearce notes it takes seven people to put every soldier on the field. He argues it is a "tremendous" waste of human service unless those returning from the battlefield are given an opportunity to continue to serve their country.
 
"And the consequence of not doing that is that if we just pitch these people out on the street, they're looking at a 50 percent chance of being unemployed," he points out. "I have a brother in a wheelchair, so I've watched that since 1974 -- he's always found a job, but he's in that community of disabled."
 
Pearce, who says he does not anticipate opposition to the bill, calls it "a powerful piece of legislation that speaks to the heart of America." He also says "it's the right thing to do" for individuals who have "made a deep sacrifice."
 
The Republican from the Land of Enchantment is giving up his House position to run for the seat being vacated by longtime Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico), who is retiring.

[Soldier4Christ]

New York strikes blow for 1st Amendment
Governor signs law protecting residents against suits in foreign courts

New York state fought back today against terrorism apologists who have used foreign libel laws to silence opponents as Gov. David Paterson signed a law granting protections under the First Amendment.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act was inspired by New York-based author Rachel Ehrenfeld's battle with a British court over her 2003 book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Funded and How to Stop It."

New York officials said the law will make it more difficult for "libel tourists" to threaten authors and publishers with foreign libel suits. It bars enforcement of a libel judgment in foreign courts unless a New York court determines the decision is consistent with the free speech and free press protections guaranteed by the U.S. and New York state constitutions.

"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."

Ehrenfeld, a WND contributor, called the law "a wonderful precedent," according to Publisher's Weekly.

She intends to "go back to court and win the case" and hopes "other American authors will continue to expose what needs to be exposed and that publishers will not be shy in publishing it."

Britain's libel law has been used in a number of instances against writers who speak out against international terrorism.

As WND reported, Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz filed suit against Ehrenfeld after she named him in her New York-published book as a funder of Islamic charities that supported terrorism.

She asserts there are more than 10 lawsuits outstanding by numerous plaintiffs in the U.S. claiming billions of dollars in damages from Mahfouz's alleged involvement in financing the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Center.

Only 23 copies of her book were sold in the United Kingdom, but Mahfouz took advantage of the country's liberal laws and filed the suit there, charging damage to his reputation.

The British court issued a $225,000 judgment against Ehrenfeld after she refused to appear, on advice of her counsel in Britain. The author then sought a judgment in New York declaring the British decision unenforceable in the U.S., because her work is protected under American law.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled Ehrenfeld's suit could not be heard under state law unless legislature made changes.

Paterson, who succeeded disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer last month, urged the federal government to take similar action.

"Although New York state has now done all it can to protect our authors while they live in New York, they remain vulnerable if they move to other states, or if they have assets in other states," said Paterson. "We really need Congress and the president to work together and enact federal legislation that will protect authors throughout the country against the threat of foreign libel judgments."

State Sen. Dean G. Skelos noted "the truth is a critically-important component of the war on terror."

"American authors, like Dr. Ehrenfeld, who expose terrorist networks and their financiers should not be subject to intimidation and lawsuits in foreign courts designed to circumvent our First Amendment rights," he said. "This is important legislation, and I thank Governor Paterson for signing it into law."

WND reported last year Cambridge University Press defaulted on a libel suit filed by Mahfouz, issuing an apology and agreeing to pay court fees and damages and destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors.

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, said at the time that Cambridge University Press's apology had "ominous implications" for investigators of terrorism financing.

[Soldier4Christ]

National DNA database gets kickstart from feds
Tests could reveal facts 'making individual less useful to society'

With virtually no fanfare, President Bush signed into law a plan ordering the government to take no more than six months to set up a "national contingency plan" to screen newborns' DNA in case of a "public health emergency."

The new law requires that the results of the program – including "information … research, and data on newborn screening" – shall be assembled by a "central clearinghouse" and made available on the Internet.

According to congressional records, S.1858, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was approved in the Senate Dec. 13, in the House April 8 and signed by Bush April 24.

"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," said Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."

Brase has objected extensively to plans in Minnesota to provide state government the same option now handed to the federal government by Congress.

The bill, she said, strips "citizens of genetic privacy rights and DNA property rights. It bill also violates research ethics and the Nuremberg Code.

"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research," Brase continued. "It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research.

"Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota 'DNA warehouse' have been subjected to genetic research without their parent's knowledge or consent," she said.

The federal plan sets up the coast-to-coast DNA collections then report the results to "physicians and families" as well as educate families about newborn screening.

"We now are considered guinea pigs, as opposed to human beings with rights," said Brase, warning such DNA databases could spark the next wave of demands for eugenics, the concept of improving the human race through the control of various inherited traits. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated eugenics to cull from the population types of people she considered unfit.

In 1921, Sanger said eugenics is "the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems," and she later lamented "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Such DNA collection programs are offered as screening requirements to detect treatable illnesses. Currently, the type of tests conducted varies from state-to-state, but the Health Resources and Services Administration has requested a report that would "include a recommendation for a uniform panel of conditions."

"Fortunately," Dodd said when his plan was launched, "some newborn screening occurs in every state. … This legislation will provide resources for states to expand their newborn screening programs."

So what's the big deal about looking into DNA to hunt for various disease possibilities?

Nothing, said Brase, if that's where the hunt would end.

However, she said, "researchers already are looking for genes related to violence, crime and different behaviors."

"This isn't just about diabetes, asthma and cancer," she said. "It's also about behavioral issues."

"In England they decided they should have doctors looking for problem children, and have those children reported, and their DNA taken in case they would become criminals," she said.

In fact, published reports in the UK note that senior police forensics experts believe genetic samples should be studied, because it may be possible to identify potential criminals as young as age 5.

In Britain, Chris Davis of the National Primary Headteachers' Association warned the move could be seen "as a step towards a police state."

Brase said efforts to study traits and gene factors and classify people would be just the beginning. What could happen through subsequent programs to address such conditions, she wondered.

"Not all research is great," she said. Classifying of people could lead to "discrimination and prejudice. … People can look at data about you and make assessments ultimately of who you are."

The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening is one of the organizations that advocates more screening and research.

It proclaims in its vision statement a desire to see newborns screened for 200 conditions. It also forecasts "every student … with an individual program for education based on confidential interpretation of their family medical history, their brain imaging, their genetic predictors of best learning methods…"

Further, every individual should share information about "personal and family health histories" as well as "gene tests for recessive conditions and drug metabolism" with the "other parent of their future children."

Still further, it seeks "ecogenetic research that could improve health, lessen disability, and lower costs for sickness."

"They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan for that child," Brase said. "They want to learn their weaknesses and defects.

"Nobody including and especially the government should be allowed to create such extensive profiles," she said.

The next step, said Brase, is obvious: The government, with information about potential health weaknesses, could say to couples, "We don't want your expensive children."

"I think people have forgotten about eugenics. The fact of the matter is that the eugenicists have not gone away. Newborn genetic testing is the entry into the 21st Century version of eugenics," she said.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has posted a position statement on the issue, noting that many good things can result from genetic testing.

However, it expressed two significant areas of concern.

"History shows that this information will sometimes be leaked or misused, regardless of who controls it. When private companies leak information and break people's confidence, they have often been exposed and punished, as people no longer buy their services or sue. In contrast, when government agencies do the same, the guilty bureaucrats have often been protected and rewarded instead of suffering meaningful consequences," the group said.

The AAPS said in order to do the best possible job of protecting privacy, anyone who has access to DNA data should be "individually liable in the event of unlawful disclosure of genetic testing information. …"

The other area of concern is equally significant.

"Genetic testing could be used for purposes found immoral in the Hippocratic medical tradition. For example, a utilitarian use of testing, in this example also immoral, would be to test for conditions which would make an individual less useful to society for the purpose of killing that person, as has been done in some totalitarian systems, such as Nazi Germany. Likewise, the use of genetic testing in attempts to breed a super race would be immoral and unethical. In these examples, the utility of the person to the society is the deciding factor, a position antithetical to the Hippocratic tradition of primary responsibility to the individual patient rather than to an amorphous society or relativistic social policies," the group said.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was one of the few voices to warn of the dangers. Before the plan's approval, he said, "I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it."

Paul said, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …"

He also said as the federal government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy is coming under assault.

"Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued.

"In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he said.

[nChrist]

National DNA database gets kickstart from feds
Tests could reveal facts 'making individual less useful to society'

With virtually no fanfare, President Bush signed into law a plan ordering the government to take no more than six months to set up a "national contingency plan" to screen newborns' DNA in case of a "public health emergency."

Brothers and Sisters,

This is illegal and Unconstitutional. It isn't just borderline - rather outrageous. As far as I'm concerned, they will need to learn one of three options:  1 )  NO!;  2 ) Get a court order for cases involving reasonable grounds that the person has committed a crime;  3 ) Whistle Dixie in the key of the person's choice. Invasion of a person's body is a serious matter and can only be done with either the person's consent or a court order. If it involves consent for medical treatment, the person receiving treatment decides who has access to that information and must sign a release of information form designating who can get that information.

There are cases involving serious crimes where various identifiers can be taken without the person's consent. Fingerprints and photographs are normal and have been authorized for many years. Other identifiers are quite possible, but they nearly always involve either the person's consent or a court order. In many cases, the other identifiers are used to eliminate the person as a suspect, so it's common for the innocent to consent and clear themselves. The difference here is the limited scope of what those OTHER identifiers can be used for: MAJOR CRIMES.

It's already common for hospitals to take finger and palm prints and footprints to identify newborn babies. This is more than sufficient for positive identification and has one purpose of settling disputes that the parents may have taken the wrong baby home. It also provides proof for a birth certificate and location of birth. OTHER testing is done for MEDICAL TREATMENT ONLY for possible or existing health problems or diseases in the baby. Pre-natal care is for the same purpose. The only other thing that comes to play in some cases involves dangerous communicable diseases that could potentially infect many other people. I might have missed some reasonable uses of identifiers, BUT ESTABLISHING A GOVERNMENT DOSSIER ON NEWBORN BABIES WILL NEVER BE LEGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT THE PARENT'S CONSENT OR A COURT ORDER!

These OTHER IDENTIFIERS are none of the government's business without consent or the appropriate cause in a COURT ORDER. Invasion of a person's body is considered to be the WORST kind of invasion of privacy. It also involves the WORST CASE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE! Property certainly involves a lower level of SEARCH AND SEIZURE, but that also most involve either PROBABLE CAUSE in a CRIME and/or A COURT ORDER. Acceptable methods of SEARCH AND SEIZURE are established by the LAW of the People and the CONSTITUTION of the People. It definitely involves a PERSON'S CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that can't be taken away without a change OF THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION BY THE PEOPLE! In the absence of a LAWFUL change, those participating in the acts of this article would be subject to CIVIL DAMAGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. The only way I know of that LAWFUL changes could be made INVOLVES A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE because RIGHTS in the Constitution would have to be removed! IN OTHER WORDS:  THE GOVERNMENT CAN FORGET THIS OUTRAGEOUS, ILLEGAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT! ANY ATTEMPT TO DO IT ANYWAY SHOULD INVOLVE PRISON! This would be a SERIOUS VIOLATION of civil and Constitutional RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW!

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress to transform America to socialism?

The classic definition of socialism is: government control of the sources of production. A bill now before Congress, H.R. 2421, will give the federal government absolute control over all sources of production. This bill, if enacted, will instantly convert the United States into a socialist nation.

The debate, however, is not about the merits of socialism over capitalism and free markets; the debate is about water. The bill will give to the federal government control over all water in the United States, and control over all "… activities affecting these waters."

Water is essential in the production of virtually everything. If the government controls water, and all "activities affecting these waters," then the government controls the sources of production.

There is absolutely no need for the government to take this draconian step. Water is already regulated far beyond necessity. The control and regulation of water has stripped property rights from people in every state – often for no definable public benefit. This bill will destroy the last vestige of the idea of private property rights.

For more than a generation, the liberal philosophy that government should "manage" society has prevailed in the education system and in practice. The 1973 Endangered Species Act gave the federal government power to declare private property to be "critical habitat" under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Court decisions in the 1980s defined privately owned "wetlands" to be the jurisdiction of the federal government. The 1990s saw the rise of comprehensive planning as the most effective way to control the use of land. Now, we're faced with a bill to give government the power to control the use of water and all "activities affecting these waters," and with it goes all claims to private property rights.

Americans have accepted the idea that the protection of a single population of a sub-species of some bug or weed is more important than the rights of the property owner. Americans have accepted the idea that some appointed planning council knows better how land should be used than the people who own and pay taxes on the land. Now, Americans are expected to accept the notion that government should control the water supply, and thereby control the sources of all production.

With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the current economic downturn, no one seems to be pointing to government's involvement in and mismanagement of the marketplace. Why Americans sat by and allowed government to take their freedom away piecemeal is a mystery posterity will surely ponder. Historically, Americans rallied behind whatever effort it took to keep socialism from overtaking this nation. Now, Congress is moving rapidly toward enacting a law that will effectively embrace socialism.

The voices in Washington in opposition to this transformation are few and are drowned out by big-name officials who command media attention. This condition did not occur overnight. For a generation, a government-controlled education system has produced people who actually believe that government should be the master of society, rather than society being the master of government.

For a generation, these people have been gaining political power in local, state and federal offices. Now, it is difficult to find an elected body of government anywhere that is not dominated by people who believe the power of government must supersede the power of the people.

This condition will not be corrected overnight – if ever. Someone has to teach a new generation why the U.S. Constitution produced the most prosperous nation ever. Someone has to explain to a new generation the difference between a free market and a market managed by government. Someone has to teach a new generation that the exercise of freedom does not require the government's permission.

The "someone" here will be the people who are elected to local, state and federal offices over the next several years. If the people who cherish freedom over government control fail to find and elect like-minded representatives, then freedom will continue to fade and government control – socialism – will continue to flourish.

Listen carefully to the candidates for every office, and reject those who campaign for more government programs and more government control. Identify those in the city council, county commission and in the state legislatures who vote for expanded government control – and vote for their opponents (if they advocate more freedom). Look at the list of cosponsors of H.R. 2421, and tell them to vote against this socialist bill. Read the bill yourself, and don't let your representative tell you that it doesn't expand government power over all "activities affecting these waters."

This bill is expected to see floor action within the next several weeks. If it is enacted, it will not likely ever be undone. Once government gets its hands on new power, it is never relinquished.

[Soldier4Christ]

Emissions bill could harm economy

A new piece of legislation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for creating manmade "catastrophic" global warming, will lead to even higher energy costs and a nearly unprecedented expansion of federal government – says a climate change researcher.

The bill sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and John Warner (R-Virginia) calls for capping carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, transportation and industrial sources to achieve a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.  Lieberman argues the bill "curbs global warming without harming the U.S. economy."

But Marc Morano, minority communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says the Lieberman-Warner bill would do untold damage to the country.

"The U.S. unilaterally trying to reduce emissions by 2050 [or] 2070, as various bills call for, will not have any detectable impact on the climate, pure symbolism – that's point one," he debates. "Point two, now we have a host of government and private sector studies that have come out now just showing that Lieberman-Warner will raise home energy [costs]...[and] it's going to cost jobs all across the board, there is no way to slice it," warns Morano.

The Energy Information Administration projects the Lieberman-Warner bill could lead to increases in Americans' average annual household energy bills of up to $325 in 2020 and $723 by 2030.

Morano also warns that the bill will also create new government agencies that will handle carbon pricing or carbon cap and trade. He believes that creating this type of bureaucracy will expand the federal government to record size.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) recently dared his colleagues to stand up on the Senate floor a month from now and support a bill that will further raise gas prices. The bill is expected to be debated in the Senate in June, but Republicans have vowed to filibuster the measure if it is not amended.

[Soldier4Christ]

Same-sex marriage dispute on fast track
9th Circuit expedites appeal of decision to invalidate petition drive

Oregon citizens who say their rejection of same-sex marriage was quashed by the state legislature scored a small legal victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The appeals court granted a motion by the Alliance Defense Fund to expedite the appeal of a federal court judge's decision that invalidated a voter petition drive.

As WND reported, a coalition of citizen groups want Oregonians to decide on a law that created "domestic partnerships" for homosexuals and lesbians in the state. But state officials contended the petition drive failed because there were too many invalid signatures.

With the margin of failure a mere five votes, several citizens went to their county offices to find out whether their valid signatures had been counted and discovered they had not.

But county officials, citing orders from state officials, refused to count the signatures, prompting a lawsuit from the Alliance Defense Fund.

At a Feb. 1 hearing, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman essentially determined voters in Oregon have no legal right to have their petition signatures counted, the ADF said.

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks contended "no legitimate reason existed to refuse to allow these registered voters to participate in the democratic process."

"Our country is founded on the basic principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people," he said. "It should stay that way in Oregon."

The ADF submitted evidence showing county clerks simply refused petition signers' requests to count their signatures after they had been "wrongfully rejected."

Oregon voters already have rejected same-sex marriage. In 2004, several thousand same-sex couples were given marriage licenses in Multnomah County, prompting Oregonians to approve by a 57-43 percent margin a constitutional ban on homosexual marriages. A court later nullified the licenses.

[Soldier4Christ]

House passes bill
to pinch pennies
Authorizes change at mint to reduce cost
of making coin from 1.26 cents to .7 cent

The House voted for cheaper change today, the kind that would make pennies and nickels worth more than they cost to make and save the country $100 million a year.

The unanimous vote advances the legislation to the Senate, but it's prospects are muddled by objections from the Bush administration and some lawmakers.

The bill would require the U.S. Mint to switch from a zinc and copper penny, which costs 1.26 cents each to make, to a copper-plated steel penny, which would cost .7 cents to make, according to statistics from the Mint and Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, one of the measure's sponsors.

It also would require nickels, now made of copper and nickel and costing 7.7 cents to make, to be made primarily of steel, which would drop the cost to make the five-cent coin below its face value.

Advocates say that such actions would push back against surging metal prices and save taxpayers about $1 billion over a decade.

But even the Mint opposes the House-passed measure.

The legislation directs the Treasury secretary to "prescribe" -- suggest -- a new, more economical composition of the nickel and the penny. Unsaid is the Constitution's requirement that Congress have the final say.

The administration, like others before, chafes at the thought that Congress still clings to that authority.

Mint Director Edmund Moy said this week that the bill was "too prescriptive," in part because it does not explicitly delegate to the Treasury secretary the power to decide the new coin composition.

The bill also gives the public and the metal industry too little time to weigh in on the new coin composition, he said.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is expected to introduce another version of the legislation in the Senate.

[HisDaughter]

Pastors Urged to Preach About Politics, in Hopes of Toppling IRS Ban

NEW YORK — Conservative legal advocates are recruiting pastors nationwide to defy an IRS ban on preaching about politicians, in a challenge they hope will abolish the restriction.

The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.

Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.

However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.

The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.

“It certainly does have a chilling effect,” said Mike Johnson, senior counsel for the fund. “I think that there is a lot of fear and intimidation and disinformation about the parameters that do exist.”

Johnson said about 100 pastors have expressed interest in participating so far.

The IRS has stepped up monitoring of nonprofit political activity during the 2008 election. Punishments can range from a financial penalty to loss of tax-exempt status.

IRS investigations are confidential and the agency does not discuss the cases.

However, the United Church of Christ, which counts Sen. Barack Obama as a member, has said that it is under IRS review because of a speech given by the Democratic presidential candidate at the denomination’s national meeting last year.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington, monitors church political activity and consistently files complaints with the IRS. They said Friday that they will notify the agency of any pastor who participates in the ADF campaign.

Some religious groups support keeping politics out of the pulpit.

J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, which advocates for religious freedom, said churches should be involved in public issues, but partisan activity can “compromise the essential calling to spread the Gospel.”

“The church can’t raise prophetic fist at a candidate or at a party,” Walker said, “when it’s locked up in a tight bear hug with that candidate or party.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

A coalition of faith-based groups has joined forces, calling on Congress to pass resolutions in both houses to focus on the Ten Commandments.

Bill Murray, son of deceased atheist leader Madelyn Murray O'Hair and chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, is part of the pro-Ten Commandments coalition.
 
"Both of these [resolutions] would authorize a Ten Commandments weekend in order to recognize the Ten Commandments as the foundation of law in this country," Murray explains. "But with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, we can't have a voice. We can't get these out and open and celebrate the Ten Commandments," he contends.
 
According to Murray, it will take a grassroots effort to get a vote. "Hopefully, people will get the word that these resolutions exist and call their congressman and call their senators and let them know that we need these passed," Murray points out.
 
Murray says the resolutions are stalled. "The prospect of passing anything that respects our social values and the Christian heritage of the nation is extremely difficult," he laments. "Nancy Pelosi has spent most of the time as House Speaker naming federal buildings .... Over 40 percent of the bills that have passed were to name buildings.
 
"She's done things like putting soybeans in the congressional cafeteria, and nothing happens there," he continues. "And if it has anything to do with the cause of Christ or with social values or family values, it's just totally ignored. It's very difficult and we need to bring pressure to bear upon her to do things like this," Murray urges.
 
Strangely enough, the Supreme Court has a Ten Commandments display, but Congress so far will not budge on honoring them.

[nChrist]

A coalition of faith-based groups has joined forces, calling on Congress to pass resolutions in both houses to focus on the Ten Commandments.

Bill Murray, son of deceased atheist leader Madelyn Murray O'Hair and chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, is part of the pro-Ten Commandments coalition.

I've been reading about the good work of Bill Murray for some time. His mother was a one woman ARMY against CHRIST and probably did more to destroy Biblical values than any ten people in history. I've read that Bill Murray has genuine remorse for the work and accomplishments of his mother and is dedicated to undoing much of her evil work.

The HOLY BIBLE and the Ten Commandments are part of the backbone and foundation of our LAW, regardless of whether Congress and our government wants to admit it or not. This is just PLAIN AND BLUNT HISTORICAL FACTS THAT CAN'T BE DENIED! It would take many years to briefly scan the evidence of THESE FACTS! I must make the point that it would be the HOLY BIBLE - GOD'S WORD - not the books of false religions. Many translations of the HOLY BIBLE are quoted word for word in countless thousands of documents with Chapter and Verse listed. One must remember that Freedom of Religion was one of the MAIN reasons why we fought the Revolutionary War. The Geneva Bible was fairly common for the time because it didn't represent the Forced Religion of England. Regardless, the HOLY BIBLE is a big part of our foundation whether folks like Pelosi like it or not. THAT UNQUESTIONED RECORDED HISTORY CAN'T BE IGNORED, ERASED, OR DENIED! Just for the record, SCHOOL CURRICULUMS INCLUDED THE TEACHING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!