YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Justices let stand mayor's grant of same-sex benefits
Washington Supreme Court won't review decision creating conflict with state law

The Washington Supreme Court has refused to review a lower court's decision that allows the mayor of Seattle to grant same-sex marriage benefits to employees of the city, in apparent conflict with the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which had been upheld by the same Supreme Court.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a values-oriented public interest firm, brought the request to review the conflict with the state law.

The state's Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court, requires that the state not recognize same-sex marriages from outside the state.

However, the mayor of Seattle issued an executive order in direct contradiction of the state law, instructing all city departments to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions now, including California, for the purposes of employee benefits.

Pacific Justice challenged the order by filing suit, arguing the mayor did not have the authority to contradict state law. PJI staff attorney Matthew McReynolds argued the case at the Washington Court of Appeal earlier.

PJI said, "the appellate judges seemed to realize that the mayor's actions were setting a precedent for other mayors to grant benefits for bigamous and incestuous 'marriages.' However, the three judges on the panel sided with the mayor anyway."

Now the Supreme Court has declined to overturn that decision.

"This decision by the highest court in Washington is just another example of the serious attack by judicial and political activists to undermine the voices of voters and the will of the people," Brad Dacus, Pacific Justice president, said. "It is critical that voters amend their state constitutions to ensure the traditional definition of marriage is not thwarted by a handful of government officials."

Pacific Justice Institute encourages church leaders who are concerned about safeguarding their view of marriage to contact their offices. The organization said it already has received dozens of phone calls and e-mails.

In both California and Massachusetts, it was rulings from state Supreme Courts that found it unconstitutional to prevent same-sex duos from having the title "married." The Washington state Supreme Court decision contradicted those.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court concluded state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the state constitution.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, 19 same-sex couples, had argued the ban violates a constitutional prohibition against granting privileges to one group of citizens but not another.

The high court got involved in that decision after a lower court ruled the state's Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

But the state Supreme Court noted in its ruling in 2006, "Although marriage has evolved, it has not included a history and tradition of same-sex marriage in this nation or in Washington State. … It cannot be overemphasized that our state constitution provides for a representative democracy and that the people, who have consented to be governed, speak through their elected representatives. When no fundamental right or suspect class exists, the public consensus, as evidenced by legislation adopted after robust debate, must be given great deference."

[Soldier4Christ]

Define unborn as 'persons,' overturn Roe

Legislators in the nation's capitol hope versions of a bill just introduced in both houses of Congress provides a major piece of the legal standing needed to eventually challenge the basis of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

The "Life at Conception Act" declares the unborn to be persons under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, addressing the question that Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) says the Supreme Court left unresolved in 1973 -- and that only Congress can use to meet the conditions under which the high court said its conclusions supporting legal abortion can be reversed.
 
"Roe versus Wade itself said that if personhood is established, then Ms. Roe's position collapsed," Wicker points out. "In other words, if the fetus is a human life, then that is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment."
 
Ten co-sponsors initially joined Wicker on the Life at Conception Act, whose companion legislation has been introduced in the House this session by Representative Duncan Hunter (R-California). Senate co-sponsors include Republicans Sam Brownback (Kansas), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), Jim Demint (South Carolina), and Mel Martinez (Florida).
 
"The legislation simply says that as a matter of federal law, yes, life does begin at conception and is therefore entitled to all the protections of any life under the Constitution of the United States," the Mississippi Republican explains.
 
Wicker acknowledges that Democrats have not allowed previous incarnations of this bill to the floor for a vote. But he and his co-sponsors are hoping the cause might be taken up now by presumptive Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain in an election year -- or at least brought to the public attention for discussion.

[Soldier4Christ]

Seattle a 'mini-dictatorship'

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute believes the Washington Supreme Court has laid the groundwork for mini-dictatorships.

Marriage in Washington is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Dacus sued the mayor of Seattle after he unilaterally issued an order in 2004 recognizing homosexual "marriage" from other jurisdictions, which now includes California. The state Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal, filed by Dacus, on the lower-court ruling favoring the mayor -- meaning he wins and the people lose, says the attorney.

"This is very alarming when we look at the fact that the people in the United States of America are reliant upon the laws of the land, not the unilateral decisions of mini-dictatorships," says Dacus, who explains that the ruling violates the tenants of democracy in that the people can make a decision, but a local official can reject it.

The decision also permits Seattle to provide benefits to the partners of homosexual employees.

[Soldier4Christ]

The more I read about these politicians and judges making laws and rulings to fit their own agendas and ignore THE PEOPLE that have already ruled against these things the more that I want to do something about it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supreme Court opens up Gitmo lawsuit floodgates; Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

    In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

    The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

    The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act.

I’m reminded of what one DHS source pointed out to me when the high court ruled in favor of habeas corpus rights four years ago: “Hmm, now that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to habeas challenges and hearings by American courts and American judges, I wonder how long before they and their lawyers claim that they are entitled to asylum hearings as well?”

Won’t be long now!

Justice Scalia’s dissent says it all:

Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

[Soldier4Christ]

That rumbling sound you hear isn’t drilling for oil, as it should be. No, that sound is the stampede of liberal lawyers rushing to save terrorist combatants after today’s shameful decision and the sound of our sovereignty crumbling. It will also be the sound following that of the terrorists blowing things up on our own land.

It’s no wonder al-Qaeda favors Democrats. They are “compassionate.” “Caring.” “Looking out for the little guy”    and making things easier for them to achieve their objectives.

[nChrist]

The U.S. is falling step by step and state by state. Yes, this is most assuredly an un-Constitutional law but little by little the courts and the governments are "reinterpreting", twisting or totally ignoring the Constitution for their own personal agendas. Yes, it is time for a new Constitutional Convention and not one that excludes The People of The United States and only includes dictatorial government employees that are NOT properly representing THE PEOPLE.

Pastor Roger,

You've already hit the nail on the head. Regardless, they can't remove the civil and constitutional rights of the majority of the country without changing the Constitution - due process - and most certainly requiring a vote of the people. With or without the consent of each individual, civil and Constitutional RIGHTS remain the same. This law is grossly illegal and Unconstitutional "ON ITS FACE" because it is in direct violation of existing RIGHTS that can't be removed. SO, enforcement "UNDER COLOR OF LAW" would be malicious prosecution. If an arrest was attempted - it would be an UNLAWFUL ARREST and FORCE IS AUTHORIZED TO RESIST AN UNLAWFUL ARREST! Any pre-law student could figure this one out in about 5 minutes, SO IT WOULD BE A KNOWN FACT UP FRONT THAT THE STATE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

This actually amounts to a mini-dictator taking power that is not his to take because power of that type does NOT exist in this country. Maybe this will turn out to be a good thing, and I'm completely serious. Some of my family and many Christians I know live in Colorado, and I can already tell you they won't pay any attention at all to this law - AND NO CHRISTIAN SHOULD PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THIS LAW! The exact opposite should be done by every Christian in Colorado DAILY and EXERCISE THEIR CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT CAN'T BE REMOVED! Take the arrest and do NOT resist - refuse to pay any fines - and immediately give notice of pending civil and criminal actions IN FEDERAL COURT! Colorado would learn a VERY EXPENSIVE lesson before the criminal and civil cases even began. It appears that the government of Colorado has already made COMPLETE MORONS of themselves. It wouldn't take long at all to teach Colorado government a lesson. If Colorado government wanted to hold a hard line, Federal Troops could even be called in to FORCE COLORADO to honor the civil and Constitutional Rights of the Citizens. Minimal determination on the part of Christians just for a matter of days would result in a lesson and EXAMPLE for all. This would certainly be worth going to jail over. Every person charged or arrested would have easy civil and criminal recourse against the state, and the state government would become a laughing stock in about 2 or 3 days.

If one thinks about the options available for decent people, WHAT ARE THEY? They either stand up and keep their rights or LEAVE THE STATE! THERE MUST BE A STANDING UP TIME AND PLACE EVENTUALLY, AND THIS ONE SOUNDS LIKE THE BEST I'VE HEARD OF! We are either a free country operating under the Laws and Constitutions of THE PEOPLE or we lower ourselves to third-world dictatorship status. IF THIS ISN'T WORTHY OF STANDING UP - WHAT IS?

[nChrist]

That rumbling sound you hear isn’t drilling for oil, as it should be. No, that sound is the stampede of liberal lawyers rushing to save terrorist combatants after today’s shameful decision and the sound of our sovereignty crumbling. It will also be the sound following that of the terrorists blowing things up on our own land.

It’s no wonder al-Qaeda favors Democrats. They are “compassionate.” “Caring.” “Looking out for the little guy”  ::)  and making things easier for them to achieve their objectives.

Brother, this is far too much to absorb in one day. It appears there are at least three massive events to deal with from ROGUE PUBLIC SERVANTS USURPING POWER THAT COULD NEVER BELONG TO THEM IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT KIND OF POWER BELONGS ONLY TO THE PEOPLE! I saw one issue I had to respond to, but I had no idea you had two more bomb-shells waiting on the next page. The Founders did foresee the possibility of TYRANNY AND ABUSE OF POWER, AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS LEVELS OF ACTIONS TO TAKE IN DEALING WITH IT. I think it's past time to start, and I know it will be unpleasant, but doing nothing does not appear to be a viable option. The GOVERNMENT is NOTHING BUT SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE can replace it or abolish it with completely LEGAL ACTIONS.

[Soldier4Christ]

I am sure that there are many more such bombshells that we haven't heard about yet and that there are many more coming in the near future.

I am also sure that it will such a recourse as you have mentioned to attempt to remedy it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Democrat voter drive investigated for fraud
Louisiana authorities say clerks flooded with fake registrations

Louisiana's top election official has launched an investigation into a voter registration drive by the Washington-based Voting is Power organization, which is sponsored by the Muslim American Society and was hired by Democrats, after registrars were "flooded" with fake forms, including a couple for a gentleman named George W. Bush.

Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said this week he already has met with Voting Is Power, which has a stated goal of signing up millions of Muslims to vote in U.S. elections, and the discussions were cordial.

He said he's seeking information about the company's methodology and information on why so many voter registration applications turned out to be incomplete, duplicates, or just plain fraudulent.

According to a report from the Associated Press, the Washington-based VIP was hired by national Democrats to register up to 70,000 new voters before this fall's election.

But Dardenne said the organization's drives in Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleands and Jefferson Parish resulted in "piles of sketchy applications" that demanded investigators' time.

The result, he said, was "busy work that is not leading to productive registration of voters," according to the AP.

Bloggers were having a good time with the allegations about the registrations of Bush and others.

"It has been a long-running joke amongst pundits that Election Day should be renamed 'Zombie Day' given all the dead people who seemingly rise from the graves and vote," concluded the FedPapers blog.

"Mind you, this is just one of many reasons why states are starting to get more stringent when it comes to voters needing identification before they can vote. Many people – the majority on the Left – have had a tizzy over the enforcement of such laws. Arizona was challenged when they enacted tougher laws regarding voter identification, but that was due to the illegal alien population here, and their tendency to vote when they are not legally allowed to do so," the blog continued.

"Chicago has the 'zombie' problem. Apparently, so does Louisiana," the blog said.

"We have some very real concerns about the data we are getting from them," Dardenne told a website for the Baton Route Advocate.

That report said Democrats were aware of some problems.

"With an effort this big there's always going to be glitches and problems along these lines," Brian Welsh, a spokesman for Democrats' Louisiana Victory 2008, said. "Obviously, we are ready to work with the registrars of each parish to make sure it's going as efficiently as possible."

Roger Villere, the state Republican Party chief, said the issue needs to be investigated.

Dardenne reported the cards being submitted include those for people already registered but others were incomplete and some had "blatantly false information."

Caddo Parish, for example, had George W. Bush as a voter applicant; other cards have been filed for inmates who cannot vote as well as various dead people, Dardenne confirmed.

"We want to safeguard the integrity of the process by making sure any group seeking to register Louisiana voters provide specific information and it's not bogging down registrars offices with work premised on false information," he said, according to the Advocate report.

On the newspaper site, an anonymous poster identified as Elliott expressed a high level of concern over those doing the signature collections.

"I wonder why a Muslim organization with links to the Muslim Brotherhood is hired by the Democratic National Party. I wonder why Barack Obama is the choice of Hamas," he wrote.

"Whether through violent or economic means, losing our identity in submission to this minority will prove our national undoing. The fault is not with Islam. The fault is our losing our traditional biblical moorings, the foundation upon which our republic was built!" he continued.

On the website for the MAS-VIP organization, its organizers state: "Islam mandates every Muslim to be unequivocally committed to social justice. Civic engagement may be the most powerful way to fulfill that mandate in a democracy. Our collective involvement with the electoral process allows us as a community to express our views, and influence the laws and policies which govern America."

It continued that "many dangerous laws were passed in the name of national security."

"Whether these laws and policies increase our national security is highly questionable. But these have been widely used to profile and persecute Muslims in America," the group said.

"Only with our vigorous commitment to the electoral process, we can begin to change this unfavorable climate," it says.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judicial supremacy strikes in Oklahoma

The elected representatives in Oklahoma passed a law to stem the tide of illegal immigrants and, faster than you can say "judicial supremacy," a federal judge blocked its enforcement. The court suspended key sections of the law even before it was due to take effect on July 1.

The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act was designed to prevent illegal immigrants from taking jobs from Americans and from evading taxes by working in the underground economy.

The Oklahoma law passed the State Legislature by overwhelming, bipartisan, veto-proof majorities (88-9 in the House, 41-1 in the Senate) and was signed by Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. Public opinion polls reported that the law enjoys 88 percent public approval, and it was recognized as a model for other states to copy.

The law required employers who have contracts with the state of Oklahoma to use the Oklahoma Status Verification System to verify the legal status of their employees. The law expanded the definition of "discrimination" to include firing a U.S. citizen while retaining an illegal as an employee.

The penalty for violating this law was requiring the employer to withhold state taxes in a manner to ensure that Oklahoma would receive all proper employment taxes, including taxes for those employees who are not legally in this country. Oklahoma should certainly be able to protect itself against the non-payment by illegal immigrants of taxes that Americans pay as a matter of course.

Even though the new Oklahoma law didn't go into effect, it is credited with reducing Oklahoma unemployment significantly below the national average. The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Randy Terrill, said, "Oklahoma is no longer OK for illegal aliens."

The big national news this month is the Department of Labor announcement that U.S. unemployment has surged to 5.5 percent, the sharpest monthly spike in 22 years. The unemployment figures are particularly painful for teenagers; only about one-third of 16- to 19-year-olds are likely to get summer jobs.

The employment picture in Oklahoma is quite different: Oklahoma's unemployment rate is now only 3.1 percent and dropping. That's because after the Citizen Protection Act was passed a year ago, illegal immigrants began leaving the state.

The lawsuit to overturn the Oklahoma statute was brought by the leading trade group for large corporations profiting from hiring illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens. The name of the case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brad Henry.

The judge granted standing to the Chamber of Commerce to sue even though it had not been hurt one iota by the law that had not yet taken effect. The judge, in effect, legislated from the bench by blocking the statute from taking effect, so all its benefits might never be known.

The judge accepted the chamber's argument that Congress has pre-empted state laws by federal statutes about immigration. But we all know the federal government is incapable or unwilling to carry out the necessary enforcement of existing laws that the American people deserve to have enforced.

There is even a federal law called the Tax Injunction Act that prohibits federal courts from interfering with state taxation. The court sidestepped that law, declaring that the federal court could interfere because the Oklahoma statute is more like a regulation than a tax.

Across the country, 43 states have passed more than 182 immigration-related laws. Several leading decisions, such as the federal decision reviewing the ordinance passed in Valley Park, Mo., have upheld the laws against challenges.

Taxes and jobs are not the only reasons why states need to protect their citizens against illegal immigrants. Terrill says, "Our Bureau of Narcotics here in Oklahoma estimates that something in excess of 40 percent of the drug trafficking through Oklahoma is directly attributable to our illegal alien problem."

Courts should not interfere with legislative remedies to protect U.S. citizens from losing jobs to illegal immigrants who might not even be paying taxes on their wages. And we certainly should not tolerate drug trafficking coming in from Mexico.

Overturning the massive votes in the Oklahoma Legislature and the will of the people makes this decision one more example of how courts are trying to make themselves an elite branch of government whose every pronouncement is accepted as "the law of the land." It's time for Americans to rise up and reject the rule of judges and return to rule by our elected representatives.

Congress can and should withdraw jurisdiction from federal courts to interfere with prudent attempts by states to protect their governments and lawful residents. Congress could simply amend the Tax Injunction Act to clarify that federal courts lack authority to entertain any challenge to a state law that involves the collection of taxes from illegal immigrants.

[Soldier4Christ]

Homosexuality takes Congress by storm

The two openly homosexual members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recruited 50 of their colleagues to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress.

Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.
 
"How interesting that we now have a homosexuality, transsexual caucus – I guess you could call it – at the congressional level. It's just unbelievable that there are this many congressmen who are promoting homosexuality and transsexual perversion," LaBarbera laments.
 
While LaBarbera criticized the two Republicans for lending the appearance of bipartisanship to the group, he reserved his primary wrath for the Democrats.
 
"I think what this shows is that the hard-core Democratic Left is extremely pro-homosexual," he states. "Big city populations have many homosexual activists, and they're disproportionately powerful compared to the rest of the people in the district. Do I think that the average person in the district knows that these members are promoting homosexuality in this way? No way! But there are probably powerful homosexual constituencies in each one of these districts," LaBarbera explains.

Christians, according to LaBarbera, could learn something from the success of homosexual activists. With very small numbers, they have managed to create the perception of a much larger constituency and, thereby, have many of their political demands met.
 
"The gays are all about political power. They know how to vote. They're very committed. They're not apathetic like many Christians," says the activist. "And they've 'earned' this extraordinary total: 52 congressmen coming right out and saying, 'We are going to vote for homosexuality and transsexuality in Congress," LaBarbera contends.
 
The 52 members of the LGBT Caucus are: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Robert Brady (D-PA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Phil Hare (D-IL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Doris Matsui (D-CA), James Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-Washington, D.C.), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), José Serrano (D-NY), Chris Shays (R-CT), Pete Stark (D-CA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
 
LaBarbera argues that the average voter in most of those 52 congressional districts has no idea that their elected representative is openly promoting sexual immorality.

[Soldier4Christ]

China to drill off U.S. coast

President Bush has been urged in a letter to do away with the moratorium on offshore drilling in the U.S.

The Institute for Energy Research sent the letter to President Bush urging him to exercise his authority to repeal the Executive Order banning energy production on America's outer continental shelf. The ban has been in effect since 1990. Congress also passes a similar ban on offshore drilling on a yearly basis.
 
Brian Kennedy is senior vice president for public affairs with the Institute for Energy Research. He argues the rationale behind his group's request that he believes would force Congress to take a longer view.
 
"We've gone ahead and asked the president to lead by ripping up the executive moratorium," Kennedy explains. "That would create a situation whereby the Congress would have to come up with a long-term strategy – not some annual ban that expires every year, but a long-term plan that would put some common sense and some flexibility into our offshore energy laws."
 
He wonders why the ban is still in place, seeing that China has plans to drill for energy 60 miles off the U.S. coastline. "The Cuban government has entered into contracts with China and a few other countries to begin to look at producing energy at the offshore, just 60 or so miles from the United States," says the Institute spokesman. "The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that restricts access to its offshore energy resources in the way that we do. It is what one senator called 'economic and strategic masochism.'"
 
Kennedy also contends there is no justifiable or defensible reason for the government to be restricting access to these supplies, especially considering the current energy situation. According to a Reuters article, House Republicans have recently vowed to push for more energy development within the United States. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) says Republicans will fight every single day over the next five months to hold the Democrats accountable for their "dismal record on producing more energy" in the U.S.

[HisDaughter]

Congress would have to come up with a long-term strategy – not some annual ban that expires every year, but a long-term plan that would put some common sense and some flexibility into our offshore energy laws."
 

Can you use "Congress" and "common sense" in the same sentence?

."The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that restricts access to its offshore energy resources in the way that we do.

I would say "Unbelievable....except that I believe it!"

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) says Republicans will fight every single day over the next five months to hold the Democrats accountable for their "dismal record on producing more energy" in the U.S.

I like this guy!

[Soldier4Christ]

Can you use "Congress" and "common sense" in the same sentence?

Yep ... "Congress lacks common sense." " Congress has zero common sense." A few more like that works for me. 

I like this guy!

Me, too.

It's good to see you back on here, sister. How did the camping trip go?