YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

The public obscenity in San Francisco could be addressed by a group of decent people determined to see the law enforced. It would require legal guidance and all kinds of evidence. The actions would be time-consuming, and they would have to be methodical. All kinds of charges would need to be filed in various courts, and detailed records of everything would be required. There is a REFUSAL by all levels of government to serve the public according to the law. There are a variety of criminal and civil remedies that should be initiated. We already know there would be multiple levels that would refuse, and the evidence of that refusal would become part of future actions with other courts and higher courts. It would be difficult, but it could be done with the right patience, determination, and legal guidance. It would be best for a large number of people to be involved in this action - the larger - the better.

The bottom line is they have levels of lawless, rogue government, law enforcement, and courts. The people are not receiving equal protection under the law, and only the PERVERSE appear to have any rights. Federal Courts and Federal Prosecutors would have to be eventually involved, but mass numbers of criminal and civil actions should be filed at the lower levels first. EVERY citizen has the rights to initiate these actions, and the results of each specific action would become evidence in later actions. Eventually, the lawless, rogue entities would lose criminal and civil cases. Many would lose their jobs and go to prison, and that's exactly what needs to happen. The lawless entities would be replaced under emergency measures - possibly even Martial Law. They could be held accountable under the law. I realize this would be a large and lengthy operation, but it could be done. By the way, it's MORE THAN JUST POSSIBLE! It would fail only if the people lost patience and gave up.

[Barbara]

We read that in Sodom and Gomorrah the officials had allowed places to 'bed down' in the streets and that was why the people wanted to drag the Angels out into the streets. This sounds exactly like that, a shadow picture painted for us to show the depths to which a human soul can sink. But then comes sudden destruction.

blackeyedpeas, are you saying there's anything we can do - like writing our own representatives? If so, we'll get something written and sent tomorrow!

This has to be stopped - for the sake of our children and all of us around the country. There are too many 'special interest' groups that live outside of the law, and those that live according to the law and live decent, hardworking lives are swept aside in order to placate, and encourage these groups. But the people of this country are being manipulated by the media, and they are getting the country they 'think' they want.

May the Lord wake them up to the folly of their ways!

[nChrist]

We read that in Sodom and Gomorrah the officials had allowed places to 'bed down' in the streets and that was why the people wanted to drag the Angels out into the streets. This sounds exactly like that, a shadow picture painted for us to show the depths to which a human soul can sink. But then comes sudden destruction.

blackeyedpeas, are you saying there's anything we can do - like writing our own representatives? If so, we'll get something written and sent tomorrow!

This has to be stopped - for the sake of our children and all of us around the country. There are too many 'special interest' groups that live outside of the law, and those that live according to the law and live decent, hardworking lives are swept aside in order to placate, and encourage these groups. But the people of this country are being manipulated by the media, and they are getting the country they 'think' they want.

May the Lord wake them up to the folly of their ways!

Hello Sister Barbara,

Representatives and the Governor were contacted on the last gay parade that involved public nudity and gay sexual acts on the street in full view of children. Nothing was done, and those contacted ignored it. I'm talking about something much more active involving individual effort. I would actually be talking about organized mass filings of criminal charges and civil actions by people who were actually there and witnessed it. It would probably have to involve photographs, video, etc. - not just of the event, but every action following it with the police, prosecutors, etc. San Francisco is far beyond just writing a letter to a representative. As far as I know, the representatives are among the organizers of these public, obscene events. The representatives will be among those charged.

Any citizen can file a citizen's arrest statement of charges to be filed. In this case, the most appropriate charges should be filed on various people, and legal guidance would be best throughout the entire process. As an example, it would be great for 200 to 500 decent people to organize themselves on the next event. I would be talking about appropriate collection of evidence and proper procedures being followed in a lengthy chain of actions that would all have to be recorded. It could easily take 6 months to a year of many actions and many filings to force the cases to be heard and force the appropriate actions. Local and state actions would have to be exhausted first, and there is ever reason to believe they would do nothing. However, this would be part of the case, and the denial or refusal to enforce the law would be the main part of the case. The first tactics would be to record their denials and refusals as evidence to be used against them. By the way, there would be NO reason for the 200 to 500 participants to violate the law themselves at any point in the process. In fact, violation of the law should be avoided by the participants because it would hurt their cases.

I'm actually talking about an organized approach by a group of citizens to put the RULE OF LAW back in place and appropriately deal with a lawless, rogue government refusing to serve the people. All in this group would have to be willing to testify numerous times in open court. There would also need to be a determination NOT to accept any kind of settlement that would let the government off the hook. Nobody would be exempt from criminal and civil remedies, including the Governor. It would be horrible to expend this type of effort and not follow it through to the maximum allowed by law. Pelosi rode in the last gay parade, and she obviously refused to do anything. I'm almost sure that the State Attorney General's Office was also involved. I'm talking about ALL of them going to jail and paying criminal and civil penalties to the limit of the law. Any future government that took their place would know that things WOULD BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE LAW!

[Barbara]

Hey - thanks grammyluv for that award!!! I never got one before!!!

[Barbara]

Hi blackeyedpeas,

This certainly is a rough one to take. I remember vaguely a man in Pennsylvania a few years ago, that protested with scripture from the Bible during a gay pride parade because of the offensive things going on, and he was the one that was arrested for hate crimes and inciting a riot. It seems you'd really have to be very versed in how to collect the evidence. You'd think there'd be some people in that area that would be concerned enough to form an alliance, especially Christians. It's gotta be a hard thing to witness though.

Things are going from bad to worse extremely fast. It is a sad state of affairs in our once Godly and beloved country. But GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!!   

I also wanted to add that McDonalds sponsered the parade in San Francisco, from an American Family Assoc. Action Alert:

MacDonald's says they "stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment," here is what they won't tell you. McDonald's helped sponser the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade...

AFA asked McDonald's to stay neutral in the culture war. The company refused saying they will continue to support the gay agenda including same-sex marriage. AFA has called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants.

McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman told the Washington Post that those (even Christians) who oppose homosexual marriage are motivated by hate, saying that, '...hatred has no place in our culture...."


Families are who support McDonald's - if we stopped taking our innocent children there, maybe they'd get the message. I think it's a very good idea to
Boycott McDonald's!!!

[Soldier4Christ]

The organization "Americans For Truth" had a member(s) at the fest and took many pictures and films of the atrocities there where police were present in the pictures also. There is also one of the police making a statement to this group that they had orders from the Mayor not to enforce any laws against this group.

AFT did an excellent job in collecting a lot of evidence in this aspect. Now it is just a matter of presenting it to the right people and getting something done about it. As was said this was done during the last such event and no one did anything about it. Our politicians and judges either are afraid to take such action against San Francisco and the people of this "fest" or they are supporters of it to begin with.

Personally I think it is again up to The People, those that are sickened of these events to stand up to it. To do something, legally of course, to bring charges against and to replace these individuals in office that are supporting this garbage. This means more than just the government in San Francisco.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

It's a cheap and non-existent argument to say that intolerance for EVIL is hate. In the San Francisco case, the use of the word "hate" is twisted to use against decent people complaining about nudity and perverted sex acts done in public and in front of children on a public street. The use of the word "hate" by McDonald's and others is clever, but it won't work. There are lots of things that civilized people don't tolerate when they live in a society under the RULE OF LAW. As far as I'm concerned, the LAME use of the twisted and non-existent HATE ARGUMENT makes their position worse. Does McDonald's allow nudity and ANY kind of sexual acts in their restaurants? IF NOT, WHY NOT? Using their twisted logic, it would be HATE if they didn't. Anyone with common sense can see the NONSENSE of the HATE argument. BY THE WAY, THE "HATE ARGUMENT" IS SKILLFULLY USED USUALLY AGAINST CHRISTIANS! The objective is to slowly reprogram people into thinking it's wrong to protest EVIL and OBSCENE behavior and DEMAND that it be stopped.

As far as I'm concerned, McDonald's no longer exists. If they're so proud of their stance, let them TRY to post RAUNCHY AND OBSCENE pictures of the San Francisco GAY PRIDE PARADE all over their windows and see how long they stay in business. IT ISN'T A MATTER OF HATE, RATHER ONE OF COMMON DECENCY AND MORALS!

[Soldier4Christ]

Electronic cuffs planned for dads
'I don't see any safeguards. This presumes men guilty'

Illinois has joined a growing contingent of states to adopt a law that will put electronic GPS tracking bracelets on men who have not been convicted of any crime, but might be involved in a messy divorce.

The plan, named in memory of Cindy Bischoff, who was attacked and murdered by a former boyfriend, was signed into law just days ago, and is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1.

And while its goal of protecting women and children from out-of-control husbands and fathers is good, it goes too far and violates the civil rights of innocent fathers, according to a lawyer for a group that will challenge it.

"Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation," said attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is a nationally known fathers' rights advocate, the author of "Fathers' Rights" and "Divorce Wars" and founded DadsRights.com. "The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of any crime."

According to a website set up in memory of Cindy Bischoff, there are about a dozen states, including Washington, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Massachusetts, that now have similar provisions. The campaign's goal is to prevent what happened to Bischof from happening to others.

But Leving said there are major constitutional issues that need to be resolved.

"The law carries a presumption of guilt," Leving said, "without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty."

He said such restraining orders are not unusual at all.

A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California's Family Law Section said such orders "are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." And the Illinois Bar Journal has described them as part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce.

But Leving said the full impact of Illinois' new law is that judges can order anyone – mostly men and fathers – to wear a GPS tracking device if they simply are accused of violating an order of protection, with no court conviction or adjudication required.

In fact, he said, "such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself."

Such lack of information for the men can result in unknowing violations, Leving said.

"A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her. Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier-a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation," he said.

"Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection," he said.

"Unfortunately, the rush to protect the abused is so incredibly aggressive that the rights of the accused have been violated," he said. "I don't see any safeguard in this law. This law basically presumes in these situations [men] are guilty."

He said his organization will be working with lawmakers to make them aware of the potential pitfalls of their new law, and will be watching cases as they develop in order to pursue a court challenge to its constitutionality.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fairness Doctrine to control online content?
FCC commissioner warns reinstated powers could require balance on websites

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.

“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congressional Republicans are poised to shut down the government if they are not allowed a vote on new oil drilling legislation.

This comes even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated she could budge on allowing a drilling vote, which so far she and her Senate counterpart have blocked from seeing daylight in Congress.

Current bans on the Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale drilling expire on the first day of the coming fiscal year: Oct. 1. Now, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is leading a group of GOP senators celebrating the day, which they have dubbed "American Energy Freedom Day."

"The overwhelming majority of Republican Senators have pledged to protect October 1 as American Energy Freedom Day so we can reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower the cost of gas at the pump," DeMint said, according to a release from his office.

"Many people aren’t aware that the bans on drilling must be renewed every year, and all we have to do is allow these prohibitions to expire on October 1. In just 50 days, Americans will have the freedom to pursue their own energy resources here at home. Our letter is very straightforward: we will actively oppose any effort to extend the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale," DeMint said.

This is setting the stage for a showdown in September with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and most other Demorats who oppose this drilling.

In response to DeMint, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said: "Isn't this the same day that Republicans would be endangering the delivery of Social Security checks because of their misguided attempts to promote energy policies that will do nothing to deal with the short term problems facing the country?"

Reid and Pelosi have avoided holding votes on drilling because of growing support among their own ranks for such legislation amid rising energy prices. Democratic leadership maintains new drilling won't change prices in the near term.

Reid and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., even cancelled markups of spending bills that renewed the moratoria, a move that was a tacit admission that there were enough votes to override Democratic opposition to drilling.

Reid has said he intends to try to renew the bans when Congress returns in September through a continuing spending resolution -- a measure used to bypass the annual spending bills, and adopt the current spending levels until the new Congress takes its seat. But to pass his version, Reid will need a filibuster-breaking 60 votes, which could prove difficult.

In a letter from DeMint to Reid, DeMint indicates the GOP has the votes to sustain any veto of a continuing resolution that might get 60 votes.

But if Congress can't agree to a continuing resolution before Oct. 1, the government shuts down.

Pelosi, speaking Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," said "We can do that. We can have a vote on (oil drilling)."

The Hill newspaper reported she indicated that a vote would be part of a larger package that included one of her pet projects, releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. She says she believes that would reduce gasoline prices immediately, whereas, she says, oil drilling might never reduce prices.

"But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them,” Pelosi said.

She even indicated that she might support a package that includes drilling, according to The Hill.

“It’s not excluded, let’s put it that way,” Pelosi said.

But Republicans who have been protesting Democrats' anti-drilling stance said they are not impressed with Pelosi's apparent change of heart. Lawmakers told reporters Tueday morning her comments don't go far enough, and they still want a vote.

Pelosi's apparent change in heart comes as Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken the diminished bully pulpit to decry Democrats' actions over energy prices. Although the House is officially out of session, House Republicans have stayed in Washington grab whoever they can, whether its reporters or tourists, to criticize Democrats, they say, for not holding a vote on drilling.

Republicans believe that lifting a ban on offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf not only would increase long-term domestic fuel capacity, but drop prices immediately by sending a signal to the oil markets.

Democrats instead have sought more market controls, the release from the petroleum reserve, and a requirement that federal lands already under lease be explored before more federal land, like the OCS, is doled out to oil companies.

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. green lights
'anything into oil'
Defense Department OKs facilities
turning natural produce into energy

A Georgia company looking to solve America's energy problem has finally teamed up with the federal government, hoping to make millions of barrels of oil every day from virtually anything that grows out of the Earth.

Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. says it has reached an agreement with the U.S. Defense Department to build seven test production plants, mostly on military bases, to quickly turn naturally grown material into fuel.

"What this means is that with the seven pilot plants – the military likes to refer to them as demonstrations – with those being built … it gives us the real-time engineering data that we need to finish the designs for a full-scale production facility," J.C. Bell, the man behind the project, told WND today.

"In 18 months or so, we will start manufacturing oil directly from waste and we will build up to about 500,000 barrels a day within two years. In another six months, we'll reach a million barrels a day."

As the United States now imports about 13 million barrels of oil a day, the only obstacle then to total energy independence from foreign sources will be the money needed to develop the processing plants, he said.

"Working with the USDA we've identified enough waste material around the country, we truly believe we can make the United States totally energy independent of foreign countries in about five years," he said.

WND originally reported on the project in March as Bell, an agricultural researcher, confirmed he'd isolated and modified specific bacteria that will, on a very large scale, naturally and rapidly convert plant material – including the leftovers from food – into hydrocarbons to fuel cars and trucks.

That means trash like corn stalks and corn cobs – even the grass clippings from suburban lawns – can be turned into oil and gasoline to run trucks, buses and cars.

He said he made the discovery standing downwind from his cows at his food-production company, Bell Plantation, in Tifton, Ga.

"Cows are like people that eat lots of beans. They're really, really good at making natural gas," he said. "It dawned on me that that natural gas was methane."

WND also reported how the national news media more or less ignored his announcement of a potential solution to America's dependence on Middle East nations for its oil.

But the U.S. military was listening. And Bell now confirms his agreement with the Department of Defense, the Defense Energy Support Center and the Army will have seven demonstration facilities built at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart in Georgia, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort AP Hill in Virginia, Fort Drum in New York and Fort Lewis in Washington, as well as one more installation in San Pedro, Calif.

"We should have all of the plants running within 60 days," he said. "This is a big step in our growth, from the engineering that we develop with these plants, we will be able to build our full-scale production facilities and be in full production in the next 12 to 18 months.

"Everyone now accepts the fact that we can make oil through bacterial action and now it is just a matter of time and money until we are turning out one million to two million barrels per day," he said.

He told WND the first full-scale facility probably will cost $100 million to $125 million to build, and that an investment of $2.5 billion likely will be needed to reach a production level of a million barrels per day.

But he said the return – even if the oil were sold for $70 a barrel, just half of what it was going for six weeks ago and still substantially lower than the current market rate of about $110 a barrel – would be significant.

"It will feel very, very good to be to the point where we finally turn off the spigot from overseas," he said.

The process previously had been verified, said Dr. Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine who publishes the Access to Energy newsletter. "These other ways [of producing energy] work; the only question is if they're competitive in price. Any hydrocarbon under pressure and temperature can turn into oil."

How big does Bell believe the process eventually could be?

"With minor changes in the agricultural and forestry products, we could create two to two and a half billion tons of biomass a year, and you're looking at five billion barrels of oil per year," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Libya to receive reparations for Reagan air strike
Country will be paid 'settlement' for U.S. retaliation after terrorist attack

Despite 189 American lives lost in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, the U.S. settled all lawsuits against Libya for terrorist killings and restored diplomatic relations with the country today – with reparations to be paid to Libya.

President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi on April 15, 1986, after Libyan terrorists planted 6 pounds of plastic explosives packed with shrapnel on the dance floor of La Belle discotheque in Berlin, killing three people – including two U.S. soldiers – and maiming 200 others.

Two years later, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded in a terrorist attack by a Libyan intelligence agent. The blast killed 268 people from 21 countries, including 189 Americans. U.S. families filed 26 lawsuits against Libya for the 1988 bombing of the plane en route to New York from London.

The Bush administration began to consider restoring a relationship with the country in 2003 after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi promised to end production of weapons of mass destruction, halt terrorist activities and reimburse U.S. families of victims of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist bombings. Following its pledge, U.N., U.S. and European sanctions were lifted, Libya was taken off the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country was granted membership in the U.N. Security Council.

An agreement required Libya to complete $2.7 billion in payments it had said it would provide to the families of victims. According to Associated Press reports, a senior Libyan government official claims there were also three lawsuits filed on behalf of Libyan citizens in response to Reagan's air strikes – attacks that Libya says killed 41 of its people and Gadhafi's adopted daughter.

Susan Cohen, mother of a 20-year-old woman killed in the Pan Am Flight 103, expressed outrage upon hearing news of the U.S.-Libya settlement.

"Gadhafi is an absolute horror," Cohen told WND. "He has done many, many terrible things. He blew up the French plane, and he blew up the American plane. And what does the Bush administration do? The Bush administration is far more on the side of the Libyans than it is as far as the victims of terrorism go, though it talks a good line about caring about terrorism. If they can make friends with Moammar Gadhafi because they want his oil, then that tells you where they stand."

Cohen said she cannot understand why the U.S. would reimburse Libyans for Reagan's air strikes – attacks that were a result of Gadhafi's bombing of the disco. She believes the U.S. pushed for diplomatic relations because the agreement could result in more contracts for American oil companies.

"I think this is absolutely horrible," she said. "It's really sickening, and it's really dirty. They are being very private and secretive about it."

While Libya has given $8 million of the $10 million it owed to many of the 268 families involved in the Pan Am explosion, it had refused to pay $2 million because of a disagreement with the U.S. about reciprocal obligations.

Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman, told WND, "The settlement goes to both sides. The settlement is for outstanding claims on the part of Libya as well as the United States."

When asked whether the U.S. will make reparations payments to Libya, Thompson responded, "Yes."

An Associated Press report reveals that foreign companies conducting business in Libya – including U.S. companies – will begin paying into a fund to award damages to both Libyan and American claimants.

When WND asked the State Department spokeswoman if oil companies would have any part in paying reparations, she said, "I don't have any information on that, but the fund has been established. I have no information on what the financial agreement will be or the financial compensation that will be paid."

While Thompson said Libyans will receive a settlement as part of the agreement, she declined to reveal the source of the money.

"None of this will be U.S. government funding," she said.

The State Department has provided little information about the agreement. It issued a short press release stating only the following:

    The United States and Libya concluded a comprehensive claims settlement agreement on August 14 in Tripoli. Both parties welcomed the establishment of a process to provide fair compensation for their respective nationals, and thereby turn their focus to the future of their bilateral relationship. They also underscored the benefits an expansion of ties would provide for both countries as well as for the American and Libyan peoples.

The U.S now plans to open an embassy in Tripoli, confirm a U.S. ambassador to Libya and grant Gadhafi's government immunity from more terror-related lawsuits, according to the Associated Press. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to visit Libya before the year's end.

"Condoleezza Rice is going to Libya to kiss Gadhafi's feet," Cohen said. "So this is what has come? He blew up an American plane. And I am supposed to have faith in the government of this country?"

U.S. diplomat David Welch delivered a personal letter from President George Bush to Gadhafi and signed the new agreement with Ahmed al-Fatouri, head of America affairs in Libya's Foreign Ministry.

"We went through a long path of negotiations until we reached this agreement," al-Fatouri said. "It opens new horizons for relations based on mutual respect. ... The agreement turns the page on the negative past forever."

However, Cohen doesn't share his sentiment.

"This is done after the murder of my innocent daughter and 270 people killed," she said. "Gadhafi was the one who was behind the attack on that disco, and Reagan responded. Does that mean the Republican administration is saying that Ronald Reagan and Gadhafi are equivalent terrorists?"

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawmakers take up battle against light bulb ban
'Government has substituted its choice for the American consumer's'

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and 24 other representatives on Capitol Hill have asked the government to reconsider mandating that all Americans use exclusively compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs, in light of growing concerns over the safety and environmental impact of the bulbs.

As WND reported, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law in December, phasing out the use of traditional, incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs beginning in 2012 and culminating in a ban on incandescent bulbs in 2014.

"Most Americans, if you ask them, have no idea that the government has already made a choice for them," Bachmann said in a televised MSNBC interview. "The government has substituted its choice for the American consumer's choice. Most Americans have no idea they won't be able to choose their own light bulbs."

Now, concerns about mercury in the bulbs and mercury vapor released when a CFL is broken have led Bachmann and a group of legislators in the House to second-guess the government's choice.

"Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"

Bachmann and a group of 24 other representatives – including nationally-known figures such as Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo – have sponsored H.R. 5616, the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

The act repeals the parts of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that dictate the use of only CFLs unless the comptroller general can submit a report that finds specific financial benefits of using the bulbs, environmental benchmarks achieved by their use, and evidence that alleviates concerns of mercury dangers from CFLs.

Bachmann introduced the bill in March because, she said, she thought Congress had "acted a bit prematurely" in taking a popular environmentalist cause and making it a government dictate.

"I just don't think it's a good idea for Congress to jump on board fads every time a fad comes along," she said. "I think we can trust the intelligence of the American consumer to make the choice that they'd like to make."

Following the introduction of H.R. 5616, the bill was sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then sent to the Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, where it has languished without action or a hearing for five months.

"I have nothing against those light bulbs," Bachman said. "But I think the American public should have the right to choose which light bulb they'd like to purchase because there are some real environmental concerns with the [CFL]."

"It really isn't an example where you have to choose between the environment and personal choice. You can have both," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court trashes right to vote
'That is a dangerous precedent for the future of the democratic process in America'

An appeals court ruling has trashed the right of Oregon residents to vote on issues in their state by affirming the state's refusal to count referendum signatures even when they were verified in person by the voter.

"In America, every citizen's vote should count. The court has tossed aside one of the most important rights we have as Americans," Austin R. Nimocks, a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said.

"Oregon voters deserve to be heard on this referendum. More than enough Oregonians signed the petitions for it. The people didn't thwart this effort; government bureaucracy did. That is a dangerous precedent for the future of the democratic process in America," he said.

The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Oregon judge's decision denying state citizens the right to vote on a referendum on a new state law critics contend violates the state's voter-approved definition limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The appeals court cited the opinion of a handwriting analyst instead of the voters who signed the petition and called the state's "interests" more important than voters' rights.

At issue was the refusal on the part of state officials to count individual voters' signatures on the petition even after the voters themselves verified their signatures.

"Although regulations on the referendum process implicate the fundamental right to vote, the state's important interests justify the minimal burden on plaintiffs' rights," the ruling from Judge Ted Goodwin said.

The law at issue, along with another one, provides all the rights of marriage to unmarried, same-sex couples in the state despite voters' expressed wishes. The ADF's lawsuit over the state's refusal to put the issue on the 2008 election ballot first generated a restraining order to prevent the new law from taking effect while the lawsuit over the petition signatures was heard. That legal action later, however, was abandoned by the court.

The district court at that point simply ruled that Oregon voters have no legal right to have their signatures counted, and the appeals court has upheld the ruling.

The state reviewed the tens of thousands of signatures submitted on the referendum issue by a sampling method, ultimately determining there were 55,083 valid signatures, 96 short of what was required. However, a change in just a half a dozen signatures in the sampled portion would have tipped the decision the other way.

At the time the state made that announcement, individual voters checked with their local county officials and found their valid signatures had been arbitrarily disallowed, and state officials had issued orders that county election offices not allow anyone to correct the mistakes.

"No county gave notice to voters with rejected signatures. The counties also refused to consider extrinsic evidence presented by voters," the appeals court ruling said, agreeing the actions were proper.

"Oregon's important interests justify this minimal burden on the right to vote," the court concluded.

Restore America, one of the organizations that promoted the referendum plan, asserted the court's ruling has "swept under the carpet, out of sight, out of mind," the important issue of counting votes.

The court opinion, instead of citing the voters who signed the petition on the issue of the validity of their signatures, cited a handwriting analysts' opinion on whether the signatures were valid or not.

A second related plan approved by Oregon lawmakers that was challenged by voters also will not be on the 2008 ballot, officials confirmed earlier.

Senate Bill 2 was the other half of the package of bills approved by lawmakers that essentially created lookalike "marriage" in Oregon for same-sex duos.

Opponents wanted the votes since voters had in 2004 affirmed by a wide margin that marriage was to be reserved for couples of only one man and one woman.

Restore America leaders said the Oregon Supreme Court simply refused for 10 weeks to make a decision on the wording of the petition to repeal SB2.

The group said as a result, the court simply "ran out the clock" by preventing critics of the law from having enough time to gather the essential signatures that cannot be collected until after the wording is approved.

Opponents of the homosexual "marriage" plans were left by the court decision with less than a week to collect about 100,000 signatures, Restore America said.

The group says the campaign on the recognition of same-sex relationships now will be restarted with plans for voter decisions on the issues in November 2010. Volunteers are being coordinated at Concerned Oregonians.

[HisDaughter]

Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

Free the light bulb and incarcerate all doorknobs!