YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Free the light bulb and incarcerate all doorknobs!

Yeah! ... and there are a lot of doorknobs in office.

[Soldier4Christ]

The 21st-Century Boston Tea Party


Republicans in Congress are staging a historic 21st-century Boston Tea Party on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Aug. 1, Speaker Nancy Pelosi - without addressing gas prices that continue to hover near $4 per gallon - adjourned Congress for five weeks, dimmed the lights, turned off the microphones and C-SPAN cameras and attempted to remove the press and visitors from the House chamber.

Republicans refuse to leave the chamber because the issue is about much more than gas prices. It is about much more than energy. It is about the U.S. economy, jobs and national security. It is about who we are as a people.

It is about the U.S. airline industry, which is laying off flight attendants, mechanics, pilots and airport workers. It is about the American auto industry laying off assembly workers and closing plants. It is about the tourism industry and hundreds of other industries and workers from coast to coast.

The Capitol is the People's House, not the Speaker's House. More than 70 percent of Americans favor increased American energy exploration, yet the Speaker of the House refuses to allow a vote on a real energy bill that reflects the people's will. Over the last 30 years, radical environmentalists - represented by Mrs. Pelosi and her allies who better reflect her San Francisco congressional district rather than the rest of America - have effectively prevented any meaningful American energy production.

They shut down nuclear energy, oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee, and the construction of new oil refineries.

The net result of such a radical agenda is that our dependence upon foreign sources - that use less environmentally conscious methods than the United States - has escalated from 20 percent of the gas we use to 70 percent. We send $1.2 billion a day overseas to buy oil from foreign countries, damaging our economy and enriching countries that, in many instances are not our friends.

We can no longer defend buying oil from the Middle East, Russia or South America when we have our own supply off our coasts, under public lands in the Western United States and in Alaska, and in millions of tons of oil shale. Liberal Democrats in Congress are forcing us to compete in the global free market with one hand tied behind our back.

Every month the United States runs a trade deficit of $60 billion, most of which is related to energy. Imagine the impact on the U.S. economy if we invested that money in the exploration and production of American energy. It would lead to job creation, it would ripple through the economy, the dollar would strengthen and we would finally see some stability in energy prices.

Look at the extraordinary development in Dubai, the unfettered spending by Venezuela, and the vigorous economic boom in the Middle East. The United States has the ability to benefit from a similar economic opportunity, but Mrs. Pelosi is ensuring that the U.S. economy remains a bust that fails the people of Michigan and Arizona.

Our refusal to use American oil and natural gas resources also emboldens hostile nations and leaves our economy vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

Democrats frequently say America is funding both sides of the fight with radical jihadists, and they are right. Every dollar we spend on oil from the Middle East or Venezuela, costs us jobs while funding our enemies either directly or by providing income to people who bankroll them.

Why not resolve the problem by allowing for bold solutions that produce more American energy and allow us to achieve energy independence?

An "all of the above" strategy that includes U.S. energy sources, improving energy efficiency, emerging technologies and renewable supplies such as wind, solar and geothermal and conservation must guide America's energy future, and will allow us to realistically wean our economy off fossil fuels.

Ingenuity is the essence of the American people. We have faced and overcome every challenge placed in our way; we won our independence from Britain, the most powerful nation in the world at the time; we defeated fascism and communism; we conquered polio; and we put a man on the moon. We will overcome this energy crisis, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other defeatists notwithstanding.

Republicans should continue the 21st-century Boston Tea Party in Washington until Democrat leaders heed the American public's call to action and allow America to access the significant energy resources we have placed off-limits for purely political reasons.

Not one more barrel of foreign oil. Not one more American laid off because we choose to leave our vast energy resources untapped. And, not one more dollar spent to fund our enemies.

[Soldier4Christ]

Wait. We Have How Much Oil?

Republicans may be planning a crude surprise for Democrats this October. I mean crude in the sense that it will involve unrefined petroleum.
 
Since the House recessed earlier this month, Republicans have been demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi call it back into special session to vote on whether to allow new offshore oil-drilling.
 
The Republicans know Pelosi won’t do that. So, what do they really want?
 
Let’s start with some sense of the oil resources America could develop if Congress would allow it.
 
In 2006, the Interior Department estimated that about 85.9 billion barrels of “undiscovered technically recoverable” oil sits offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf within U.S. territory.
 
In 2007, the Energy Department’s “Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels” reported that: “America’s oil shale resource exceeds 2 trillion barrels, including about 1.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in high quality shale concentrated in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. ... Depending on technology and economics, as much as 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources yielding (more than) 25 gallons per ton.”
 
This combined 885.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil that the government estimates lies undeveloped within U.S. territory is almost three and a half times as much as the 260 billion barrels in proven oil reserves that lie under Saudi territory.
 
America is an oil-rich country.
 
Since 1982, however, each year’s Interior appropriation has included language forbidding Interior from selling oil-drilling leases in about 85 percent of the acreage comprising the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. (In July, President Bush lifted an executive order -- originally imposed by his father -- that essentially duplicated this congressional moratorium.)
 
Since this fiscal year, the Interior appropriation has also included a moratorium, sponsored by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., that forbids Interior from issuing final regulations governing the sale of leases to develop oil shale lands. This effectively stops leases from being sold.
 
Because these moratoria are part of an appropriations bill that runs for only one fiscal year, they also run for one year. If not renewed by Sept. 30, they expire.
 
Unless Congress enacts a new law banning offshore leases and oil-shale leases, Interior can legally start selling these leases on Oct. 1.
 
This fact was not lost on House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., when I interviewed him on Aug. 7. I asked him if President Bush should veto any bill that includes a moratorium.
 
“My view is that the president should just take the position right now that these moratoriums will end on September the 30th and the Democrats have to be responsible for putting them back in,” said Blunt.
 
“Well, the Democrats wouldn’t be responsible, congressman,” I said. “With all due respect, President Bush would have to sign the moratorium into law for it to exist.”
 
“And I don’t think he should do that,” said Blunt.
 
“So, if a bill passes Congress that has that moratorium, your belief is President Bush, your advice to him is: Mr. President, veto that bill?” I asked.
 
“That’s right,” said Blunt. “And my advice to him today would be to start the process up right now for what we do on Oct. 1 when this moratorium is ended and move forward assuming that there will be no moratorium after September the 30th.”
 
“You would tell him to instruct those people in the Interior Department, who are responsible for administering these leases for the offshore oil and the shale oil, to begin the process of getting ready so that on Oct. 1 he can sell a lease?” I asked.
 
“I would,” said Blunt.

“And you would go ahead and sell those leases? You would say: ‘Let’s do it. Let’s move ahead’?” I asked.

“Well, after Oct. 1 when there is no moratorium,” said Blunt. “The studies are there. The resource is there. We know you can safely go after it. The American people are hurting. We need to do whatever is necessary.”

The Democrats would likely attempt to pre-empt such a strategy by using the traditional method Congress uses for ramming through legislation that cannot stand on its own: They will roll almost all fiscal 2009 appropriations into one monstrous continuing resolution and attach to that monstrosity the offshore oil and shale oil moratoria.

They will say to President Bush, If you want to develop U.S. oil resources, you must first shut down most of the U.S. government. You must be willing to face a massive national controversy over oil drilling and government spending.

President Bush might balk at that. For conservatives, it’s a two-fer.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Civilian national security force' redux

It was just over a month ago that I broke the story of what I called "Barack Obama's $439 billion secret."

That was his initiative to create something he called a "civilian national security force" he promised would have a budget as big as the U.S. military's.

Obama made the campaign promise in a July 2 speech in Colorado Springs – then inexplicably deleted references to the initiative from his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I mentioned that I had never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" prior to that speech. But that doesn't mean no one ever used it. I think I have tracked down the answer to what this force is all about. I think I know who coined the term, who came up with the idea and who is pushing for the future.

And the bad news is it is someone in a prominent position in the Bush administration and likely to remain in that post no matter who is elected president Nov. 4

You might ask: "Now, how can that be? You're telling me there is a Cabinet-level operative in the Bush administration who will continue in his post whether John McCain is elected or Barack Obama?"

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And it is this powerful person who is the mastermind behind the "civilian national security force."

Enough of the mystery – let me tell you who this high-level Bush administration Cabinet officer is and why he will remain in his powerful position no matter who Americans send to the White House in 2009.

His name is Robert Gates, and he is the defense secretary.

Are you shocked?

Are you surprised that a Bush administration defense secretary would find favor in the eyes of both McCain and Obama?

Don't be. It's true. There really isn't that much difference between McCain and Obama, as I keep telling you. When it comes right down to it, even on matters of defense policy, they both like Robert Gates and want him to continue running the Defense Department.

Obama said as much in an interview with the editors of the Army Times July 13: "I do think that Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally."

That's high praise from a candidate who won the nomination of his party by telling the American people the Iraq war was a lost cause.

But what does Gates have to do with the concept behind the "civilian national security force"?

Gates invented the idea.

Last fall Gates began giving a series of speeches about the need to create a more modern State Department and a "civilian national security force" that could "deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside the military."

Gates' idea was big – seemingly as big as Obama's $439 billion vision: "If we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated."

While McCain hasn't personally suggested keeping Gates on in McCain administration, his national security adviser has.

Besides that, Gates is the establishment's man. Check out the editorials calling on both McCain and Obama to keep him in his position – the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, why even the Roanoke Times, for heaven's sake. The media establishment is gaga over Gates.

So, just wanted to let you know, whether you vote for McCain or Obama, you are very likely to get a very expensive if slightly ill-defined "civilian national security force" either way.

But don't expect any debate about this.

Don't expect either Obama or McCain to tell you they want to create a new multibillion-dollar bureaucracy – within the State Department, of all things.

This is on a need-to-know basis, at this point. And, right now, neither Obama or McCain believe you have any need to know.

[Soldier4Christ]

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.

The Justice Department is already expecting criticism over the F.B.I. guidelines. In an effort to pre-empt critics, Mr. Mukasey gave a speech last week in Portland, Ore., describing the unfinished plan as an effort to “integrate more completely and harmonize the standards that apply to the F.B.I.’s activities.” Differing standards, he said, have caused confusion for field agents.

Mr. Mukasey emphasized that the F.B.I. would still need a “valid purpose” for an investigation, and that it could not be “simply based on somebody’s race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights.”

Rather than expanding government power, he said, “this document clarifies the rules by which the F.B.I. conducts its intelligence mission.”

In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, allowed F.B.I. agents to visit public sites like mosques or monitor Web sites in the course of national security investigations. The next year, Mr. Bush issued guidelines allowing officials to use ethnicity or race in “narrow” circumstances to detect a terrorist threat.

The Democratic senators said the draft plan appeared to allow the F.B.I. to go even further in collecting information on Americans connected to “foreign intelligence” without any factual predicate. They also said there appeared to be few constraints on how the information would be shared with other agencies.

Michael German, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and a former F.B.I. agent, said the plan appeared to open the door still further to the use of data-mining profiles in tracking terrorism.

“This seems to be based on the idea that the government can take a bunch of data and create a profile that can be used to identify future bad guys,” he said. “But that has not been demonstrated to be true anywhere else.”

The Justice Department said Wednesday that in light of requests from members of Congress for more information, Mr. Mukasey would agree not to sign the new guidelines before a Sept. 17 Congressional hearing.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dem Mantra of More Deaths By Terror Under Bush Disproven

A new independent study shows that deaths from terrorism have actually declined by more than 40 percent since 2001. This flies in the face of the constant Democrat mantra that states the opposite, that terrorism has increased since Bush initiated the War on Terror. It is a mantra that the media have helpfully spread for their friends at the DNC.

We’ve heard it again and again from the left in this country; deaths by terror have increased under George W. Bush and his War on Terror has failed. Along with so many on the left side of the aisle in the U.S., Barack Obama has said this several times in the past, too. At the Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College on Jun 3, 2007, for instance, Obama said that Bush’s war has failed. “We live in a more dangerous world,” Obama said on that stage, “partly as a consequence of Bush’s actions…”

Of course, this talking point ignores one small bit of common sense. When a battle is joined, casualties are sure to rise until an end is declared. After all, when both sides are joined in battle (as opposed to but one), deaths are sure to rise before they fall, it being always darkest before the dawn, and all.

But that bit of common sense aside, the Democrats have been fond of using a study by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, to prove that terrorism is worse under Bush. In fact, this study appears right on Obama’s own website in an entry by one of his bloggers, Deb Henry.

Bergen and Cruickshank claimed to have found a 607 percent increase in terrorism since 2003. They defined terrorism as an act of violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. They didn’t just count actual deaths and attacks, but added threats to their statistics. Who cannot see that such a method would wildly inflate the numbers?

But the new study by Simon Fraser University in Canada tells a far different tale than the favorite lefty study.

First of all, they found a major flaw in past studies.

    The reason that the NCTC, MIPT, and START global fatality tolls rise so dramatically after 2003 is because all three datasets are counting a large percentage of all civilian fatalities from intentional violence in Iraq’s civil war as deaths from“terrorism.” For example, NCTC’s estimate for fatalities from terrorism in Iraq in 2006 is 13,343. This is nearly 80 percent of the total Iraqi civilian fatality toll of 16,657 for that year as estimated by the independent US organization, icasualties.org.

    …But they are unusual because counting the intentional killing of civilians in civil wars as terrorism,” as all three datasets do, is a sharp departure from customary practice. As Ohio State University’s John Mueller has noted: “When terrorism becomes really extensive in an area we generally no longer call it terrorism, but rather war or insurgency.” Moreover, as a July 2007 US Congressional Research Service report noted, NCTC’s Iraq data are “largely the product of sectarian violence, rampant criminal activity, and home-grown insurgency–[and therefore] grossly distort the global terrorism picture.”

As reported by the Moblie Press-Register, Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria wrote in praise of the study that “it ‘makes no sense’ to count civilian casualties in a war zone as deaths caused by terrorism, Mr. Zakaria wrote. Since the mid-1990s, thousands of civilians have been killed in war zones in other countries around the world, and those victims weren’t counted as casualties related to terrorism.”

Other polls also support the claim that the world is not “more dangerous” since the war on terror began.

    A 2002 Pew Research Center poll of Muslim countries found alarming levels of support for al-Qaida and its tactics. In Lebanon, for instance, 74 percent of the respondents said they believed suicide bombing was justified.

    Four years later, Pew polled again in Muslim nations and discovered very different attitudes. The percentage of people in Lebanon who said they thought suicide bombing was justified had fallen to 34 percent. In Jordan, support for suicide bombing plummeted 20 points between 2002 and 2007.

Such polls show a sharp decline for support of terrorism in the Muslim world since the invasion of Iraq. “Obviously, the war didn’t fuel extremist views in Muslim countries,” as the Press-Register notes.

Even more amazingly, this new study finds a 65 percent decline in terrorist attacks since 2004.

Also…

    There has been an “extraordinary, but largely unnoticed, positive change” in the sub-Saharan African security landscape, with the number of conflicts being waged reduced by more than half between 1999 and 2006, and the combat toll dropping by 98 per cent.

    A decline in the total number of armed conflicts and combat deaths around the world also continues.

All this seems to explode that old the-world-is-more-dangerous myth that the Democrats have promulgated for the last six or seven years. Chances are the media will not talk much about this study, the Democrats will continue on as if it never happened, and Bush Derangement Syndrome will continue unabated.

[Soldier4Christ]

Feds protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions
'Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree'

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released information yesterday about a proposed new rule that would strengthen protection for medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions for moral or religious reasons.

"Health care professionals should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a conference call with reporters.

The Associated Press quoted Leavitt saying, "Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree."

The rule, if confirmed, would apply to the nation's several hundred thousand medical institutions that receive federal funding. It would compel them to certify in writing their compliance with three currently existing federal laws that allow health professionals to exempt themselves from performing procedures contrary to their conscience.

Leavitt told reporters the new rule would severely penalize violating institutions, including the loss of government funding, and make it easier for health care professionals who feel they've faced retaliation for their decisions of conscience to file a complaint.

The wording of the 42-page proposed rule also makes it clear that the right of conscience does not extend to doctors only but to any who "assist in the performance" of abortions. The rule specifically cites the example of nurses and workers who clean the equipment used in abortion and sterilization procedures.

Several organizations, including Planned Parenthood, have objected that the proposed rule is too vague and could limit patients' access to reproductive services.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the AP that the rule "fails to give assurances that current laws about abortion will not be stretched to cover birth control."

Leavitt, however, confirmed in his blog that while an earlier version of the rule leaked out with wording that may lead to that conclusion, the current wording strictly covers abortion and sterilization.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," Leavitt told the AP.

"This regulation is not about contraception," he said. "It is very closely focused on abortion and a physician's conscience."

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are lauding the new rule.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion," Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, told the AP. "These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life."

The proposed rule makes the case for its necessity within the text:

"There appears to be an attitude toward the health care professions that health care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination," the rule states. "In some instances the standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional, forcing health care professionals to choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience."

Leavitt explained on his blog recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, could be interpreted to require a doctor to perform abortions to be considered competent. If a doctor won't, he or she can't practice medicine.

"Freedom of expression and action are unfit barter for admission to medical employment or training," Leavitt told reporters.

Before the rule is finalized, the Department of Health and Human Services has established a 30-day public comment period. The text of the rule contains an invitation for people to submit comments directly to www.Regulations.gov or via email at consciencecomment@hhs.gov. If commenting online, people are asked to click on the "Comment or Submission" link and enter the keywords "provider conscience."

[Soldier4Christ]

Homosexual adoption ban to appear on ballot
Family group obtains required signatures to let voters decide


A ban against unmarried couples becoming foster or adoptive parents is scheduled to appear on Arkansas ballots this fall – and some say the measure is geared at denying homosexuals the chance to raise children.

The Arkansas Family Council Action Committee submitted 85,389 of the required 61,974 voter's signatures to place the proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot, according to Associated Press reports. Family Council President Jerry Cox said getting the proposed act on the ballot is a significant step for families.

"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," he said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."

In 2006, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against a state policy preventing "gays" from becoming foster parents. The Family Council reacted by acquiring enough signatures to place the initiative on the Arkansas ballot.

Arkansas Families First, a self-described coalition of citizens concerned about Arkansas' children, has threatened to file a lawsuit to prevent the ban from being placed on the ballot. The group says the ban discriminates against unmarried couples and would "deny loving homes to the children who need them most."

Debbie Willhite, a representative of Arkansas Families First, said the organization has discovered several invalid signatures on the petition. The group questions the constitutionality of the ban.

According to the report, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel is against the proposed ban, but he admitted it is likely to prevail in a legal challenge.

In 2004, Family Council successfully passed an Arkansas constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Its proposals receive support from several churches.

[HisDaughter]

So.....I get my phone bill yesterday and I see that it has almost doubled since I discontinued service in March and reconnected in June.  Remember I was between apartments?  I just have a basic, no frills, no thrills, no long distance service because it is strictly to hook my computer up to.
So I call Quest this morning to see what is up.  Why has it gone up $8.41 in just four months!!!  My bill used to be $13.30 and now it's 21.91.
Well the fellow read me off the taxes.  It is ALL FEDERAL TAXES!!

So lets say that Quest has 1,000,000,000 customers with basic service.  I'm sure they have more customers than that, and there are probably hight taxes with higher services, but lets just go with that figure.  That means that the federal government is making 8,410,000,000 A MONTH just from these customer's PHONE BILL alone!

Oh, what happened to the good old days when we could just band together and throw a good old fashioned Boston Tea Party!  They've got us my the throats and they are going for the jugular!

I thanked the nice young man for his help but then I couldn't help myself...I told him that I sure hoped and prayed that he wasn't going to vote Democrat or we'd be seeing a whole lot more of this!

[Soldier4Christ]

That's almost a 40% increase. It is beyond ridiculous and they do want more. I'm all for that Tea Party.

[HisDaughter]

Dangerous Ground - US to guarantee treaty dividing Jerusalem

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, completing a visit to the region today, has been pressing Israel to sign a document by the end of the year that would divide Jerusalem by offering the Palestinians a state in Israel's capital city as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to top diplomatic sources involved in the talks.

The Israeli team, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has been negotiating the division of Jerusalem – despite claims to the contrary – but would rather conclude an agreement on paper by the end of the year that would give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank, Gaza and some Israeli territory, leaving conclusions on Jerusalem for a later date, the informed diplomatic sources told WND.

The sources said the Palestinian team has been pushing to conclude a deal by January on all core issues, including Jerusalem, and has been petitioning the U.S. to pressure Israel into signing an agreement on paper that offers the Palestinians eastern Jerusalem.

Rice, the sources said, has asked Israeli leaders to bend to what the U.S. refers to as a "compromise position," concluding an Israeli-Palestinian agreement by the end of the year that guarantees sections of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But Israel would not be required to withdraw from Jerusalem for a period of one to five years.

The diplomatic sources said the plan is that once an Israeli-Palestinian deal is reached on paper by January, Bush would issue an official letter guaranteeing that the U.S. supports the conclusions of the document.

Any Israeli-Palestinian paper agreement is to finalize a process that began at last November's U.S. backed Annapolis conference, which seeks to create a Palestinian state, at least on paper, before Bush leaves office.

One Palestinian negotiator speaking to WND described as "crazy" the intensity and frequency of Israeli-Palestinian talks in recent weeks, saying both sides have been meeting on a daily basis, usually at the highest levels. The negotiator said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Chief Palestinian Negotiator Ahmed Queri have been leading the talks.

The negotiator said Jerusalem is being discussed by both sides and that the two teams are "closer than ever" on coming to an agreement on the status of the city.

This claim was verified to WND by other diplomatic sources involved in the negotiations.

The Palestinian negotiator said Jerusalem would be divided along the framework of the 2000 U.S.-brokered Camp David accords. He said the general philosophy for dividing Jerusalem would be "Arab for Arab and Jew for Jew," meaning that most Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem would be granted to the Palestinian Authority while Israel would retain Western, Jewish-majority sections.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods. Jerusalem has an estimated total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

A number of Arab-majority eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods widely regarded as slated for a Palestinian state include large numbers of Arabs who live on Jewish-owned land illegally. The Jewish National Fund, a U.S.-based nonprofit, owns hundred of acres of eastern Jerusalem land in which tens of thousands of Arabs illegally constructed homes the past few decades. Arabs are now the majority on the Jewish-owned land in question.

Asked by WND whether Jerusalem is currently being negotiated, Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, simply stated, "No."

Olmert has several times denied Jerusalem is being negotiated. Members of his government coalition have promised to bolt his government and precipitate new elections if Jerusalem is discussed in talks.

Olmert, facing several criminal investigations described as "serious," recently announced he will resign after his Kadima party holds primaries next month to chose a new leader. That leader is widely expected to continue Israeli-Palestinian talks, especially if frontrunner Livni takes Olmert's place.

The diplomatic situation in Israel is such that many commentators believe Olmert has an interest in concluding some sort of agreement quickly. Many believe he would like his input in an Israeli-Palestinian agreement to be among his final "achievements."

WND first exclusively reported Aug. 1 that Olmert told the PA he intends to accelerate negotiations to reach some understanding on paper as soon as September.

Over the weekend, the Israeli media quoted officials close to Olmert stating the prime minister is working for an interim document as soon as next month to be presented to the United Nations. The document likely will not be the conclusion of negotiations but an outline of some of the breakthroughs regarding the West Bank and Gaza.

One PA negotiator told WND of the planned paper: "Papers are very important. It puts limits on the new prime minister. For example, the weak point of Israeli-Syrian negotiations are papers signed by former prime ministers that now must be abided during current negotiations."

U.S.-influenced plan splits nation

Regarding the expected agreement on the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the general plan, according to top diplomatic sources, is to create a Palestinian state in the vast majority of the West Bank, but for Israel to retain large West Bank Jewish community blocs of Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and the areas surrounding Jerusalem, and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to Israel.

A plan being floated and heavily influenced by the U.S. grants the Palestinians passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on territory that would be jointly patrolled by Israel and the PA. The passageway would give the Palestinians access to areas close to central Israeli population centers.

An area from the Israeli Negev nearly equivalent in land mass to the territory Israel would retain in the West Bank would be transferred to the West Bank – marking the first official Israeli plan that calls for pre-1967 land to be given to the Palestinians. Pre-1967 refers to Israeli territory that was not reconquered in the 1967 Six Day War. Much of the plan previously was published by WND in a series of articles in recent months and was published last week by Israel's Haaretz daily.

The plan would be set out on paper and implemented on the Israeli side in stages, while the PA would need to first retake control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas before Israel would give them most of the West Bank.

Jerusalem division plan revealed

Regarding the division of Jerusalem, top diplomatic sources said both sides are close to agreements on specific issues.

One PA negotiator claimed the U.S. has guaranteed the Palestinians that sensitive areas in eastern Jerusalem in which what he termed "extremist Jews" are purchasing real estate would be handed to the Palestinians.

"The Israelis had no problem with this," the PA negotiator claimed. "We were also told not to worry too much about scattered Jewish properties in Arab neighborhoods, or yeshivas (Jewish seminaries) in the Old City."

The PA negotiator's claim could not be verified by sources in Jerusalem.

According to informed Israeli and Palestinian sources, officials from the State Department in 2008 presented both negotiating sides with several proposals for consideration regarding the future status of Jerusalem. It was unclear whether the U.S. proposals were accepted.

One U.S. plan for Jerusalem obtained by WND was divided into timed phases, and among other things called for Israel eventually to consider forfeiting parts of the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site.

According to the first stage of the U.S. proposal, Israel would initially give the PA some municipal and security sovereignty over key Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. The PA would be allowed to open some official institutions in Jerusalem, could elect a mayor for the Palestinian side of the city and would deploy some kind of so-called basic security force to maintain law and order. The specifics of the force were not detailed in the plan.

The initial stage also calls for the PA to operate Jerusalem municipal institutions, such as offices to oversee trash collection and maintenance of roads.

After five years, if both sides keep specific commitments called for in a larger principal agreement, according to the U.S. plan the PA would be given full sovereignty over agreed upon eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods and discussions would be held regarding an arrangement for the Temple Mount. The plan doesn't specify which parts of the Temple Mount could be forfeited to the Palestinians or whether an international force may be involved.

The PA also could deploy official security forces in Jerusalem separate from a non-defined basic force after the five year period and could also open major governmental institutions, such as a president's office, and offices for the finance and foreign ministries.

The U.S. plan leaves Israel and the PA to negotiate which Jerusalem neighborhoods would become Palestinian.

According to diplomatic sources familiar with the plan, while specific neighborhoods were not officially listed, American officials recommended sections of Jerusalem's Old City as well as certain largely Arab Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Jabal mukabar, Beit Hanina, Abu Dis, and Abu Tur become part of the Palestinian side. Also recommended were the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Shoafat, Kfar Akev and Qalandiya

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I get sick and angry reading about men negotiating and debating the land of Israel and Jerusalem. Think about this for a moment and try to understand that this land isn't subject to mankind's whims, treaties, negotiations, and debates. GOD has already ruled on this issue, and HIS Ruling is final. I realize that mankind will disobey GOD'S ruling, but CHRIST will take what is HIS at HIS SECOND COMING.

Christians, believe it or not - JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE ANOINTED KING OF ISRAEL, AND HE WILL NOT BE DENIED! CHRIST will take HIS Throne - the Throne of David in Jerusalem - and HE will Rule and Reign over the earth. Mankind won't be taking anything that belongs to GOD - at least for long. I consider it disrespectful to GOD for men to discuss dividing what belongs to GOD! GOD will give mankind what HE pleases, but mankind WILL NOT take from GOD what mankind pleases. Who in their right mind wants to steal something that belongs to the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE? GOD HAS ALREADY CLAIMED THIS LAND, AND IT IS PART OF HIS PROMISES TO ISRAEL! Anyone who reads the Holy Bible can easily understand this. My question is simple, "What kind of fool wants to go directly against what ALMIGHTY GOD has claimed and Promised?" Do we have anyone negotiating the peace who knows how to read the BIBLE?

Love In Christ,
Tom

Famous Christian Quotes 56 - "All of us who were engaged in the
struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending
providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy
opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our
future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful
friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have
lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing
proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it
probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?" -- Benjamin
Franklin (To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention)

[Soldier4Christ]

Do we have anyone negotiating the peace who knows how to read the BIBLE?[/b]

Even if they have read the Bible unfortunately most of them do not take it for what it is and think that they can still compromise with evil and win. It is a lesson that many will have to learn the hard way.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dem cops cuff, stuff Christian girls
Sidewalk chalk messages challenged Obama's moral positions

Two teenagers who had been given city permission to write their messages protesting Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's support for abortion on public sidewalks during the Democratic National Convention this week were shoved to the sidewalk, cuffed and arrested for doing just that.

The two are part of the Survivors organization, a Christian, pro-life activism group dedicated to educating and activating high school and college age individuals.

It is called Survivors because those born after 1972 are survivors of the abortion holocaust, the group said. "One-third of your generation has been killed by abortion in America."

Spokeswoman Danielle Versluys told WND the group had consulted with Denver city officials as well as police prior to the DNC, and had been told that chalk messages on sidewalks would be allowed. Even though the city's deputy chief was in the meeting, that message apparently didn't get forwarded to officers on the street.

Just about the time Obama, an ardent abortion supporter whose advocacy for the procedure has gone even further than that of the National Abortion Rights Action League, was making a surprise visit to the DNC meeting at which vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden was speaking to the crowds, the girls were participating in "A Prayer for Change" protest outside the hotel where Obama was staying.

"I was peacefully sidewalk chalking when I was forcefully pushed to ground by a police officer from behind," Jayne White, 17, described. "As I was being cuffed on the ground, the police officer pushed his knee into the back of my neck. I was pulled roughly off the ground and taken away. I was given no warning to stop and was completely shocked when I was arrested.'

Julia Giacopuzzi, age 15, was surprised by a police officer twisting her arms behind her back and using them to lift her off the ground to be handcuffed.

"I was rushed by a police officer without warning and lifted up off the ground and was cuffed. I was then dragged by the police into the Westin Hotel," she said.

Throughout the DNC, the youthful members of the organization have been using sidewalk chalk to raise attention to the issue of life with the permission of City Attorney David Fine and Denver Deputy Chief of Police John Lamb.

"It was understood by the young women that sidewalk chalk was an accepted medium, and they were given no warning by the police before being cuffed and dragged away," the group said.

Versluys told WND the two later were released, and it was unclear whether they will face a prosecution in Denver yet.

"It blows my mind," she said. "I think the officers were keyed up. We're not sure whether they acted of their own accord or had orders."

Also arrested in the incident was Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition in Washington. Officials said he was threatened with a felony for "leading" the event.

"I am horrified and outraged at the treatment of these two girls. Not only were they legally expressing their opinions on the public sidewalk, but they were doing so peacefully and without incident. The officers acted without provocation, and should be ashamed of themselves for terrorizing two young women," Versluys said.

"I am also appalled that the city of Denver boasted of the city's preparation for the convention but clearly neglected to train their police force to respect the First Amendment and the rights of citizens to peacefully demonstrate," she said.

"The city of Denver sent a clear message to civic-minded young people this week: the First Amendment doesn't apply here," she said.

(The arrests were video taped. The tape, which starts well before any police action, shows that there was no verbal warning from police and that these girls were being very peaceful in their protest when the police quickly moved in and took the girls down, handcuffing them. )

"I am shocked at how cowardly these police officers behaved by attacking little girls without warning or provocation," said Troy Newman, chief of the Operation Rescue campaign in Wichita, Kan.. "There was absolutely no reason for [any violence.]"

He said his organization the chalk protesters "conducted themselves peacefully and appropriately at all times."

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

We should remember that a lot of weird and evil things are happening in Colorado right now. I would suspect that just about all kinds of demonstrations - EXCEPT CHRISTIAN - were welcome. It's hard to say what was communicated to the officers or what their orders were. I spent my life in law enforcement, so I have reflected on things like this. I give thanks that I was only asked a very few times to do anything I knew was wrong, and I refused. They did attempt discipline, but the Grievance Board over-ruled the discipline and dismissed it. Regardless, disciplinary actions in police work are usually harsh, expensive, and hard to deal with whether the disciplinary action sticks or not. Very few people could take something like that very often, so I would suspect that they've hired some pretty liberal cops and many others have probably left the state or sought other employment. Bluntly, I don't know any police officers who hate Christians, and I certainly don't know any who would purposely mistreat Christians or violate the rights of Christians. The Police Department I served on for 25 years was staffed by nearly ALL Christians, and I really didn't think that was unusual for this part of the country. Most of the officers I know from other agencies are also Christians, so stories like this are hard to understand. I've only been retired since 2001, but maybe things have changed. Things have definitely changed in Colorado, but I have no idea how long those changes took.

As far as I know, conduct like this by police officers on my department would still result in harsh discipline. Further, I don't know any officers who would obey an order to go rough up a bunch of Christians and make false arrests. These arrests would be FALSE ARRESTS unless there is much more to the story than what we're hearing. It's important to note that a False Arrest can result in much more than just harsh department discipline. There can be serious criminal charges involved and civil remedies that would immediately bankrupt any police officer. As a conclusion, it would be stupid for any police officer to obey an illegal order given by a superior. If the police officer was forced to make an immediate choice, the only wise choice would be to resign. SO, I'll have to say that I don't understand this case.