YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

You were quite fortunate to have a police dept that you had.

I live in a very liberal oriented state. After all this is the state that Obama is Senator of. We have also had a major change in the police force here recently. Without getting into it too much and possibly getting myself into some un-needed trouble let me just say that I would not be surprised if something of that nature happened here pretty soon if it hasn't already happened.

[Soldier4Christ]

California plans to drug depressed patients to death
'Nothing in the bill prohibits this horror'


Just as Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama was in Denver preaching to a crowd of thousands of fans about the "change" he wants to see in the United States, his party compatriots in the California Legislature were making a "change," by approving a controversial plan that would allow nurses to assist terminally ill patients with suicide.

"AB 2747 allows a physician assistant or a nurse to opine that a patient is 'terminal,' and then push for unnatural death by 'palliative sedation,'" said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families shortly after the vote.

"Depressed patients who succumb to this pressure will be drugged unconscious and die from dehydration, usually within five to 10 days. Nothing in the bill prohibits this horror," he said.

Forty-two Democrats in California voted in favor of the plan: 30 Republicans and two Democrats opposed the plan.

"AB 2747 pushes suicide through the back door at the hands of non-physicians taking advantage of depressed patients," Thomasson said. His organization has been alerting Californians to raise their concerns about the plan for sudden death with floor alerts, phone calls and e-mails.

"AB 2747 cheapens the value of human life by endorsing suicide as an option. Gov. Schwarzenegger should pledge to veto this very dangerous bill," Thomasson said, describing how the author, Assemblywoman Pattie Berg of Eureka, "deceptively changed" the bill to appear that "voluntarily stopping of eating and drinking" and "palliative sedation" no longer were on a list of "symptom management" options.

But the final bill "is broad enough to easily include these suicide techniques," Thomasson said.

The specific references to those treatments simply were changed to "other clinical treatments useful when a patient is actively dying."

According to the CCF report, Assemblyman Van Tran of Costa Mesa warned the bill has no protections for patients "who could be mistakenly diagnosed as 'terminally ill' but would have many, many full years of life ahead."

"The bill does not otherwise attempt to expressly define terminal illness that each of these health care professionals would have to diagnose to trigger the offer of counseling end of life options. It is not clear why nurse practitioners and physician assistants could make such a significant diagnosis. It is further not clear from the bill how making such significant diagnoses on a case-by-case basis can be done by such practitioners and assistants based on so-called 'standardized procedures and protocols' not further defined by the bill. The potential effect of AB 2747 is extremely broad and could cause irrevocable harm."

Added Republican Doug La Malfa of Yuba City: "We really go down a slippery slope when we contemplate the ending of life in such a way that it could be coerced. You have people in a very precarious situation, in a very awkward situation, that when thrust upon them with options to end their life, you have people that may feel like they have no use anymore. They feel like they're not of value anymore, and that taking one of these options, they may feel, is the only way out, that they've become a burden to their family or to someone else. I would hate to put people in that kind of position. They're already feeling vulnerable, and now, confronted with ways to end your life – this is a very delicate and, I think, dangerous idea here. You could have people like heirs that are anxious to get the estate started and quietly coercing people into making decisions like this."

"Total sedation (TS) – called by some 'terminal sedation,' 'palliative sedation,' or 'slow euthanasia' – is a protocol recently added to the lexicon of contemporary medical interventions and is a construct actively promulgated by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO)," wrote Dr. Howard M. Ducharme, past chair of the philosophy department at the University of Akron. "It is defined as 'the application of pharmacotherapy to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) in order to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering. However, any quick acceptance of TS would be ill-advised because of the many 'devils in the details.'"

[Soldier4Christ]

Texas to teachers: Bible will be taught
Plan requires instruction in both Old and New Testaments

The Bible's history and literature will be required to be taught in public schools in Texas under a new law that has been clarified by the state attorney general to mean exactly what it says.

"This is a huge victory for the people of Texas and, I think, for people across the country for academic freedom," said Jonathan Saenz, a lawyer for Liberty Legal. "There are 1,300 references to the Bible in the works of Shakespeare alone. Over 60 percent of the allusions studied in [advanced placement] English come from the Bible. Students are going to be better academically and culturally when they hear about the Bible."

The decision is a result of work by the state legislature as well as an opinion from Greg Abbott, the state's attorney general, in a letter to Education Commissioner Robert Scott. House Bill 1287 was approved by state lawmakers in the spring of 2008, and it was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry. It states all school districts must offer the course as an elective at the high school level by the 2009-2010 school year.

Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, the author of the plan, said if 15 or more students express interest in the course, districts must provide it.

"A lot of schools don't know they can have the course, and this bill notifies them that the Supreme Court ruled school districts can offer it," Chisum said earlier in advocating for the plan. "School districts should know they can offer the course because it better prepares students for college literature and history classes."

Kevin Franck, of the People for the American Way, told the San Antonio newspaper his group isn't necessarily opposed to the plan, but will be watching its implementation.

And Chisum said the legislature specifically addressed the Bible, not the Quran or any other religious writing, because "the Bible as a text … has historical and literary value."

"It can't go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature," he said.

Saenz told WND the actual curriculum – whether schools use only the Bible or another text – is left up to the local school district boards.

"Students more and more have been demanding the courses," he said. "The problem has been that school districts have been threatened [by activists] for offering the courses.

"Now they've got the state board of education's clear guidelines, and support from the attorney general," he said.

He said his organization has been involved in the adoption of the law from its beginning. Counting members of both houses in the legislature, the vote in Texas was 167-3 for the plan.

Liberty Legal, a group committed to defending religious freedoms and First Amendment rights, had been asked to submit a brief on the issue of requiring schools to teach the Bible.

Saenz told WND the requirement allows such education to be either in a regular class or a separate class.

He noted that in one school district close to Dallas, already 160 students have signed up for the class.

Among the subjects that must now be taught in Texas are English, math, science, social students, health, physical education, fine arts, economics, technology and "religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament."

"A school district must, of course, offer instruction in the subject matter … 'as required curriculum,'" said the attorney general's opinion, confirming for state education officials the legislature's intent. "The Legislature did not mandate that this curriculum instruction be provided in independent courses.'

One group, the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, promotes its curriculum as the only one that uses the Bible as its primary textbook. Supporters include the conservative American Family Association, Eagle Forum and Plano-based Liberty Legal.

Council President Elizabeth Ridenour said the group's material already is being used in 54 Texas school districts. There also are other curriculums that use their own textbooks.

[Shammu]

Court gives Planned Parenthood 'license to lie'
Abortion opponents incorrectly accused of advocating violence
Posted: September 04, 2008
12:20 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A state judge in Illinois has given the billion-dollar Planned Parenthood corporation "a license to lie," according to pro-life activists incorrectly accused by the company of having a "well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property."

The ruling, which dismissed parts of a libel action brought by the activists, came from Judge Judith Brawka, who interpreted the published accusations by Planned Parenthood and its executive, Steve Trombley, against the citizens opposing a new abortion mega-clinic in Aurora, Ill., as protected under the state's Citizen Protection Act.

The allegations were found in several locations, including an ad in the Aurora Beacon News that was headlined "Don't Let the Extremists Deny Vital Health Care to the People of Peoria," and it warned "Joe Scheidler and his Pro-Life Action League have a well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property, as well as other related criminal activity."

Lawyers with the Thomas More Society of Chicago sued over the claims, saying they apparently were drawn from an old court case against Scheidler and the League brought by the National Organization for Women on behalf of abortion clinics nationwide.

But any accusation in that case later was turned into a "legal nullity," Brejcha told WND, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions to reject the claims on votes of 8-1, and 8-0.

As WND reported, Brejcha earlier demanded a retraction from Planned Parenthood and Trombley. Instead Trombley repeated them.

"He stood up 5 feet away from me in the lobby of the federal building and repeated these outrageous lies," Brejcha said.

The unsuccessful NOW case essentially accused pro-lifers of using organized crime tactics against clinics.

WND reported in 2006 that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled for the third time in favor of pro-life activists who were sued by NOW over their aggressive demonstrations at abortion clinics under the federal RICO organized crime statute.

In 2003, WND reported NOW had lost its second round in the Supreme Court in a decisive 8-1 ruling. The feminist group charged that protests organized by Scheidler's Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League amounted to extortion under RICO.

However, Planned Parenthood argued in the current libel action brought on behalf of the pro-life organization and its members that under the state's Citizen Participation Act the billion-dollar tax-subsidized corporation had "absolute immunity" because it made the statements "in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government" and those carry immunity from liability "regardless of intent or purpose."

"Planned Parenthood has been granted a license to lie," said Eric Scheidler, the son of Joe Scheidler and the communications director for the Pro-Life Action League. He's among the Aurora, Ill., residents who brought the libel suit.

"This ruling gives Planned Parenthood, and any other organization with deep pockets, total immunity for making false, defamatory statements against private citizens," he said.

The Aurora residents have opposed the abortion mega-clinic that was built by Planned Parenthood using a front company so that residents would not realize what was being constructed.

According to officials with PLAN, the state's Citizen Participation Act was established in 2007 to protect small grassroots organizations lobbying for government action from large corporations who want to scare them into silence with the threat of costly lawsuits.

But PLAN said in this case, it’s the billion-dollar company, Planned Parenthood, that is alleging it is intimidated by the small group of city residents who oppose its abortion business.

"Because the ad [Planned Parenthood] ran contained a line urging readers to call their local alderman in support of the new clinic, Judge Judith Brawka interpreted it and the letter to city council as being protected," PLAN said.

"The judge didn't decide Steve Trombley is innocent of libeling us, but that it didn't matter even if he were guilty," said Scheidler.

The judge is allowing Scheidler to file an amended complaint based on four specific items in which Planned Parenthood made similar statements and did not include the appeal for government action, and PLAN said it is possible under the judge's interpretation they may not be protected.

Scheidler also said an appeal was being considered.

"Illinois lawmakers drafted the Citizen Participation Act to protect people's freedom to speak their minds, not to keep citizens from defending their good names," said Scheidler. "If this ruling stands, anyone can spread deliberate, malicious lies about another person, as long as their statements can be construed as seeking action from any unit of government, including voters. That should scare all Illinoisans who care about honesty and accountability."

Scheidler said he could be forced to pay all of Planned Parenthood's legal costs associated with the libel suit, which he estimates could be more than $50,000. That would mean bankruptcy for him and his family, but he said that's a price he's willing to pay.

"No matter what lies Steve Trombley and Planned Parenthood may tell about us, pro-lifers in Aurora are peacefully saving babies from abortion at Planned Parenthood every week," he said.

The next hearing on the four remaining counts is scheduled in October.

PLAN was launched by Joseph Scheidler in 1980 with the aim of saving unborn children through non-violent direct action. Through prayer vigils outside abortion facilities and sidewalk counseling, the League reaches out to abortion- bound women and couples with abortion alternatives, confidential counseling and access to pregnancy resources.

As WND has reported, the same mega-clinic also is being targeted by other action alleging city officials violated their own zoning codes in allowing the construction project to move forward.

The Thomas More Society said it has filed formal appeals to both the Aurora Building Code Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of Fox Valley Families against Planned Parenthood.

"The appellants claim that the city continues to refuse to apply the correct ordinance to Planned Parenthood, even after the city conceded that its outside attorneys applied the wrong ordinance to the facility during their legal review in September of last year," the law firm announcement said.

The situation also has been clouded by reports Planned Parenthood's subsidiary, Gemini Office Development (GOD), falsified permit applications, obtained an invalid building permit, had invalid building inspections, and violated other city laws during the construction process.

[Soldier4Christ]

Shocking trend: U.S. courts citing Wikipedia
Department of Homeland Security, immigration judge consult 'free encyclopedia'

An immigration judge is under fire after he cited Wikipedia in his ruling, and some say it is just the newest example of a disturbing trend.

The online "free encyclopedia," written and edited by its users, has been considered an unreliable source by teachers, authors, editors, patent examiners, librarians and researchers. But now a judge has based part of his ruling on a Wikipedia entry, Bender's Immigration Bulletin reported.

Homeland Security cites Wikipedia

An Italian woman named Lamilem Badasa entered the United States using fraudulent papers and applied for asylum under Article III of the Convention Against Torture. It was denied because she did not have valid identification. However, she acquired a travel document from Ethiopia to prove her identity – a pass known as laissez-passer.

The Bureau of Immigration Appeals agreed to resubmit her case to an immigration judge. After reviewing her documents, Department of Homeland Security officials claimed laissez-passer does not establish identity – and to explain the purpose of the travel document, they provided an entry from Wikipedia.

At the time of this WND report, the website's laissez-passer entry was four paragraphs long and did not cite a single reference or source. Yet, an unnamed immigration judge took DHS' information, ruled against Badasa, denied asylum and rejected her appeal.

Following his decision, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals claimed it "did not condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings," according to last week's ruling filed by Judge Steven M. Colloton of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It said the immigration judge's decision "may have appeared more solid had Wikipedia.com not been referenced."

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" tells the public, "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." The organization simultaneously claims federal law protects it from liability of its users' edits because it operates an "interactive computer service."

The Bureau of Immigration Appeals "presumably was concerned that Wikipedia is not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest the determination that an alien alleging a risk of future persecution is not entitled to asylum," according to court documents.

Badasa was granted a new review by the appeals court, and the case was sent back to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.

Courts catch Wikipedia fever

In "Courting Wikipedia," the American Association for Justice recently revealed an alarming trend toward courts referencing the website in more than 100 published opinions.

"The citations are sometimes inexplicable," Jason Richards wrote. "The Seventh Circuit, for example, cited Wikipedia in a recent drug case to provide background information on the defendant ("Radomski is a former trainer of the Polish boxer Andrew Golota – the world's most colorful boxer"), even though Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the opinion, had firsthand experience of the Web site's unreliability."

In another Seventh Circuit case, John M. Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the plaintiff cited Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's College Dictionary definitions for "wear and tear" in a class action suit against the company's damage waiver for tool rentals. The court opted instead to use a definition found on Wikipedia:

    Although it is true that dictionary definitions of "wear and tear" often employ the word "damage," that does not mean that damage and "wear and tear" are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_and_tear , last visited May 30, 2008.

"t provides an example of a disturbing trend," Richards continued. "More and more law students and law professors are citing to entries in this publicly authored Web site in their papers, attorneys are relying on it in their legal briefs, expert witnesses are using it to support their opinions, and courts are citing the source either tangentially or, even worse, as the primary legal basis for their opinions."

The report reveals the Eleventh Circuit was the first court to cite Wikipedia in its 2004 published opinion. It did so to explain the Department of Homeland Security's threat-level system after antiwar protestors claimed their First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when authorities conducted magnetometer searches.

Why did the federal court rely on Wikipedia instead of government documents?

Richards does not offer a reason for the trend. However, he wrote, "Surely issues concerning national security, free speech, and unreasonable searches and seizures should command more deference and attention."

[Soldier4Christ]

Cops strip-search 'loitering' pro-lifers
Protesters heckled, arrested, jailed for opposing abortion


The allegations in the case sound like a 3rd World dictatorship: Police officers talk over before the arrests what charges they'll use, there are no explanations when the arrests are made, the suspects are denied access to legal counsel while in custody, and cops subject suspects to semi-public strip-searches.

Only this was in Bel Air, Md., and the pro-life protesters subjected to the treatment now have brought a legal action against the officers and town for violating their Constitutional rights.

"The truth of the matter is that our clients were heckled, arrested, imprisoned, shackled, and strip-searched twice for exercising their First Amendment rights," said attorney Daniel Cox, who is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund is serving as local counsel. "No excuse exists for how our young clients were treated."

The lawsuit accuses Bel Air, seven police officials and Harford County of violating the rights of 18 pro-life advocates who were arrested when they held signs and shared their message along a public street. Those arrested included three young women who faced repeated strip-searches while being cited for loitering, disorderly conduct and failure to obey.

Prosecutors later simply stopped prosecution of the case. City officials did not respond to WND attempts to reach them for a comment today.

The lawsuit now alleges a multitude of violations of the U.S. Constitution in actions by police who first ordered the pro-lifers off of county property, and later when they were complied and moved to city property, swooped down on them in seven marked police cars, shackled and jailed them, and performed the strip searches.

"This incident paints an ugly picture of the state of religious freedom and free speech in American today," Kevin Theriot, ADF senior counsel, said. "The state shouldn't prosecute Christians for expressing their beliefs on important social issues, nor deny them their constitutional rights."

As least a dozen police officers broke up the peaceful protest set up by members of Defend Life. They were standing apart from each other on city property holding their anti-abortion signs touching the ground so they would not obstruct any sight lines, the ADF said.

The officers had ordered them off of county property because they did not have a permit to engage in free speech, the report said. And after the arrests, "Three young female participants – including teenagers – were subjected to two rounds of strip-searches," the lawsuit said.

"The first search took place in the police station parking lot in front of other males. A female officer pulled out the young ladies' shirt collars to inspect their breasts before reaching down their pants to feel around their waistlines. The Harford County Detention Center administered the second strip-search after the pro-life participants were transferred there. A female officer took the women one by one into a bathroom with a partially open door and ordered them to lift up their shirts and brassieres," the lawsuit said.

The case also alleges although attorneys Steve Peroutka and Scott Whiteman arrived to consult with the defendants late in the evening, they were not allowed to contact those who had been jailed, some of whom were not released until mid-morning of the next day.

The pro-life protesters, some of whom also were being represented by the Thomas More Society of Chicago and the American Catholic Lawyers Association, named as defendants the town and the county, as well as officers Terrence Sheridan, Donald Ravadge, Mark Zulauf and Armand Dupre and three state patrol troopers.

"Defendants' requirement to obtain a permit prior to peaceful assembly and protest on public property violates time-honored free speech practice under the First and Fourteenth Amendments," the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctions and damages.

Among those arrested as Angela Swagler, 18, Elizabeth Walsh, 20, and Joan Walsh, 18.

They moved into Bel Air after being told to get off of county property. The officers then approached them inside Bel Air.

"Plaintiffs were put in handcuffs and held alongside the heavily trafficked public road for over a half hour, making them appear to be criminals to the public, putting both them and their message into disrepute, and exposing them to shouted ridicule," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said the sexually invasive searches then were performed, once in a public parking lot, and the second time in a jail restroom with a door partly open. The lawsuit said another inmate held on a separate case related that she had not been subjected to that type of search.

"As a result of the defendants' past and present refusal to allow plaintiffs to exercise their political and social speech rights in traditional public forums, plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law," the lawsuit said.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

If there is any blockage of public streets or sidewalks, permits are required. The same is true for use of sound equipment or any act that could result in elevated danger for members of the public. Activities requiring permits usually boil down to plain common sense, but it's still best for Christians to consult city authorities about actions requiring permits. There is NO example of anything in this article that seems should require a permit. If an action does require a permit, normal procedures are to inform the people that a permit is required, why, and how to obtain one. It rarely involves arrests unless there are other significant violations of the law. As easy examples, there are no rights to assault other people or commit actions that put innocent members of the public in danger.

This case sounds like NOTHING but abuse and malicious prosecution of Christians simply because they are Christians! If there isn't any aggravating circumstances we haven't been told about in the article, the arrests WERE FALSE and the CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the arrested people were violated! In fact, the RIGHTS VIOLATIONS would involve the most basic RIGHTS that make America American!

If one wants to contrast lawful actions with unlawful actions, one can look at the huge variety of criminal acts committed by demonstrators at the Republican Convention. People were assaulted, fires were started, property was destroyed, and innocent members of the public were put in great danger by a variety of extremely STUPID ACTS! I find it ironic that the police gave many a pass who obviously committed CRIMINAL ACTS! Only the worst ones were arrested. In contrast, there is no mention of criminal acts committed by the Christians who were arrested. If there was any kind of violation by the Christians, it might have been a technical violation of something requiring a permit. BUT, there is insufficient information given to indicate even a technical violation on something as small as a permit.

I'm very sad to say that it appears we are watching a quick and horrible change in our society. It's dramatic and sickening. NUDE PERVERTS have been allowed to perform obscene sexual acts on public streets, but Christians can't give away BIBLES on those same public streets. I realize this example is extreme, but extreme examples are becoming more common by the day. As Christians, do we really need to guess what we see coming? It's UGLY and EVIL!

[Soldier4Christ]

Want to know what law says? You'll have to pay
California copyrights regulations, forbids storage, distribution without consent

California's building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws can be found online.

But if you want to download and save those laws to your computer, forget it.

The state claims copyright to those laws. It dictates how you can access and distribute them -- and therefore how much you'll have to pay for print or digital copies.

It forbids people from storing or distributing its laws without consent.

That doesn't sit well with Carl Malamud, a Sebastopol resident with an impressive track record of pushing for digital access to public information. He wants California -- and every other federal, state and local agency -- to drop their copyright claims on law, contending it will pave the way for innovators to create new ways of searching and presenting laws.

"When it comes to the law, the courts have always said there can be no copyright because people are obligated to know what it says," Malamud said. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse in court."

Malamud is spoiling for a major legal fight.

He has begun publishing copies of federal, state and county codes online -- in direct violation of claimed copyright.

On Labor Day, he posted the entire 38-volume California Code of Regulations, which includes all of the state's regulations from health care and insurance to motor vehicles and investment.

To purchase a digital copy of the California code costs $1,556, or $2,315 for a printed version. The state generates about $880,000 annually by selling its laws, according to the California Office of Administrative Law.

Malamud isn't just targeting California. He posted safety and building codes for nearly all 50 states, and some counties and cities such as Sonoma County and Los Angeles.

This is not uncharted territory for Malamud. In 1994, he pushed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to post corporate filings online, opening the door for companies such as Google and Yahoo to create elaborate financial Web sites. In June, Malamud helped convince the state of Oregon to stop claiming copyright over its laws.

Now Malamud wants to do the same for California -- and everywhere else. And he's willing to go to court to make his point. He thinks the court system will rule in his favor, establishing a precedent that all government agencies must follow.

"If that happens, it opens the doors to innovation," Malamud said.

To get the California Code online, he digitally scanned a stack of documents that weighed 150 pounds. Now anyone can download the 33,000 pages, and print whatever they want from his Web site, public.resource.org.

Traditionally, governments provided publishing companies such as LexisNexis copies of laws to print and bind for people. It was practically the only way to get the laws distributed to people. LexisNexis claims to have the "world's largest collection of public records."

But the Internet has changed how people can share information. Increasingly, government agencies -- including Sonoma County -- contract with LexisNexis and other publishers to post their laws online.

"Most of the county staff now just look up the codes on the Internet," said Jennifer Barrett, Sonoma County's deputy planning director. "You can quickly search for keywords or a section. It's quite easy to find what you are looking for."

But LexisNexis does not format the online laws for easy printing or downloading, Malamud said. And that hampers how people can access the laws.

LexisNexis is the exclusive distributor of Sonoma County statutes, selling print versions for $220. It offers free access to the county's codes on the Internet, but its Web site is relatively archaic and doesn't include the features common in newer sites.

If the county provided those laws in a free, standardized digital format, others could design Web sites with more modern search and presentation features, Malamud said. Social Web sites could pop up where, for instance, plumbers could provide useful annotations to building codes -- perhaps blending Wikipedia with Facebook for a more useful law site.

LexisNexis declined to comment for this story. Its primary competitor, Thomson West, which publishes California laws under a contract with the state, does not claim copyright over government statutes, a spokesman said.

California asserts copyright protections for its laws, contending it ensures the public gets accurate, timely information while generating revenue for the state.

"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."

Malamud must get permission from the state to post codes online, Brown said. She was not familiar with Malamud's actions, and could not comment on what steps would be taken to protect the state's copyright.

Malamud might be seriously outgunned in regards to the financial and legal resources of the governments he is facing. But Malamud has a track record of defeating much larger foes, said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society.

"I think his work is extraordinarily important," Lessig said.

While there is a lot of commercial interest in stopping Malamud, his strategy of showing how easy it is for governments to post laws themselves makes a strong argument to the public, Lessig said.

Malamud thinks it will take him another three years to establish that no one can assert copyright over any U.S. law.

Like in his previous battles, he's not going it alone. His nonprofit has received about $2 million so far, with money coming from Internet pioneers such as the foundation of Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay. Malamud expects it will take several million more to finish his campaign.

He also has some heavy-hitting legal academics on his side.

Professor Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, has also questioned the legality of copyrighting standards and laws.

"If it's the law, the public should have access to it," she said.

Samuelson points out that the idea of copyright was established to provide people incentive to create. People are given exclusive legal rights to their paintings, writings and other works because by selling those rights they can attempt to make a living.

There is no similar need for financial incentives to establish standards such as building codes, Samuelson said. For the most part, volunteers spend long hours drafting proposed standards for things like plumbing and building. Governments often take those standards and adopt them into law.

Once the standards become law, she doesn't think people can claim copyright protections. But like Malamud, she sees the courts making the final ruling.

"I don't think it's an airtight case for either side. But I think the law favors that if something is a law, it's in the public domain," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judges endorse coed restrooms
Court says challenge to 'discrimination' ban failed because dead voters not represented

Maryland's highest court has endorsed Montgomery County's plans for coed restrooms and showers, concluding that a challenge to the new law had to fail because there were not enough signatures on the referendum petitions to represent dead voters.

Opponents of the law say they are reviewing their options for continuing their challenge to the extraordinary law that essentially leaves private homes and private clubs as the only locations where a person would not have the "right" to use the restroom or shower room designated for whatever gender that person feels on that given day.

"The court's ruling today is a loss for democracy, a loss for Montgomery County and a loss for common sense," said Dr. Ruth Jacobs, president of Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government.

The organization has been fighting the law since it was adopted by the county board last year in its campaign for "nondiscrimination" against individuals with "gender identity" issues. In that effort, the county failed to provide an exemption from the "nondiscrimination" law for locations of shared nudity, such as restaurant restrooms, community swimming pool shower rooms. Nor are there exemptions for religious organizations.

The opinion from the state Court of Appeals overturned a decision by a judge who found that voters should be allowed to determine the future of the "discrimination" ban." The reasoning by the high court was available only through comments made during the hearing, since the actual court order is a terse two-paragraph demand that the circuit court order be overturned, and the "reasons" would "be stated in an opinion later to be filed."

Circuit Judge Robert A. Greenberg previously concluded Bill 23-07, approved by the county board and signed into law by county executive Isiah Leggett, should be on the November ballot for voters, despite the wishes of Equality Maryland, an activist group for homosexuals, which did not want voters to have their say.

But the higher court's ruling left its opponents stunned.

"The court ruled … that the [Board of Elections] should have included 'inactive voters' when calculating the number of signatures that were required to place the issue on the ballot. Months after the deadline for turning in signatures, the court increased the number of valid signatures required from 25,001 signatures to over 27,000," the organization said, including the emphasis in its prepared statement.

Inactive voters are those who have failed to vote in two elections and have not responded to two letters from the government. Most are either dead or have moved out of state.

"We're very disappointed with this court's ruling, which suggests that, in America, every citizen does not have a voice," said Amy Smith, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which was working with MCRG. "[The] court decision sends a clear message that groups with narrow, extreme political agendas can disenfranchise the voters of an entire county."

Jacobs said the citizens' group collected more than the number of signatures set by the county for the referendum.

"Amazingly, Equality Maryland demanded that inactive voters who have likely died or moved out of state be considered in the calculation to determine the number of valid signatures needed. This simply demonstrates that they will go to any lengths to prevent living, breathing county residents from determining public policy," Jacobs said.

The MRCG said Bill 23-07 specifically orders no discrimination based on "gender perception" in all "public accommodations."

"The existing non-discrimination code, which Bill 23-07 amends, was written over 20 years ago. The existing non-discrimination code desegregated bathrooms, buses, restaurants and all kinds of public accommodations. Montgomery County points at the 'distinctly private and personal' existing part of the code (which precedes Bill 23-07 by 20 years) and implies that it somehow was written with bathrooms in mind," an analysis by the organization said.

MCRG documented the law defines gender identity as "an individual's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."

"This means that a male appearing as or perceiving he is a female, regardless of his DNA, anatomy, and chromosomal makeup, could gain the legal right to call himself a woman, and use the woman's facility in any public accommodation," the group said.

The group further argued the law could violate the privacy rights of the county's 500,000 women and children, since the county's public accommodations code would be revised to read:

"An … agent … of any place of public accommodation in the county must not, with respect to the accommodation: … make any distinction with respect to … race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with … use of any facility," the organization said.

Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel with the ADF, told WND the next step in the case is being assessed right now. He said the high court allowed the pro-homosexual activists to participate in oral arguments, but there were no arguments presented from those who oppose the special-rights law.

Jacobs told WND the right of voters to "act as a check-and-balance on their government has been thwarted."

Not only was the number of signatures changed after the fact, a deadline for complaints to be filed about the referendum process apparently was ignored by the court, officials said.

WND previously reported county officials approved the sprawling expansion of their anti-"discrimination" law, sponsored by county council member Duchy Trachtenberg, D-At Large.

County officials have told WND they have interpreted the law to mean that showers and restrooms would be excluded.

But Theresa Rickman, a founding MCRG member, argues, "With all due respect, if one accepts the council's assertion that the 'gender identity' law does not cover bathrooms, one would also have to accept that the county's public accommodations code never intended to racially desegregate bathrooms. Race and gender identity are both listed in the same sentence."

WND also has reported on the implementation of a similar plan in Colorado that would encompass the entire state. Critics have accused Gov. Bill Ritter of paying off wealthy homosexual political supporters with his decision to sign the plan into law.

The Maryland pro-family organization also has publicized a YouTube video it explains shows an assistant to Trachtenberg apparently trying to intimidate petition signature collectors and would-be signers.

The video shows the person telling volunteers, "An e-mail went out; you're going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal."

[nChrist]

It appears that we're watching a TINY number of PERVERTS trying to take over the country! THIS OBVIOUSLY MUST NOT AND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED!

[Soldier4Christ]

Return of 'hate crimes' plan looms in Congress
Legal crackdown on biblical condemnation of homosexuality feared


A federal "hate crimes" plan to criminalize speech or thoughts critical of homosexuality – dropped from Congress' agenda earlier because of a veto threat from President Bush – may be resurrected before the election, according to an opponent of such advocacy laws.

"Here's ultimately what we expect," Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law, told WND today. "The hate crimes plan is to be offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Defense reauthorization bill. That's what the word is, that it's going to be offered as an amendment."

Pro-homosexual advocates long have sought such a law but opponents fear it would be used to crack down on those who maintain a biblical perspective that condemns homosexuality as sin. Observers note that it would criminalize speech and thought, since other criminal actions already are addressed with current statutes.

Canada already has an aggressive "hate crimes" law, and there authorities there have gone so far as to tell a Christian pastor he must recant his faith because of the legislation that bans statements that can be "perceived" as condemning another person.

Some states already have similar statutes, too, and in New Mexico, a photography company run by two Christians was fined $6,600 by the state for declining to provide services to a lesbian couple setting up a lookalike "marriage" ceremony. Also, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter recently signed a bill into law that opponents describe as draconian, with one analyst expressing the opinion that it actually could be read as outlawing publication of the Bible in the state because of its injunctions against homosexuality.

Staver said his Washington sources said the defense bill was planned for a vote this week only hours after Congress was scheduled to reconvene, but the work was delayed and the apparent schedule for the vote now is Monday.

Given an affirmative cloture vote in the Senate, the bill then could be on the floor for a formal approval within as little as 24-48 hours.

Staver said the proposal had been made to include the "hate crimes" legislation in the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations, but the spending bill was passed last winter without the amendment because of Bush's veto threat.

The House already had passed the proposal as a stand-alone bill and had it a significant amount of support in the Senate, but its support base started fracturing there when Bush said it was unneeded and promise a veto, Staver said.

Bush has gone on record specifically noting the "hate crimes" legislation would create special privileges for those who identify themselves with an alternative sexual lifestyle.

Staver said since criminal acts already are addressed with existing law, the only impact of "hate crimes" legislation would be to criminalize free speech and religious speech and a person's thoughts. For example, an assailant convicted of attacking a heterosexual might get six months in jail. Under a "hate crimes" plan, if the victim reported being homosexual, the sentence might be enhanced significantly, analysts said.

Those who are concerned now should contact their members in the U.S. Senate to express their concerns, he said.

Bush also used the threat of a veto to head off another pro-homosexual congressional plan, called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would have granted special employment privileges to homosexual individuals.

Bush's advisory then also cited the plan as being "inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion."

According to Rev. Ted Pike, who also has battled "hate crimes" plans, Staver's concern "is justified."

"According to the August 22nd Washington Blade, 'Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), a lead sponsor of the bill in the House, has called on the Senate to pass the measure this year as a freestanding bill…' Frank, a homosexual, is as much a bellwether of pro-homosexual legislative trends in the House, as is Sen. Edward Kennedy in the Senate," Pike reported.

"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crimes based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However … if [the "hate crimes" plan] were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," the White House said during the earlier discussion.

The statement said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in the bill.

"State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement…" the statement said.

It said the administration believes all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished "firmly."

Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary, at one point decried what he described as a "Thought Crimes" plan.

"This bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," he said.

"Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property," Colson continued. "Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals…"

He noted, as WND earlier reported, in other locations, such as England, Sweden, Canada, and even Philadelphia, where similar laws have been approved, the "Thought Police" already have prosecuted Christians.

In Philadelphia, a grandmother was hauled to jail and threatened with 47 years in prison for proclaiming her Christianity on a public street, Repent America has reported.

The woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers.

[Soldier4Christ]

Boehner: Dem Energy Bill “Won’t Do A xxxx Thing About American Energy”

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today made remarks on the floor of the House on Democrats’ sham energy legislation scheduled for consideration this afternoon.

    “I appreciate the announcement from the chair that additional members will be allowed to give one-minutes. After in fact that it was announced earlier that there would be unlimited one-minutes. Then it was announced that we would only have 30 one-minutes on each side and I appreciate the announcement that we’ll have at least 20 more because our members want to speak. And I’ll tell you why.

    “When a bill gets filed at 9:45 the night before and then it’s announced it’s going to come to the floor the next morning as the first bill up, a bill that no one has read, written in the dark of night that won’t do a xxxx thing about American energy. Enough is enough!

    “The Speaker of the House said this would be the most open and ethical Congress in history. That we would consider things in a fair and open way. And it’s not going to be considered in a fair and open way. It shows up in the middle of the night, nobody has read the bill and guess what? The Republican Members that represent about 48 percent of the American people – we’re not allowed to offer a substitute. We have no opportunity to offer our American Energy plan that we’ve been on this floor talking about for three months, non-stop. We don’t even get a chance to offer the bill.

    “It’s rigged. And the bill that’s coming to the floor is nothing more than hoax on the American people and they will not buy it.”

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

We are actually watching EVIL assaulting everything decent we have left in our system and society. It's an attack on all fronts. A recent example is the Bill Obama pushed on Kindergarten Sex Education. His campaign claimed the charges were wrong and that it was nothing more than innocent "improper touching" type of education. WELL, that was a LIE.  It contained AIDS/HIV education and prevention, so you should be able to figure it out from there. The same garbage INDOCTRINATION is being pushed around the country.

"HATE CRIMES" should be recognized IMMEDIATELY as GAY ACTIVISM at work! It's just a term that sounds better. YES - it will be an assault against Christians, the Bible, and what's left of decency. Part of the goals involve SHUTTING CHRISTIANS UP and making moral standings illegal. Pastors, Christians, and the Bible are the targets - regardless of what language they try to use. At the very least, pay attention when you hear the code words "HATE CRIMES", and know there is nothing innocent or good about what's being attempted. You can also expect to see things like this hidden in other legislation or otherwise attempted passing in DECEPTIVE ways. DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

[Soldier4Christ]

House passes Democrat drill bill
Republicans criticize plan for leaving 88% of offshore oil off-limits

Offshore oil drilling, which has dominated energy debates in the U.S. presidential campaign, is now coming to the Senate.

The House late Tuesday approved on a 236-189 vote legislation that would open waters 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts to oil and natural gas development -- if the adjacent states agree to go along.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, where Democratic leaders are expected to mold it to their liking in the next few days.

So far, the Senate has indicated it has no intention of going as far as the House in expanding offshore oil and gas drilling beyond the western Gulf of Mexico, where energy companies have been pumping oil and gas for decades.

At least two proposals being crafted in the Senate would allow drilling in some areas along the southern Atlantic from Virginia to Georgia. But the Pacific and remainder of the Atlantic seaboard would not be affected.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democratic, also has said he would make way for a vote on a broader Republican drilling proposal that would allow states to opt for offshore exploration from New England to the Pacific Northwest and share in the royalties that are collected.

Congress has renewed bans on drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida annually for the past 26 years.

But expanded offshore drilling has become a mantra of Republican energy policy that has been felt in both presidential and congressional campaigns, even though lifting the drilling ban would have little if any impact on gasoline prices or produce any more oil for years.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed at the recently concluded Republican convention to push for new offshore oil and natural gas drilling as delegates chanted "drill, baby, drill." His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, also has said he supports more drilling as part of a broader energy package.

But in the Senate the issue of drilling remains divisive.

No matter what the proposal, it is expected to face a filibuster and no one has yet to predict with certainty that any drilling bill will garner the 60 votes needed to overcome such a roadblock.

The drilling measure passed late Tuesday in a largely party-line vote by the House is unlikely to survive the Senate.

President George W. Bush, who has called for ending the offshore drilling bans, signaled he would veto the legislation if it reached his desk, arguing that it would stifle offshore oil development instead of increasing it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic, called the bill "a new direction in energy policy ... that will end our dependence on foreign oil" by shifting federal subsidies from promoting the oil industry to spurring development of alternative energy sources and energy efficiency.

The House measure would allow drilling in waters 50 miles (80 kilometers) from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast. Beyond 100 miles (160 kilometers), no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

But Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gasoline prices.

"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason ... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."

The bill would not share royalties from energy production with the adjacent states, which Republicans said would keep states from accepting any new drilling off their beaches. Republicans also cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off-limits because they are within the 50-mile (80-kilometer) protective coastal buffer.

The House-passed bill calls for rolling back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for the five largest oil companies and using the revenue for tax incentives to help commercialize alternative energy such as solar, wind and biomass, and programs that foster energy efficiency.

The bill also would require the president to make available oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pelosi said such a move is needed to drive down gasoline prices, although oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent weeks and many energy experts believe gasoline prices will fall as well after refineries recover from Hurricane Ike.

Democrats added a provision at the last minute that makes it a federal crime for oil companies with federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

The House bill also would:

--Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.

--Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy sources.

--Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs, including the use of improved building codes, and for companies that promote their employees' use of bicycles for commuting.

[Soldier4Christ]

I sincerely hope and pray that the Senate does the wise thing on this legislation. I would rather see this bill get down completely and allow the no-drill bill just expire than to see this get passed through. This bill does nothing good for the nation and actually makes a bad situation worse.

Their underhanded method of writing this bill in the middle of the night and not allowing Republicans to submit a counter bill on it is just more of the type of politics that is seen in nations where there is a communistic take over.