Wait until next year for immigration reform

I think it is obvious that a good immigration bill can't be passed by our Congress this year because there is such a wide difference of opinion both in Congress and in the country. Any compromise that could come out of the Senate would have to be further compromised by a very hard-nosed House which could in effect be worse than no bill at all!

I think that the people will have to vote on this one in November by more carefully selecting their Representatives and some Senators. We have a large number of mean-spirited citizens out there, but I really wonder whether they constitute a majority. We should wait and find out.

Below is an AP version of the current status of the proposed legislation:

Senate Vote Shelves Immigration Bill
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.

The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.

The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.

But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.

"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."

The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.

Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.

But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.

The Senate voted after President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.

"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."

Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.

Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.

"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.

It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.

Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.

The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.

Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.

The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.

Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."

The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.

Gotcha Mr. President!

In 2003, when the public furor erupted over the disclosure of a CIA operative's status, Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the affair. "I want to know the truth," he said at the time. "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said then.

"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor [today]. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."

So, at last the truth, which we've suspected for a very long time is finally out. Our President has committed a crime, he and his co-conspirator, Cheney are criminals - and we all know it for a fact! But the Republican Congress is the only court which can try this case.

Bush's crime is very much worse than the peccadillo which got Clinton impeached by the Republican Congress or even Nixon's cover-up which forced his resignation!

Bush's crime ultimately has cost this country thousands of lives in Iraq and trillions of dollars which could have been used by the American people for much better purposes than to isolate our country in world opinion and put the nation on the verge of bankruptcy or worse, in the hands of the Chinese who hold most of our paper.

He has consistently lied to the American people. Isn't the punishment for being a traitor death by firing squad? I was taught that as a child in school. As an old man, perhaps I and our society have softened too much, but at the very least, certainly he should resign from office or be impeached and spend the rest of his miserable life in public disgrace!

Well, we have a Republican congress. They now know, not simply suspect, the truth, so what are they going to do about it?

What Democrat do they think they can dredge up to smear which will divert attention from our President's crime? And, oh, please don't bring up old warn-out and irrelevant "Chapaquitic Ted" as justification! Perhaps they could find something dirty on the new Democratic star, Barack Obama - US Senator for Illinois! Maybe he masturbated when he was twelve years old. That is how they pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid masses! And, I'm sure the "Christians" could make something of that - the wanton murder of millions of potential humans!

What are the so called "Christians" going to do now after backing this guy to the hilt when they knew full well that he was a loose cannon - even worse than their perpetual embarrassment, Pat Buchanan - but he was all they had. I'm sure like in the Garden of Eden they won't simply slither away!

What sort of puffery is fat-so Rush going to generate for his constituency of rednecks to keep his ratings? I'm sure he'll think of something - he always has.

So, what am I ranting and raving about? I'm going to post articles from both the Associated Press and Reuters which will explain what has just happened:

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's top aide to launch a counterattack of leaks against administration critics on Iraq by feeding intelligence information to reporters, according to court papers citing the aide's testimony in the CIA leak case.

In a court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stopped short of accusing Cheney of authorizing his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.

But the prosecutor, detailing the evidence he has gathered, raised the possibility that the vice president was trying to use Plame's CIA employment to discredit her husband, administration critic Joseph Wilson. Cheney, according to an indictment against Libby, knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as early as June 12, 2003, more than a month before that fact turned up in a column by Robert Novak.

Fitzgerald quoted Libby as saying he was authorized to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Fitzgerald said Libby told him it "was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed."

The process was so secretive that other Cabinet-level officials did not know about it, according to the court papers, which point to Bush and Cheney as setting in motion a leak campaign to the press that ended in Plame's blown cover.

In 2003, when the public furor erupted over the disclosure of a CIA operative's status, Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the affair. "I want to know the truth," he said at the time.

Libby's testimony puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks. Both men have long said they abhor such practices, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations at their behest to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's probe into who disclosed to the Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.

On Thursday, Democrats criticized the roles of Bush and Cheney.
"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. "The American people must know the truth."

"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House would have no comment on the investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information."

Libby faces trial next January on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the CIA identity of Wilson's wife and what he told reporters about it. The indictment says Cheney told Libby in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

The authorization by Bush and Cheney in July 2003 for disclosing sensitive prewar intelligence assessments came amid a growing public realization that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The failure to find such weapons undermined the primary rationale Bush and Cheney had used for taking the country to war.

According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in a conversation with Libby, expressed concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

After Wilson's 2002 trip, the former ambassador said he had concluded that Iraq did not have an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The subsequent embrace of information that Iraq and Niger did have a deal for uranium was evidence that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, Wilson said.

Wilson's public criticism on July 6, 2003, "was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president, on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," Fitzgerald stated.

In the court filing, drawn in part from Libby's own grand jury testimony before his indictment, Fitzgerald indicated that:

• A July 8, 2003, Libby conversation with the Times' Miller occurred "only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information" from a then-classified intelligence estimate on Iraq. Libby is alleged to have mentioned the CIA status of Wilson's wife in the conversation.

• Cheney's chief of staff at first told the vice president that he could not have the July 8, 2003, conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

• Libby "testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions" of the NIE.

• The White House aide testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the vice president, "whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."

• Cheney's then-chief of staff "understood that the vice president specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003." In conversations that day with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and again with Miller, Libby referred to the CIA status of Wilson's wife.

Fitzgerald's court papers are an effort to limit Libby's demand that he be given voluminous amounts of classified information to defend himself in his criminal case.
///////////////////////////////////////////////

Bush said to have cleared Iraq leak
By James Vicini Thu Apr 6

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top White House aide testified that President George W. Bush authorized leaking classified intelligence in 2003 in the face of criticism of his Iraq policy from a former ambassador, according to court papers made public on Thursday.

Democrats seized on the news, accusing Bush of hypocrisy. The president has often denounced leaks from his administration and vowed to punish the leakers. This was the first time Bush was directly linked to this incident.

"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

The papers cited Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, as testifying to a federal grand jury that Cheney had told him that Bush authorized him to disclose information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate to a New York Times reporter in July 2003.

The disclosure arose out of a long-running investigation into the leak of CIA's operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby testified that he was specifically directed by the vice president to reveal the intelligence information to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Libby also said he was cleared to brief the reporter about Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had criticized Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The White House declined to discuss the disclosure. "Our policy is not to discuss ongoing legal proceedings and that policy is unchanged," said spokesman, Ken Lisaius.

Libby resigned from the administration last October when he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leaking of Plame's name.

The information about Bush came to light in a 39-page document filed by Fitzgerald in which he argued against Libby's demand for more government documents, which his lawyers say he needs to defend himself.

Libby testified he had been authorized to disclose the information because it rebutted Wilson and Cheney thought it "very important" for it to come out.

Wilson has said White House officials deliberately leaked his wife's identity to pay him back for attacking the grounds used by Bush to justify the Iraq invasion.

'UNIQUE AUTHORIZATION' Bush had the authority to declassify the material. But the court papers quoted Libby as saying that "it was unique in his recollection" to get approval from the president, via the vice president, for such an action.

The leak occurred at a time when opponents were stepping up their criticism of the March 2003 invasion after U.S. forces had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Libby said he brought a brief summary of the key findings when he met with Miller on July 8, 2003 at a hotel.

In Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said, "President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat, said, "It's time for the White House to ... just step forward and honestly state what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it."

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer demanded an explanation from Bush and Cheney.

"The president has said he'd fire anyone who leaked this kind of information. But it now seems that he authorized leaks just like this in the first place. The American people deserve the truth," he told reporters.

Bush has often complained about leaks in Washington and vowed to take action against those who released unauthorized information to the public.

"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he said after the Plame news broke in 2003.

"There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said then.

Immigration and Congress

Our politicians are very divided on how to legalize illegal immigragion for the betterment of our labor force, consumers, national security and international decency. This very important domestic issue is beginning to shape up nicely, I think. As it stands, it seems the main battles are between different Republican factions. There is, of course, the business (fiscal) Republicans who realize that many American businesses need immigrants who are willing to do the lousy work if we ‘white folks' are to maintain our obscenely wonderful standard of living. ....I happen to side with that group - and the President - but not necessarily for those reasons. The other group of Republicans are the harder to define folks who include those driving big wheeled pickup trucks with rebel flags waving, those who live in abject fear of terrorist attacks, those bigots who don't want to see the tanning of our European whiteness, and those fundamentalist Christians who still don't believe that Catholics are actually Christians - and you'd be amazed at how many FC's actually believe that - and how many also flunked history classes in highschool! As to the politicians involved... (I don't even consider the House of Representatives which is always on Darth Vader's side of any issue)... the most malevolent in the Senate is probably Arizona's Senator Kyle who has coauthored a very mean spirited proposal with Texas Senator Cornyn. Their bill, among other denigrating features would exact a $2,000 annual fee to allow a non-citizen worker to earn his paltry $10,000 income - assuming he's lucky enough to get $5 bucks an hour. Reminds me of the protection rackets of Chicago back in the twenties and thirties! Arizona's main Senator, McCain, has co-produced a much more humane plan with Senator Kennedy. I should add that in fairness to politicians I generally don't like, that even Senator Brownback of Kansas subscribed to the McCain bill passed by the Judiciary committee! It seems that the politicians are going to stall the legislation until after the election which may be a good idea since it is at least my hope that the next Congress will become more progressive. In fact, Senator Kyle is being challenged here in Arizona by an active Democrat/businessman who could with a lot of luck and hard work replace this embarrassment to Arizona politics. I certainly know how I'm going to vote! Some of the legislative details are summarized below: Consensus on Immigration Bill Elusive By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Should they stay or should they go, those 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States? While that question hangs over a Senate debate on border security and immigration, most senators agree on allowing undocumented workers to stay at least temporarily. The fight is over whether they should have to leave three years to six years down the road. Even senators who oppose providing a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants are willing to grant them temporary legal status as long as they register with the government, pay fines and eventually leave. "Our first obligation is to bring them out of the shadows, make sure we know who they are, why they're here, make sure we have a name and some kind of identification for them," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Then there will be a period of time, whether it's three years or six years ... but they can continue to work here and at that point in time — that's where the debate is — do they have to go home or are they put on some sort of path to citizenship?" Frist said. As the Senate opened two weeks of debate Wednesday night, Republicans clashed over whether providing a path to legal citizenship would lead to more flouting of U.S. immigration laws. House Speaker Dennis Hastert raised the possibility that a program letting illegal immigrants continue to reside in the U.S. for a period of time might be considered by the House if the Senate approves one. "Our first priority is to protect the borders. We also know there is a need in some sectors of this economy for a guest worker program," Hastert told reporters Wednesday. The House has passed legislation limited to tightening borders and making it a crime to be in the United States illegally or to offer aid to illegal immigrants. However, there is a growing consensus among lawmakers that any merging of the House and Senate measures so that Congress could send a bill to President Bush won't occur until after the November election. "What you end up doing is the House has passed a bill, the Senate passed a bill and everybody declares victory and you don't get anything out of conference between now and the elections," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. Grassley chairs the Senate Finance Committee that is drafting a measure dealing with steps employers would have to take regarding illegal workers. President Bush reiterated support for a temporary worker program as he took off for a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, with host President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Bush said workers should be given tamper-resistant identity cards and go to the back of the line when they seek citizenship. "I think it makes sense to have a temporary worker program that says you're not an automatic citizen to help, one, enforce the border; and, two, uphold the decency of America," Bush said Wednesday. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has proposed with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., allowing illegal immigrants earn a path to citizenship through work, was buoyed by Bush's comments. "We should reject temporary status and required departure because they are bad for business," Kennedy said. "What do we gain if millions of immigrant workers who fuel our economy are required to spend weeks — or years or decades under some plans — waiting outside the United States for permission to continue their work?" Frist dodged the question of what to do about illegal immigrants in the country in the bill he introduced. But other bills that could be offered as amendments tackle that issue. On Monday, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shepherded legislation containing the McCain-Kennedy proposal through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12-6 vote. He insisted the bill is not amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to undergo background checks, pay fines, back taxes and clear other obstacles before getting on the "citizenship track." They wouldn't have to leave the United States. Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., rail against what they call "amnesty" but would give illegal immigrants six months to register with the government. Those who do, could stay in the U.S., but only for up to five years. They would have to pay $2,000 fines annually for the privilege. Those who don't could be deported. The immigrants who register could return as guest workers, but would have to apply for legal permanent residency — a step to citizenship — from their home countries. Under current law, a person who is in the country illegally for more than 180 days cannot re-enter the U.S. for three years. A person in the country illegally for more than a year cannot re-enter for 10 years. Those prohibitions would be waived for immigrants who register with the government under the Cornyn-Kyl plan. Associated Press Writer Nancy Zuckerbrod contributed to this report.

Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints....

Despite my own general disinterest in sex as a subject of conversation, I know that those of you who are much younger than I are still fascinated by the subject. And I still do most vehemently retain my personal abhorrence of men who take advantage of children sexually, so..... I would be remiss if I didn't report the latest in the trial of six members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who are presently on trial here in Kingman. Their leader, Warren Jeffs has been ‘on the lamb' for over a year with a reward on his head from the FBI on down. [One might wonder that if they can't find him then what chance does the government have of finding Bin Laden?] Actually, there is little doubt that Jeffs is located in their new enclave in Texas but after the experience with the freaks at Waco I suspect that the government is ‘skered' to go there - what would Rush say! In case you don't know, the FLDS is a segment of the old Mormon church which refused to renounce polygamy in the late 1800's when the main church relented to federal government demands and abolished the practice. They located in remote parts of the state of Utah and Arizona to continue their outlawed religion. They got away with it until finally the states of Utah and Arizona got their act together and started enforcing their child molestation laws in a joint venture. You can read much more, including the very interesting history of the cult at http://tinyurl.com/m469b . I'm sure it is very frustrating to local law enforcement that there is a part of Arizona's Mohave county (where I live) which requires one to drive up into Nevada and then east to the north rim of the Grand Canyon in order to get to the twin towns of Colorado City, Az and Hildale, UT located across from one another on the state line between Arizona and Utah. This is, of course, because of the Grand Canyon, there is no road between Colorado City and the rest of Arizona. Religion on short leash in FLDS trials By Jeff Pope Miner Staff Writer [KingmanDailyMiner.com] KINGMAN – The history and practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will be part of the trials of six men from Colorado City. In doing so, Superior Court Judge Steven Conn said on Tuesday he would keep the lawyers on a short leash as to the scope of the polygamist sect's culture that would be allowed. The information must be relevant to the charges against the defendants, he said. The defense's motion to include the relevant cultural information about the church is intrinsic to the charges, Conn said. However, he added that religious beliefs would not be a defense against the allegations. "If we attempt to present this case as if the FLDS has no involvement in it and that the defendants are not motivated by what may very well be very strongly-held sincere religious beliefs, then this case is going to be presented no differently than a child-molest case," he said. "I believe that much of the church teachings are not going to be relevant in this case." Kelly Fischer, Donald R. Barlow, Vergel B. Jessop, Dale E. Barlow and Terry D. Barlow are all charged with sexual conduct with a minor and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. Rodney H. Holm is charged with three counts of sexual conduct with a minor. The state based its charges on the birth certificates of the children that resulted from the alleged sexual acts. The mothers listed on the documents would have had to be under 18 years old when the pregnancies occurred, Chief County Attorney Matt Smith said. Defense attorney Bruce Griffen filed eight motions to either dismiss the case on various legal grounds or allow the defense to argue that the charges persecute his clients' religious freedoms. "We seek this information to educate the jury. We included some authorities in our motion that certainly made clear that from a due process perspective we ought to be able to define our case, present what we think the appropriate information is that is essential to the jury's understanding of the issues," he said. By allowing the background to be introduced, Smith said he could present evidence that the women of the FLDS culture do not have much education to be able to think for themselves and the influence that the fugitive leader of the church, Warren Jeffs, has on the community. "I think on the one level… there's a pretty strong argument that could be made that what the defense is seeking to introduce is not relevant," he said. "The only issue is: did these defendants engage in sexual intercourse with young women that they were not married to that were under the age of 18 and did it happen in Mohave County?" Conn also struck down motions claiming the state's anti-polygamy clause and sexual conduct with a minor statute are laws targeted directly at religion. Griffen argued that the First Amendment's free exercise clause implies actions are protected as well as beliefs. According to FLDS church beliefs, polygamy is required and sanctioned by God. The sect broke away from the mainstream Mormon Church after it abandoned multiple marriages in 1890. "It is difficult to accept at this point that because of the way the world was more than 100 years ago and the fear that our forefathers had and our federal government had about where this population would land if we didn't outlaw polygamy, that we are still governed by that antiquated reasoning today," Griffen said. "The anti-polygamy clause is simply bad law." In denying the motion on the grounds that invalidating the clause now would not affect prior actions, Conn also doubted he had the authority to nullify a provision of the state Constitution. In the other motions, Griffen argued the state does not specify the dates that the alleged acts took place. Conn dismissed defense motions that the charges were duplicitous, vague and too broad and included a defective time frame. Conn also denied the change of venue motion but said Griffen could file it again if finding an impartial jury becomes a problem. In January, Judge James Chavez also denied the same motions against Randolph J. Barlow and David R. Bateman. Chavez said he would rule what evidence would be admissible closer to the trial date of Bateman scheduled for May 30. He is charged with sexual conduct with a minor and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. Randolph Barlow is charged with two counts of sexual assault, but the charges do not specify the victim was a minor.

FUNDRAISERS

We went to a fund raiser for the local Democrats, tonight. No, it wasn't a black tie, $1000 per plate type of Republican orgy but rather a $20 buffet in a run-down café/hotel ‘historic place' - "the Brunswick" in ‘Old Town' Kingman where we got to meet the Democratic candidates, hear why they are running and sign their petitions so they can actually get on the ballot. The highest level politician there was running for the House of Representatives from our district - he wore a suit and tie! The catered food was simple, but actually rather good (not overdone) - rolled up thingies and chicken wings and other nondescript finger foods, we went back for more - and there was plenty because there were probably not many more than one hundred people milling about - that's about 0.4% of Kingman's population, I figger. And the beer at the no-host bar not only provided intellectual relief (I asked the bar girl, "What's a nice Republican girl doing in a place like this?"), but also stools for my Betty and I to sequester ourselves on throughout the speeches - which were blessedly short. Hell, at this point I wouldn't vote for a Republican if his name was Jesus and he wore sandals! So I certainly didn't go there for the speeches! My Betty, looking out over the crowd asked, "Where are the young people?" My reply was, "Are you kidding at twenty bucks a plate?" I mentioned to my Betty that I recognized quite a few people there - and, indeed several had come over and shook hands with us - all people who were involved during the Kerry campaign. My Betty commented that she didn't see anyone she knew - a lie, of course, but not unnoticed when you've been married for fifty-four years! It must be fun trying to be a politician because you believe in something and want to make a change in your society – and then come to the realization that most people simply don't give a damn! I can sit here in the peace and quiet of my den with cats and wine to keep me company and make comments about how the world should be – so much easier than being a politician and actually trying to achieve some of those things...........

Google Avoids Surrender

Google Avoids Surrendering Search Requests By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer In my opinion, as you will see below, this ruling is really important to our Democracy and the future freedom of all of us. If the Bush administration or any other future (hopefully Democrat) administration can monitor our private communications with others and also monitor our requests for information such as at libraries and, in this case, Internet search engines such as Google to determine our patriotism toward them - not necessarily the patriotism we should have to our fellow Americans -- then our Democracy and freedom is down the drain and the book "1984" is true - just a bit late! No 9/11 nor other catastrophe is worth paying that price! Many more Americans have sacrificed their lives for our freedoms than were lost in 9/11 when you consider Vietnam, Korea, and WWII the numbers are overwhelming. Just the American lives lost in Iraq not counting our sacrifices in Afghanistan, already outnumber those lost in New York by the terrorists! - and those poor souls thought they were defending their country because they were lied to by the President of the United States, their commander in chief! That is disgraceful and perhaps criminal! Could it be, that in this country which has been my family's home for over 350 years (about 130 years before the United States even existed), that I should live in fear of a knock on the door and grim faced men march me off to Guantanamo or one of their torture locations never ever to be seen again? It is not impossible. It has happened throughout the ages and especially in Germany in the 1930's - and in much the same ways we are seeing today. They weren't always Jews who were taken to the concentration camps. They were people who were a threat to the government. Now, is not the kind of thinking I express here on Upstream, a ‘threat' to the present government? Yet, under our system, it is healthy to criticize one's government and attempt to bring about change, peacefully, of course. Unfortunately, governments with all of their power - if not limited by the courts, tend to choose force to suppress their opposition - guess it is human nature to do whatever is in your power to do..... As you will see in the article below, that the government could have the Internet addresses of 5,000 people who used Google but NOT what we asked to search! Well, since "everyone" uses Google, that could mean almost anyone and certainly wouldn't be of any use to the government - like a list of who buys lettuce at the supermarket. What the government really wanted was a list of people who wanted to search for certain things (anti-Bush?) on Google! Ostensibly, they claimed they wanted statistics on Internet pornography which sounds laudable, except that all of us at one time or another have been curious and at least taken a peek - and it actually isn't THAT easy to find. My point is that I don't believe the government has an overwhelming interest in pornography but they are vitally interested in what we citizens think, who we communicate with and what we learn from Google in our searches which is contrary to what our government wants us to know. After all, if they were only interested in pornography statistics they wouldn't need to know who we are would they - unless they had other plans? ...AG SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on Friday ordered Google Inc. to give the Bush administration a peek inside its search engine, but rebuffed the government's demand for a list of people's search requests — potentially sensitive information that the company had fought to protect. In his 21-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James Ware told Google to provide the U.S. Justice Department with the addresses of 50,000 randomly selected Web sites indexed by its search engine by April 3. The government plans to use the data for a study in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration is trying to revive a law meant to shield children from online pornography. [Sure they are....AG] Ware, though, decided Google won't have to disclose what people have been looking for on its widely used search engine, handing a significant victory to the company and privacy rights advocates. "We will always be subject to government subpoenas, but the fact that the judge sent a clear message about privacy is reassuring," Google lawyer Nicole Wong wrote on the company's Web site Friday night. "What his ruling means is that neither the government nor anyone else has carte blanche when demanding data from Internet companies." Attempts to reach a spokesman for the Justice Department late Friday weren't immediately successful. The government had asked for the contents of 5,000 randomly selected search requests, dramatically scaling back its initial demands after Google's vehement protests gained widespread attention. When the Justice Department first turned to Ware for help in January, the government wanted an entire week's worth of Google search requests — a list that would encompass queries posed by millions of people. [Can't win ‘em all, huh?, Georgie boy?... AG]

Frist wins Republican straw poll....

I wonder why the parties do this sort of thing since such limited polls looking so far in the future mean absolutely nothing. They must be essentially publicity stunts to keep which ever party is doing them in the news. Frist will not necessarily be the candidate for the 2008 election any more than Hillary is a shoo-in for her party. Both parties have other candidates who are considered to be as qualified.

In a sense, I like Frist in that, as a doctor, he has an appreciation for the value of stem cell research for the future health of millions of people throughout the world - certainly much more important, I think, than worrying about a few terrorists.

However, I still can't abide by a party which places women in a secondary and subservient roll because of their sex nor can I abide by a party which favors the profitability of corporations as more important than the lives and welfare of living, breathing, and often suffering citizens.

On the other hand, I agree with many others that it is time for the Democrats to close ranks and define themselves behind a common sense leader - even a "brittle" woman. That is a difficult task for Democrats because we are so diverse.

Immigrants and unions don't always see eye to eye nor do small business people agree with either of them! There are many Christian Democrats who are not enthralled with the idea of catering to homosexuals with a gut feeling of disgust for the practice - nor do they feel charitable towards women and girls who lead reckless lives, get in trouble, and expect society to make it easy for them. No one likes to pay taxes but many, but not all, feel that we do need some services - or at least paved roads!

Each of the above items - and many more, is evaluated by most of us to determine how we choose a candidate or vote in an election. Unfortunately for Democrats, it seems that Republicans are able to focus on only one or two objectives and are able to ignore any other misgivings - that gives them great power and among other factors, allows them to win. They are focused and disciplined!

I think finally, that all of us agree that just as in Vietnam, the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake - the whole nation knows it as do both parties. The problem now is how to get out of it with a modicum of credibility and to minimize the further needless loss of American and Iraqi lives.

So the candidate from either party who can best figure that out will have a leg up in the 2008 election because, Iraq will still be a problem, I'm sure, until then - that is, unless Congress gets a mandate from the people in the elections in 2006!.

Another consideration will be the ability of the Bush government to handle next year's Hurricane season and the devastation bestowed upon what Gulf coast city? - perhaps even New Orleans again? Mother nature is still by far the most vicious terrorist! The tsunami in Sumatra killed 100 times more innocent people than 9/11/01 or 12/7/41! So how effective will our government be this time unless it performs some first class readjustments within the next six months. Considering budgetary constraints due to wars, etc., I'm not holding my breath that last year's problems will not be repeated this next year.

Deja vous all over again?

The Daily Show: Chicago, etc.

Ill. Governor Stumped by Hate Crimes Panel
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 3

[Speaking of tempests in teapots! If I were the poor governor of Illinois, at this point I'd eliminate the entire Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes (CDHC) since it obviously has not been very functional and is filled with a highly discriminatory membership consisting of probably the most provincial and warring tribes in the country - especially Chicago -don't ever go there after dark! Each member most likely represents the extremes in his own myopic culture, i.e.: Blacks, Jews, Gays, and certainly a few white supremists tossed in. So now, these agitators get up in arms because a "black Muslim" [Nation of Islam] gains membership! What do they not understand about the words Discrimination and Hate? Duh! (Sorry, trite phrase analyst)

Most of my commentary is posted below and addresses the article, point by point. ...AG]


SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - It started as a routine gubernatorial appointment to a feel-good commission — so routine that the governor says he didn't even know the details.

But the naming of a Nation of Islam official to a commission that fights discrimination has exploded into an election-year furor for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, putting him in the middle of a conflict among blacks, Jews and gays.

Even if Blagojevich makes his way through the racial and religious minefield this issue presents, his claim of ignorance about the appointment could reinforce his image of a detached, uninformed governor.

"No matter what he does, he's going to tick somebody off," Rick Garcia, political director of the gay rights organization Equality Illinois, said Friday. "It's completely a no-win situation."

Four Jewish members of the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes resigned this week rather than serve alongside an aide to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.

The third and fourth resignations came Friday, when Howard Kaplan of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago said he could not serve on a commission "that, by implication, accepts divisive and bigoted standards."
[Boy! that is the pot calling the kettle black!..AG]

Democratic state Rep. Lou Lang, who was appointed just a day earlier to fill one of the vacancies, also stepped down.

[Chicken! ...AG]

In dueling news conferences, Jewish and gay lawmakers called for Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad to disavow Farrakhan's comments or step down from the commission, while black lawmakers defended her right to serve.

"I think she has the intellect and also the humanity to do what this commission was put together for," said state Sen. Donne Trotter, a Chicago Democrat.

Blagojevich appointed Muhammad to the commission in August, but she drew no public attention until she invited other commissioners to a Farrakhan speech last month. Some commissioners began complaining of her presence on the panel, and the criticism increased after Farrakhan's speech Sunday included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."

[Louis Farrakhan, hate monger, has been around for years having started his own version of Islam which is certainly not related to middle eastern Islam but is more self-serving and is in reality a black supremist counter to the prolific white supremists in that neck of the woods.

Now, "Hollywood Jews" we're all well aware of, right? They are not Jews like, say, those of the garment or diamond industry of New York. Some, who are mostly dead now, were the moguls of the film industry - and others were entertainers drawn out from the Catskills where the New York garment Jews went on their vacations (I don't think diamond market Jews take vacations).

However, I suspect that most Jews still in Hollywood are stylish converts. In that town a few years ago it was popular to be "Jewish" - one of the crowd - like, for example, Sammy Davis Jr. a member of "the Rat Pack" - and many many others. However, they don't make policy.

I think that Farrakhan was using the term Jew symbolically to fit the ancient Catholic inspired stereotype of Jews being money grubbing greedy people (like the Rothchilds) and thus representative of big business efforts to satisfy the prurient demands of our present society - namely, smut.

It would be more accurate for him to be honest and admit that the large majority of those people are, in fact, Republicans - if not very evangelical! Now, isn't that interesting if you really think about it? ...AG]

The Democratic governor, in a recent interview with The Associated Press, said he did not realize he had appointed a Nation of Islam official until learning about it from news reports.

He nodded vigorously when asked whether his staff should have discussed the appointment and its implications with him, but would say little else about the incident.

But he did say Muhammad should stay on the commission so long as she supports its goals of fighting discrimination.

"I strongly disagree with the things Minister Farrakhan said. They're wrong and hateful and they're harmful," Blagojevich said. "I also oppose guilt by association. Ms. Muhammad didn't say those things."

[Minister Farrakhan has always been hateful - that is how he gets his following! He does represent a lot of very angry blacks! ...AG]

Muhammad did not return messages left for her at the Nation of Islam, where she is Farrakhan's chief of protocol [what protocol? ..AG] and director of community outreach, but she issued a statement promising to support the commission's work "to eradicate hate and discrimination against any group or person."

[No wonder they don't like her! ...AG]

Blagojevich's aides have refused to answer questions about how Muhammad was appointed.

The commission, with 20 to 30 members, was established in 1999 but eventually fell into disuse. Blagojevich appointed a new set of unpaid commissioners last summer. Their mission is to promote tolerance by working with law enforcement, religious leaders, educators and social service agencies. The full commission has met in full only twice since it was reconstituted.
[My recommendation is to disband the whole thing and let them all wallow in their own filth! ...AG]

The biggest political risk to Blagojevich is that the controversy could alienate black leaders who are already grumbling because he won't raise taxes to generate more money for schools and social services. One black state senator, who is also a prominent Chicago minister, has talked about launching a third-party challenge.

[Yeah, and then you'd get a Republican governor who is going to raise taxes? Speak of shooting oneself in the foot!.. AG]

The Rev. Michael Pfleger, the white pastor of a mostly black Chicago church and a friend of Muhammad's, said Blagojevich would generate enormous anger if he removed Muhammad from the commission.

"If you are not willing to stand up in difficult times, don't pretend to be a supporter of black issues, of the black community," Pfleger said. "Now is a test for him."

Meanwhile, Blagojevich is being accused of "appeasement" and cowardice by gubernatorial rival Edwin Eisendrath, who trails badly in the Democratic primary. Republicans are also calling on Blagojevich to remove Muhammad.
[Of course, they're drooling for the backlash!..AG]

People on both sides of the question are shaking their heads over the Blagojevich administration's failure to anticipate the problem. Some likened it to Blagojevich's statement last month that he had no idea "The Daily Show" was a comedy when he sat down for an interview that ended up mocking him.

[Perhaps the governor is too naive for the job in such a degenerate place. But even my omniscience was not aware of The Daily Show which, I find, to be a production of Comedy Central a channel which is seldom funny. Those of us who never watch pap sucking for the masses - including the character building Jerry Springer show - would certainly not be in the know - at small loss, it seems to me. ...AG]

Garcia, the gay rights leader, praised Muhammad and said he wants her to stay on the commission. But he said of the Blagojevich administration: "How they could not see it as a potential problem down the road is mind-boggling to me."

[Maybe he was busy being Governor of the state and not micro managing the slums of Chicago which should be the Mayor's job! ...AG]

Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'
By JONATHAN EWING, Associated Press Writer

PONCE, Puerto Rico - People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
[Speaking of "idiots," this guy gives a good demonstration of one...]

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."
[Yes, the Constitution is primarily a rule-book for the mechanics of running our government. The only thing I think that should be changed in it would be the mechanism of voting, i.e.: the ‘winner take all' voting by the states should be changed to proportional elections based upon popular vote and the elimination of the electoral college.]

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.
[Hmmmm.... wonder what he'd really like to do... ]

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.
[Might just as well program the Constitution into a computer and have it automatically render verdicts since there is no evolving belief system based upon societal need which should influence judgements - therefore, no judgement allowed - how simple and simplistic!]

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."
[I assume that he is referring to the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments - not the Constitution itself.]

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."
[Oh, it won't become "brittle and break", it will simply lose its relevance if it is not changed or expanded over time.]

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
[Similar arguments have been made about the literal interpretation of the Bible, thus not only providing serious problems in logic, but also missing the whole intent and usefulness of that book.]

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."
[Unfortunately the Supreme Court is the only remaining representative of the people since other interests have superceded the ‘will of the people.'

Originally, amendment of the Constitution was made intentionally difficult by requiring a super majority vote in the Congress and a three-quarters majority ratification by the states. The people have never had the direct right to modify the Constitution, then nor now. Presently, with the size and diversity of our population which has changed from the largely agrarian culture in the late 1700's to the many headed hydra of today.]

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.


[I think it is the history of our nation including the Declaration of Independence and other papers which give relevance to our Constitution and laws. It is the Declaration which gives us the permission to change our government on behalf of the people. It is THE document which justified our becoming an independent nation.

Thus, here is the heart and reasoning of that document:
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


And then, after fighting a war which lasted almost six years, we established our Constitution which reaffirms the Declaration of Independence with a simple preamble:


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



The constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, the last amendment was proposed in 1789, passed by the Congress then and finally ratified by 3/4ths of the states in 1992! A span of over 203 years!

"AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."



Since then, there have been several proposed amendments which have not been ratified by the states which indicate that amending the Constitution through its overly difficult requirements is no longer an option. For example there is the "Equal Rights for Women" amendment which has been abandoned after passing Congress and even receiving extensions for ratification by the states. It is now a dead issue. Thus women don't and won't have a "Constitutional right" to be equal under the law with men!

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Nor will any attempt to include the definition of marriage in the Constitution be at all successful - in fact, it has a ‘snowball's chance in hell' of passing muster.

So, despite Scalia's narrow view of law, it has become the responsibility of the Supreme Court to not "write law" but rather to expand and clarify those laws already written in the Bill of rights and subsequent amendments to fit what the majority of Americans now consider to be the fundamental rights of the people - rights which could not have been imagined by the ‘founding fathers' in their simpler culture. The very conservative Supreme Court (9:2) has not in any sense created new amendments as charged.

It is, after all, a matter of rights which affect the people today, not what affected the people over two hundred years ago. ...AG]

The Speech tonight

Well, I watched the speech tonight. Actually very well written and presented, I think - and the applause was beautifully choreographed! And C-SPAN did a yeoman job of showing who was sitting and who was standing after every proclamation. I don't know what the other channels were doing at that time because, like cousin Dennis, I don't like talking heads.

On the other hand it was nothing that we had not already heard before - and it didn't seem to change anything. But then, what is expected of a State of the Union message to the American people - mia culpa?

I found it interesting that after the event when the Democratic response was being aired, our phone rang and it was a computerized query, obviously from the religious right, questioning our views on the President's speech - it went on and on. Surprisingly it disrupted the Democrat's programmed TV rebuttal while having to answer the phone and respond. Hmmmm....... Let no rock be unturned?

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most is that when we are so divisive a people and our political ideologies are so different, that the act of attracting the dumbest amongst us is all it takes to win – really, is that what democracy is all about? It certainly leaves room for benign dictatorships and the divine right of kings, doesn't it? Food for thought!

Bit by bit....

[Bit by bit our nation, filled with bigotry, hatred and the gross misapplication of religion, is slowly being transformed into a nation of tolerance where the people collectively allow individuals to live their lives in peace and equal treatment under the law.

It is not a matter of whether we as individuals "like" the sexual practices of gay people. I personally shudder when I imagine the graphic details of gay sex (and often heterosexual conduct, too). But I also applaud when in this cold reality of isolation between the mental "I" and the mental "you", that any two people are able to achieve some modicum of bonding across the chasm.

This is not the legitimate business of religion simply because religion - especially Christian - has not earned the right to judge! As was pointed out to me by a devout Catholic recently, "...only God has the right to judge." - a tenet I don't support by the way. But if so, why does the church attempt to legislate morality, not promote freedom and leave judgement up to God? Could it be that many Christians really don't believe in God and wish to ‘purify' society in their own image?

As I understand it, the strength and appeal of Christianity is through the creation of a bond between the individual and his paternalistic, caring and sometimes wrathful God (if one considers the Old Testament as part of Christianity). How does that differ materially from the earthly bonding of any two people? ...AG]

Washington State OKs Gay Civil Rights Law

By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Before he died of AIDS, the state's first openly gay lawmaker asked a friend for a promise: that he would keep working on gay civil rights legislation. That was more than a decade ago. Now, the legislation Cal Anderson championed, 30 years in the making, is about to become law.

"I remember the day that Cal told me he didn't have much longer to live," said Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat and one of four openly gay lawmakers now in the Legislature. "One of the things he asked was if I would continue work on this bill."

On Friday, the Senate passed the legislation 25-23, with a lone Republican joining Democrats in voting in favor. The House approved it 61-37, and Democratic Gov. Christine Groggier said she would sign it Tuesday.

Murray was given a standing ovation when it passed the House, and colleagues surrounded gay lawmakers to congratulate them.

"History is going to look kindly upon the legislators who had the courage to vote for this," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, who cried when the bill passed the House. "It's a great day for equality, for fairness."

First introduced in the 1970s, the measure adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance, making Washington the 17th state passing a law covering gays and lesbians. It is the seventh to protect transgender people.

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner was the only Senate Republican to endorse the measure. Two Democrats voted against it.

"We don't choose who we love. The heart chooses who we will love," Finkbeiner said. "I don't believe that it is right for us to say ... that it's acceptable to discriminate against people because of that."

The bill was amended by Republicans on the House floor to say that it would not modify or change state marriage laws. A Senate amendment added a caveat saying the state does not endorse "any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation."

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, who voted against the bill, said it would "trample unrelentingly" on religious viewpoints that object to gays.

"We, the state, are telling people to accept, actually to embrace, something that goes against their religious views," he said.

The bill could still be challenged. Opponents have suggested pursuing a referendum, giving voters the option to overturn the measure. They would need about 112,000 signatures to get a referendum on a November ballot.

Gregoire said she would fight any effort to undo the law.

"I will fight any initiative, any referendum that tries to take back the equality these folks and others around our great state have been given today," she said.

Murray said he fully expects a battle at the ballot box, but asked opponents to consider one thing.

"Before you reach for a pen to sign an initiative to end our rights, call up somebody in your life who is gay or lesbian and talk to them about their reality, and then decide whether you want to pick up that pen," he said.

Anderson's partner of 10 years, Eric Ishina of Seattle, carried with him Friday a picture of Anderson with his Senate colleagues. Anderson fought for the bill for eight years before he died.

"I don't doubt that he's really smiling down on us right now," he said.

Ishina said Anderson knew that the law would eventually pass, saying: "Otherwise, he would not have kept fighting, year after year."

Judge Alito....

As we all learned in grade school, the Bill of Rights were ten amendments added to that framework which stated very simply various inherent rights of the people which government was forbidden to mess with. And then, of course, there were the other amendments added to the Constitution - especially those during and after the Civil War which provided freedoms to large groups of people who had been considered either property or at best second class citizens. In fact, my own grandmother didn't have the right to vote until just a few years before I was born. Yet she in the quiet wisdom of universal motherhood saw fit to have me sit on her lap in the 1936 re-election bid of FDR, to explain to me the options on the ballot before us at the precinct, put the pencil in my hand and ask me where I figured I should put the "X". I was five years old. The point is that the Constitution has been growing both directly and indirectly since its inception as a basic blueprint for a democratic government. Those who wish to revert to the original written word after over two hundred years of sociological and technological change are really "whistling Dixie!" Does anyone really believe that women shouldn't ‘have the vote' - and ever expect bedroom privileges in the future? Does anyone now believe that we can lawfully have slaves - even Mexican? Does anyone now believe that a person can not be allowed to vote because he can't even read, write or speak English? The differences between now and when the founding fathers created our Constitution are virtually astronomical. So when conservatives accuse the courts of ‘rewriting' the Constitution, my response is ‘wonderful!' The Supreme Court has done good! We are a freer and better off people than ever before in our history - and we owe a lot of that freedom to the Supreme Court. But first, lets consider the executive branch where we elect a President because he has some sort of charisma, the women like him, or he likes football, or is a hero or just isn't from New England - unless perhaps he inherits the job like either Truman or Johnson. We the people don't really know the man nor what he is going to do to us until we've elected him for four years! So in the case of the Presidency, we are dealing with a capricious ego maniac who wants to be the most powerful man in the world! Boy! That is certainly reassuring that we're going to have great leadership! Now, lets consider the Congress. Does our Congress ever pass a bill which hasn't been bought and paid for by special interests? Can we really believe a congressman who is willing to tell us whatever we want to hear? How many congressmen were there who were willing to impeach President Clinton for fooling around with women who were themselves fooling around with women (I think the number was at least eighteen officially known)? But, in general, our government muddles along passing good laws and screwy laws and good but inept laws - and sometimes it can't seem to get around to pass a law it needs to pass simply because it can't find enough sponsors or it is time for spring break, fall break, or perhaps it'll get in next year. Perhaps now you understand why we need a good, stable Supreme Court including especially the 9th Circuit! (Who else would take on God!) It really was in the province of the Congress to pass the legislative equivalent of Roe v. Wade which gives women (still America's second class citizens) the very limited right to determine what happens to their own bodies if they are pregnant? It is a simple fundamental right concerning "who owns your body, you or the state"? This involves both men and women and should be written in the Constitution for all citizens - until then, we are all slaves owned by the state which owns our bodies. Yet Congress could never field such a divisive subject - the religious community would never allow it amongst others! It took the Supreme Court in its very limited capacity to actually give women the small freedoms they now enjoy. The poor were finally allowed to have legal abortions performed by medical doctors rather than to drive needles into their own bodies and hope nature would do its job and that they'd live through it and not go to jail for murder. Does anyone really disagree with the rule of ‘one man, one vote' which was decreed by the Supreme Court? Congress would most certainly never have changed that any more than they will ever get rid of the Electoral College and so many other things which could actually make this nation into a democracy! Or, how about the racial integration of schools...? Does anyone seriously believe that the Congress of the United States would have had the guts to integrate the schools? It took the Supreme Court to do that! So how about the Alito confirmation? I'm sure he is just as they (and he) says he is - an experienced, objective judge of the law - honest, good family man, loves baseball, unassuming, quiet, and dedicated to interpreting the laws and precedents, as written, and very specifically not creative with respect to law. He has stated that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to write law but to simply monitor the Executive Branch and Congress to make certain they stay withing their Constitutional guidelines. He is very impressive in his memory of case histories - he has a remarkable mind. I'd trust him just as I trust my computer - they both are remarkable. So let me pose this question. If my assessment is not too far off regarding the Presidency of this nation - that it is primarily involved in people handling both here and abroad - and in making day-to-day decisions. And if Congress spends most of its time accommodating special interest groups - if they can afford to pay -- and would never tackle anything controversial which would cost votes for re-election. Just what branch of government do we need to rely on not only for justice but to also lead our culture into more enlightened times? I can think of many things that our society needs to address in justice and fairness to our citizens. I'm also certain that we can't rely on anything beyond creative justice from the Supreme Court to advance our society. I don't think that Alito, nice guy as he may be, is or would be able, to weigh in any more than my computeer would.

Federal Judge Resigns....

In my opinion, I think those of us who remember the German government during WWII should worry that our own government is going down the same garden path. In Germany, in fact, in all of occupied Europe the Germans had the dreaded SS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS who eliminated those the Nazi's deemed undesirable. Now under this president, we have our intelligence gathering CIA, and FBI along with our military who are authorized to examine the private lives of anyone and obviously in some cases cause people to disappear without any judicial oversight. Our military has always been able to do this with its own people but now, I guess they can do whatever they want with anybody. When I served in the USAF during the Korean police action in the '50's a private who worked for me and lived with us in the barracks, suddenly disappeared. He was gone for four days! It turns out that an anonymous caller accused John of being a Communist. They questioned him constantly those four days, then assigned an attorney to represent him at a military hearing to determine his guilt or innocense. Since they couldn't establish any indication of guilt, they kicked him out of the service anyway with a general rather than honorable discharge - the same one you get for wetting your bed. How can we Americans fight terrorism if the terrorists are our own government? We aren't there yet, but it seems not very far off. It will start with mass resignations by judges and then by dissident elected representatives and other government workers ..AG Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties. U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court. An aide to Robertson said the resignation letter submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts was not being released. Robertson did not step down from his district judgeship in Washington. White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss Robertson's resignation or the reasons cited for his departure. "Judge Robertson did not comment on the matter and I don't see any reason why we need to," McClellan said. Robertson was one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Robertson's term was to end in May. "This was definitely a statement of protest," said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority." Ruth Wedgwood, a Johns Hopkins University professor and defender of many Bush administration policies in the terror war, said that service on the special court is voluntary. "If Judge Robertson had strong feelings that he thought would interfere with the needed objectivity, one could understand his decision," she said. The court was established by Congress in 1978 and its members, appointed by the chief justice, do their work in private. Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program. Robertson was appointed a federal judge by President Clinton in 1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist later appointed Robertson to the FISA court as well. Robertson has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of detainees at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, most memorably in a decision that sidetracked the president's system of military tribunals to put some detainees on trial. Robertson's resignation was reported hours after Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended the surveillance program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers. Cheney — a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ford — said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam eras. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said. "I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman. Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida. "I believe the Congress — as a coequal branch of government — must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine. Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees. Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Several Democrats agreed said they were told of the program, but did not know the full details and had concerns.

Senator Reid - Congress is corrupt

[But first, guess I'm going to have to start watching FOX news - American television's answer to yellow journalism! I've noticed lately that whenever someone from either party makes a newsworthy statement, it is usually made first on FOX.

This makes me wonder why the evil MainStream Media which is supposed to be 'liberal' isn't capturing those headlines... Could it be that those MSM's are neither liberal nor conservative but rather simply practicing non-controversial capitalism. I'm sure that advertisers don't like boats which rock.

For example, conservative talking heads have been blaming their nemesis, the ACLU for just about everything including the taking of Christmas out of Christmas. (If anyone is interested, all they have to do is look up the ACLU case-load at their website to see what they are really about.)

It is true that there is more ‘Happy Holidays' replacing ‘Merry Christmas' by brick and mortar retailers but that is undoubtedly prompted more by being averse to upsetting any potential customer who has a buck in his pocket rather than a concerted effort to eliminate Christianity.

The day will come when FOX which is also supported by advertisers will become like the rest in its quest for even greater market share and avoid controversy. It would be nice if PBS would expand its news efforts since it isn't market driven, but that would be tough for PBS since it doesn't have world-wide news gathering ability. ...AG]

Sen. Reid calls US Congress 'most corrupt in history'
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called the Republican-led Congress "the most corrupt in history" on Sunday, and distanced himself from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, at the center of an escalating probe.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Jack Abramoff directed illegal payoffs to lawmakers, including Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, who was forced to step down as House Republican leader in September after indicted in his home state of Texas on unrelated charges.

"Don't lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal," Reid told Fox News Sunday, saying he never received any money from Abramoff.

Reid, like many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, has received campaign contributions from Abramoff clients. Some lawmakers have returned those donations, but Reid gave no indication he would do so.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been examining stock sales by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and last month Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a California Republican, resigned from the House after pleading guilty of taking more than $2.4 million in bribes involving defense contracts.

Democrats have accused Republicans of "a culture of corruption," and plan to make it an issue in next year's congressional elections.

"America can do better than what we've done," said Reid. "The most corrupt Congress in the history of the country. We have such significant problems with what's going on in this country."

Most of the federal investigative focus is now on Abramoff, whose lobbying activities, particularly on behalf of Indian tribal clients, are also being examined by Congress.

Appearing on Fox TV, Reid said, "Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked (at) a firm where people have given me money."

A Reid aide later explained that the senator received money from a political action committee affiliated with a firm where Abramoff had worked, but Abramoff did not contribute to it.

"I feel totally at ease that I haven't done anything that is even close to being wrong," Reid said.

Merrrrry Christmas.....

My dear Friends, AS 2005 ends I want to send this word of thanks to all my email friends! You are all special to me and I appreciate and love each and everyone of you!!! But especially, my heartfelt thanks goes out to all those who have taken their time and trouble to send me "forwards" over the past 12 months. Thank you for making me feel safe, secure, blessed, and wealthy. Extra thanks to whoever sent me the one about rat crap in the glue on envelopes cause I now have to go get a wet towel every time I need to seal an envelope. Also, I scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason. Because of your concern I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains. I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put "Under God" on their cans. I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer. I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS. I no longer use deodorant! Since it causes cancer, even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day. I no longer go to shopping malls because someone might drug me with a perfume sample and rob me and take my kidneys, leaving me naked and semiconcious in a bathtub full of ice. I no longer receive packages from nor send packages by UPS or FedEx since they are actually Al Qaeda in disguise. I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore, and Uzbekistan. I no longer eat KFC because their "chickens" are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers. I no longer have any sneakers -- but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike. I no longer have to buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe. I no longer worry about my soul because at last count I have 363,214 angels looking out for me. Thanks to you, I have learned that God only answers my prayers if I forward an e-mail to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes. I no longer have any money - but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special email program. Yes, I want to thank you so much for looking out for me that I will now return the favor! If you don't send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 7 minutes, a large pigeon with a wicked case of diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 PM (CDT) this afternoon. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor's ex-mother-in-law's second husband's cousin's beautician. (Who can probably be found in the 1930 census) This message is intended only for the named recipient and may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any misdirected transmission. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 314 292-2000 and immediately delete this message from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute or copy any part of this message.