Supreme Court Politics - They call him "Scalito"

They call him "Scalito"

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court
By Fred Barbash and Peter Baker / The Washington Post
President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals. While he has been dubbed "Scalito" by some lawyers for a supposed affinity to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his Italian-American heritage, most observers believe that greatly oversimplifies his record. Alito is considered far less provocative a figure than Scalia both in personality and judicial temperament. His opinions and dissents tend to be dryly analytical rather than slashing. In addition, his appeals court record is not uniformly conservative on the sorts of issues that arise in Supreme Court confirmation battles.

Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court
By Ron Fournier / The Associated Press
President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated veteran judge Samuel Alito on Monday in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his conservative allies. Ready-to-rumble Democrats warned that Alito may be an extremist who would curb abortion rights. "Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years," Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers.

Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats
By Christine Hauser And David D. Kirkpatrick / New York Times
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the Supreme Court today, four days after his previous choice withdrew her nomination. According to a statement released by the White House this morning, Jude Alito was born in April 1950 in Trenton. He graduated from Princeton University in 1972, and went to Yale Law School, where he earned a J.D. in 1975. From 1977-1980, Judge Alito served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.

Bush Nominates Judge Alito to Fill Court Vacancy
By James Gerstenzang / Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- President Bush today nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals court judge from New Jersey who has had strong backing from Bush's conservative allies, to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed by the Senate, Alito, 55, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the court. Appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush after serving as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, he has been an appellate court judge for 15 years. His extensive history handling appeals cases — first as a clerk, eventually as a lawyer appearing before the court, and then on an appeals court itself — stands in sharp contrast to Miers' resume. She had spent little time in any court room while working as a corporate lawyer, and none during the past five years in the Bush White House. Indeed, Bush said, Alito has had more experience as a judge than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years.

Bush's New Nominee: Not Always On The Same Page As Scalia
A Review Of Sam Alito’s Major Decisions
By Sean Scully/ TIME
The conservative bent of judge Sam Alito, who President Bush nominated this morning to the U.S. Supreme Court, has prompted facile comparisons to Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most stridently conservative member of the court. But clerks and associates say the comparison, often made with the derisive nickname of "Scalito," does a disservice to the man. "I think he really looks at the facts of the case, he'd very realistic," says former clerk Katherine K. Huang. "He doesn't have his head in the clouds. He's not going to be carried away by some legal doctrine or some arcane grammatical rule." Huang is refering to a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.

Profile of Samuel Alito Jr.
By Bret Schulte / U.S.News & World Report
Nicknamed "Scalito" for views resembling those of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. is a favorite son of the political right. Appointed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has earned a reputation for intellectual rigor and polite but frequent dissent in a court that has been historically liberal. His mettle, as well as a personable demeanor and ties to former Republican administrations, has long had observers buzzing about his potential rise to the high court. "Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the list," says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. "I know them all . . . but I think Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."

Assorted Reactions to Alito Nomination
The Associated Press
Here are statements that various members of Congress and other figures made in reaction to President Bush's selection of federal appellate court Judge Samuel Alito Monday to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bush Nominates Judge Alito to Fill Court Vacancy

Bush Fills Court Vacancy

WASHINGTON -- President Bush today nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals court judge from New Jersey who has had strong backing from Bush's conservative allies, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If confirmed by the Senate, Alito, 55, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the court. Appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush after serving as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, he has been an appellate court judge for 15 years.

Bush disclosed his decision at a hastily announced appearance on national television in the White House Cross Hall.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America," the president said. He said Alito "has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, and he is a man of enormous character."

"He's scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land," Bush said with Alito at his side and the judge's wife, Martha-Ann, son Phillip, and daughter Laura, standing nearby in front of a portrait of President Bill Clinton.

In remarks that emphasized Alito's extensive resume as a constitutional lawyer — the area in which the president's previous nominee, Harriet E. Miers was seen as lacking — Bush said that the judge had participated in "thousands" of appeals court cases and had written "hundreds" of decisions.

He did not dwell on Alito's seemingly conservative bent, or on the support the judge has received, in anticipation of the nomination, from conservative groups.

The choice drew immediate criticism from liberal activists, fearful that Bush was replacing a moderate justice whose voice was often the deciding vote between conservatives and liberals on the bench, with a conservative justice believed to be in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Foreshadowing a fight over the nomination, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called for giving Alito "an especially long hard look" in view of the problems Miers encountered.

"Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," Reid said in a statement issued before Bush made his announcement.

He also complained that with the appointment of a white male, "President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."

Among those who had been deeply skeptical about Miers, Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas, said Alito had "impressive" academic credentials and "broad" legal experience.

Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider the nomination, commended Bush for the decision. He said the panel would have "a robust and, I hope, civil dialogue with the nominee about the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts in American life."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), another member of the committee, however, said: "Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength."

Kennedy added: "After insisting that Harriet Miers shouldn't even get a hearing because she couldn't prove she was extreme enough, the far right has now forced the President to choose a nominee that they think has views as extreme as their own."

On Sunday, with the capital aswirl in reports that Alito was among those at the top of Bush's list, the outlines of an extremely divisive fight over the nomination began to take shape. Alito is the third person Bush will have nominated for the seat. In July he put forward John G. Roberts Jr., but then switched Roberts to be chief justice after William H. Rehnquist died on Sept. 3.

Four weeks ago, Bush nominated Miers, his White House counsel, for the post. She withdrew her nomination Thursday in the wake of sharp criticism from conservatives that she did not reflect their thinking on social policy — and that she may harbor liberal views on abortion — and complaints from across the political spectrum that her knowledge of constitutional law was insufficient.

Alito, the son an Italian immigrant, was graduated from Princeton University and, while at Yale Law School, was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

He served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the appellate division from 1977 to 1988, arguing cases before the Third Circuit bench, and served as an assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985, arguing 12 cases for the U.S. government before the Supreme Court. He was approved for the appeals court seat — before his 40th birthday — by the unanimous consent of the Senate and an indication of wide bipartisan support.

Using the buzzwords signaling that the nominee would not seek to impose policy from the bench — a concern in recent years of conservatives seeking to limit the reach of liberal judges appointed by Democrats — Bush said of Alito: "He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."

His extensive history handling appeals cases — first as a clerk, eventually as a lawyer appearing before the court, and then on an appeals court itself — stands in sharp contrast to Miers' resume. She had spent little time in any court room while working as a corporate lawyer, and none during the past five years in the Bush White House.

Indeed, Bush said, Alito has had more experience as a judge than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years. The nomination comes at a particularly difficult time for Bush, following the failure of Miers to gain traction, falling support for the war in Iraq, the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and complaints that the administration dropped the ball in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

A popular nominee could help shore up Bush's support in his base, counteracting slumping poll ratings. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) expressed concern Sunday that Democrats might filibuster a staunchly conservative nominee.

"I'm very worried about that," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "The topic which dominates the discussion, as we all know, is a woman's right to choose. And you have both sides poles apart and insistent on finding some answer to that question in advance of the hearing, which no one is entitled to."

This year, a bipartisan compromise brokered by 14 senators resulted in an agreement by Democrats to forestall filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances" — a term that so far has remained undefined.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-10
3105alito_lat,0,3049473.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats

Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P.

President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the Supreme Court today, four days after his previous choice withdrew her nomination.

The nomination is likely to please Mr. Bush's conservative allies, whose sharp attacks on Harriet E. Miers were instrumental in prompting her to withdraw last week. But the president is more likely to get a battle from Democrats and liberals who may believe Judge Alito's views are too extreme.

Over the weekend, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned President Bush not to pick Judge Alito, 55. "I think it would create a lot of problems," Mr. Reid said on "Late Edition" on CNN.

Mr. Bush this morning described Judge Alito as having an "extraordinary breadth of experience" and as being "tough and fair." Referring to his long career and his current role on the appeals court, the president said Judge Alito now has "more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years."

"I urge the senate to act promptly so that an up or down vote is held before the end of this year," Mr. Bush said at the White House as he presented Judge Alito as his nominee.

Judge Alito, speaking as his wife and two children looked on, said that he was deeply honored to be nominated. He said he had long held the Supreme Court "in reverence," and reminisced about his first time arguing a case there in 1982, when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he would replace on the court, sensed that he was a "rookie" and made sure that the first question he was asked was a kind one. "I was grateful to her on that happy occasion, and I am particularly honored to be nominated for her seat," he said.

He said he was also struck with a sense of awe by what the court stands for as an institution: equal justice under law.

Judge Alito said he looked forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process.

An early signal of conservative approval came from Gary Bauer, a prominent social conservative, who called the choice of Judge Alito a "grand slam home run." Mr. Bauer, interviewed on CNN, called the judge a "mainstream conservative" and predicted that while there would be a battle from Democrats, Judge Alito would ultimately be confirmed. "They'll try to label him as extreme, but when you get into the hearings, you'll get into specifics," he said.

Republicans close to the selection process had said over the weekend that Judge Alito, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, Judge Alice M. Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit, and Judge Priscilla R. Owen of the Fifth Circuit were leading candidates.

Mr. Reid had already said he would object to the selection of Judge Luttig or Judge Owen. And on Sunday, he did not rule out the possibility that Democrats would try to block a nominee by a filibuster or refusing to close debate and vote. "We are going to do everything we can" to see that the president names "somebody that's really good," Mr. Reid said.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.

According to a statement released by the White House this morning, Jude Alito was born in April 1950 in Trenton. He graduated from Princeton University in 1972, and went to Yale Law School, where he earned a J.D. in 1975. From 1977-1980, Judge Alito served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.

From 1981 to 1985, Judge Alito served as assistant to the solicitor general. He has argued 12 cases on behalf of the federal government in the United States Supreme Court and he has argued numerous others before the federal courts of appeals.

His career included serving as deputy assistant to the attorney general from 1985 to 1987. From 1987 to 1989, Judge Alito served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights, the White House said.

He was nominated by President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, in 1990 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

He has been nicknamed "Scalito" for his ideological similarity to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Both sides were on edge the last few days in anticipation of Mr. Bush's announcement. "There's a lot of anxiety," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on "Late Edition." "There could be a real tough battle here and a real tough fight, depending on whom the president puts up."

Mr. Specter said he was "very worried" about the possibility of a filibuster. "The topic which dominates the discussion, as we all know, is a woman's right to choose," said the senator, who supports abortion rights.

He continued: "You have both sides poles apart, and insistent on finding some answer to that question in advance of the hearing, which no one is entitled to. Guarantees are for used cars and washing machines, not Supreme Court justices."

The new attempt at naming a second Supreme Court justice presents a rare opportunity for Mr. Bush to revitalize his political base and to put his mark on the court at a time when the White House is besieged.

Polls show Mr. Bush's popularity at a new low. American casualties continue to mount in Iraq, the president's domestic agenda is in limbo, and the White House is reeling from the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., a top aide, a day after the withdrawal of Ms. Miers.

But because the nominee would succeed Justice O'Connor, who was the swing vote on abortion rights and other social issues, it seemed clear that any pick that pleased conservatives would most likely meet ferocious resistance from the left. The withdrawal of Ms. Miers has emboldened the left and the right to step up their demands.

On Sunday, Senator Reid and other Democrats sought to capitalize on the president's political vulnerabilities.

"If he wants to divert attention from all of his many problems, he can send us somebody that is going to create a lot of problems," Mr. Reid said. "I think this time he would be ill advised to do that. But the right wing, the radical right wing, is pushing a lot of his buttons, and he may just go along with them."

Unlike Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Ms. Miers, Judge Alito and the other potential nominees said to be on Mr. Bush's short list have judicial records indicating at least a narrower view of the Constitution's protection for abortion rights than positions taken by Justice O'Connor.

A Democratic filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee would take the Senate back to a standoff that gripped the chamber earlier this year, after Democrats used the tactic to block several of the president's appeals court nominees.

The Democratic minority was able to hold up the confirmations because Senate rules allow a group of at least 41 senators to block a vote.

To overcome them, Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, threatened to call for a simple majority vote that could change the rules and eliminate the tactic. The ensuing threats and counterthreats set off national advertising and lobbying campaigns by interest groups who saw it as a proxy for a battle over a potential Supreme Court confirmation.

In the final hour before the showdown, Senator Graham and Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio - both opponents of abortion rights who had previously said they would vote for the rule change - averted the showdown by joining five other Republicans and seven Democrats in a bipartisan deal to block both the rule change and additional filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances."

The group, which has become known as the Gang of 14, left the definition of "extraordinary" to each of its members.

On Sunday, Mr. Graham made clear that he would oppose filibusters of Judge Alito. The president campaigned on a promise to appoint conservatives to the court, and "you're going to get a strong conservative," Mr. Graham said in an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

The Republicans have a majority of 55 senators. If three or more Democrats break from the group to support a filibuster, Mr. Graham and Mr. DeWine could give the Republicans enough votes to force the rule change.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/poli
tics/politicsspecial1/31cnd-court.html

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court

President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.

Alito, appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, has been a regular for years on the White House's short list for the high court. He was also among those proposed by conservative intellectuals as an alternative to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel who withdrew as the nominee last week.

Some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), have threatened to oppose Alito, however. Immediately after the announcement, the liberal activist organization People for the American Way announced the launch of a "massive national effort" to prevent Alito's confirmation.

Alito is Bush's second choice in a month for the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has announced her retirement but has remained on the court pending confirmation of a successor.

Bush, fresh from withering criticism of Miers for her lack of judicial experience and questions about her intellect, stressed Alito's many years of litigation experience, first arguing 12 cases before the Supreme Court and then his years as an appeals court judge. Bush said Alito was the most experienced nominee in 70 years. The president highlighted the fact that Alito went to the Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the prestigious law review. Bush called Alito "brilliant."

Alito's resume, including his service in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, is very much unlike that of Miers's, who had no appellate experience, and very much like that of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

And like Roberts, Alito served during the Reagan administration in the Office of the Solicitor General, which argues on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court.

Unlike Roberts, he has opined from the bench on abortion rights, church-state separation and gender discrimination to the pleasure of conservatives and displeasure of liberals.

While he has been dubbed "Scalito" by some lawyers for a supposed affinity to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his Italian-American heritage, most observers believe that greatly oversimplifies his record.

Alito is considered far less provocative a figure than Scalia both in personality and judicial temperament. His opinions and dissents tend to be dryly analytical rather than slashing.

In addition, his appeals court record is not uniformly conservative on the sorts of issues that arise in Supreme Court confirmation battles.

In 2004, he ruled in favor of a complaint brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by a boy badly bullied by his classmates who was seeking legal relief but had been rebuffed by a U.S. District Court.

He also authored a majority opinion granting federal court review to an African American who could not get state courts to hear his claim of racial bias on the part of a juror in his trial. The case involved a juror who used racial epithets outside the confines of the jury room.

His record on the appeals court makes Alito less liable to suggestions made about Roberts, with only two years as a judge, that he is somehow a judicial mystery.

Rather, liberals are likely to focus on his opinions and dissents, most notably in the 1991 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey .

In that case, Alito joined joined a Third Circuit panel in upholding most of a Pennsylvania law imposing numerous restrictions on women seeking abortions. The law, among other things, required physicians to advise women of the potential medical dangers of abortion and tell them of the alternatives available. It also imposed a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and barred minors from obtaining abortions without parental consent.

The panel, in that same ruling, struck down a single provision in the law requiring women to notify their husbands before they obtained an abortion. Alito dissented from that part of the decision.

Citing previous opinions of O'Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's access to the procedure. The spousal notification provision, he wrote, does not constitute such a burden and must therefore only meet the requirement that it be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose.

"Even assuming that the rational relationship test is more demanding in the present context than in most equal protection cases, that test is satisfied here," he wrote.

"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.

"In addition," he wrote, "the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 [the spousal provision] would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband's interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. . . . The Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it "unwise" or worse."

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision, disagreed with Alito and used the case to reaffirm its support for Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

On the spousal notification provision, O'Connor wrote for the court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The "spousal notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion," she wrote.

"It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases," she said.

Plus, it "embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry, " she said.

"The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family."

While lauded by conservatives, Alito has also been criticized by women's rights organizations for his 1996 dissent in a sex discrimination case, Sheridan v. Dupont , in which he argued that the Third Circuit had made it too easy for discrimination complaints to reach a jury trial. The standards for deciding when a discrimination case reaches trial are hotly controversial as they determine whether such a case moves forward at all.

The dissent ended a significant dispute in the circuit over the analytical framework for granting summary judgments dismissing a complaint without a trial under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alito initially challenged the existing framework and prevailed when the case was before a three-judge panel. He lost the battle when the full circuit ruled.

The widely discussed exchange in the Sheridan case illustrated both Alito's willingness to take on a potentially losing battle in the law and his approach to such battles, which, in that case, was calm, analytical and devoid of flamboyant rhetoric.

In the area of church and state, Alito has been consistently supportive of the conservative view that the courts should be more accommodating when considering state entanglement with religion. He wrote a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler , holding that a city's holiday display that included a creche and menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it included secular symbols as well, such as Frosty the Snowman.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180.html

Some push limit of buffer zone at abortion clinic

Some Push Limit Of Buffer Zone

A new city ordinance mandates a 20-foot buffer zone between an abortion clinic and its protesters and has some anti-abortionists crying foul.

WEST PALM BEACH - Susan Pine normally greets patients at an abortion clinic here with a bullhorn, yelling that they should not kill their babies and handing out pamphlets with graphic photos of aborted fetuses, each with 10 fingers and 10 toes.

Employees at the Presidential Women's Center say the yelling can be heard inside the clinic, angering many patients and increasing their pulse rates and blood pressure. Sensitivity to the ongoing protests reached a new level in July when arson caused fire, smoke and water damage at the facility -- the only clinic in the county that provides abortions.

The deteriorating situation prompted city leaders to pass a law that keeps protesters at least 20 feet away from the facility and prohibits excessive noise, including Pine's bullhorn.

Protesters are challenging the ordinances in federal court. Their efforts show how the bitter abortion debate reaches every level of American politics, from the debate over nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court to the most local level -- a city ordinance that affects a single clinic.

''It has become the most political issue in our country,'' said Mona Reis, the clinic's president and founder, who has successfully challenged state laws that limit a woman's right to have an abortion. ``We're just trying to make a safe situation for women out of what was a nightmare before.''

In Florida, the abortion debate already is playing a role in the 2006 governor's race, with Republican candidates jockeying for votes from crucial conservative voters.

Tom Gallagher, the state's chief financial officer, who is running for the GOP nomination, recently proposed a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, in hopes of carving out the inside track with the voting bloc.

Gallagher's primary opponent, Attorney General Charlie Crist, is opposed to abortions, although he voted against a 24-hour waiting period for all women in 1995 when he served in the state Senate.

Often, the debates at the local level become the most dangerous.

Clinics have been trouble spots, including the shooting deaths of an abortion doctor and his escort outside a Pensacola clinic in 1994. Paul Hill was executed for the murders in September 2003.

But in West Palm Beach, Pine and other protesters insist their demonstrations are peaceful and that they have a first amendment right to share information with women going to the clinic.

''We're simply trying to give women information so they can make an informed decision, so they know the risks and the alternatives to what they're doing,'' Pine said.

A few people in the group hold video cameras outside the clinic -- a silent threat that patients' license plates will be recorded and posted publicly. On Oct. 8, the first day the ordinances went into effect, several in the group of protesters pushed the limits of the new law, forcing police officers to usher them out of the new 20-foot buffer zone surrounding the clinic.

City officials said the protests can create tension and traffic problems around the clinic, especially when Pine and others approach moving cars to try to get anti-abortion pamphlets to women.

''She'll stand here in the middle of the driveway with a bullhorn, yelling and screaming, trying to get cars to stop, and half the people are already distraught because of the procedure they might be having,'' said West Palm Beach police Officer Richard Pleasant.

Pleasant has spent Saturday mornings for the past 17 years monitoring protests at the center.

He said he has seen three women question their decision and leave after being approached by Pine.

All three soon came back to the facility.

Michael DePrimo, an attorney with the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy who filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the buffer zone applies ''to both willing and unwilling listeners.'' The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks.

''You can't talk to anyone in the buffer zone,'' DePrimo said. ``This is a blanket prohibition, which is unlike the buffer zones held up in three cases by the federal court.''

But proponents insist that women going to the clinic deserve to have their privacy protected and should not be hassled by protesters.

''I think what it does is it creates a balance. It certainly does not in any way, shape, or form limit those that want to voice any opinion,'' Reis said. ``The fact is that it was an area that was very unsafe, a tragedy waiting to happen.''


http://www.miami.com/mld/
miamiherald/13030718.htm

More details emerge in DSS arrest

More Details On Social Worker Abortion Arrest

The cascading series of events that culminated in the arrest of a New Hanover County social worker accused of hampering a statutory rape investigation are detailed in documents filed to support the charge against her.

Those documents paint the clearest picture yet of the clash of professional duty and ethics between the social worker, Susan L. Taylor, and the sheriff’s investigator who charged her, Detective T.A. Smith.

New Hanover County Sheriff’s detectives arrested Mrs. Taylor on Oct. 20 at the New Hanover County Department of Social Services headquarters on Greenfield Street. She was charged with obstruction of justice.

According to a search warrant, she provided information to the victim and her mother, which allowed an abortion to be scheduled without a planned law enforcement presence. This prevented detectives from obtaining DNA evidence from the aborted fetus.

The DNA could have been used to help investigators charge a 27-year-old man with statutory rape of the girl, who was 14 when she became pregnant.

The Star-News does not identify victims of sexual assaults or juveniles involved in crimes.

After the case surfaced last week, questions focused on Mrs. Taylor’s legal and ethical responsibilities.

But details in case records show that law enforcement officers faced other daunting obstacles, including indecision and confusion on the part of the girl’s parents over how to deal with her pregnancy. The parents are now concerned that Mrs. Taylor was arrested in the course of trying to help their daughter, said their attorney, Tommy Hicks.

“My clients are very distraught over the fact that a woman that did absolutely nothing but trying to help them has had this happen to her,” Mr. Hicks said.

“That doesn’t mean that they will take sides whatsoever, but still, they feel very upset about it,” he said. “I’m trying to determine if the Sheriff’s Office acted in any way contrary of my clients’ rights.” Mr. Hicks said he brought the girl’s parents to a meeting Friday night with Mrs. Taylor’s attorney, Geannine Boyette.

Chief Deputy Tom Parker pointed out that a number of circumstances, including difficulty the parents faced making choices for their child, appeared to strongly influence choices investigators made.

The lead investigator in the case, Detective Smith opened her case file Aug. 11 after receiving word of the rape allegations.

At the time, the girl was between two and four weeks pregnant, according to documents. Her father mulled the question of whether an abortion pill available through a local medical services center would be safe for his daughter.

Detective Smith helped collect information about that abortion method from local medical professionals and the Internet and provided that information to the parents. Records show that Detective Smith also researched the pill to determine whether it would affect her ability to collect fetal DNA to be used as evidence.

The girl refused to identify the 27-year-old man as the child’s father, records state. In addition, investigators said she was uncooperative and unmanageable during questioning on Aug. 15.

“During this interview the juvenile victim was unstable in regards to language used towards parents, body language, refusal to follow instructions by remaining in the designated room with parents or parent, threats of tampering with [the] file and threats of assaulting [a detective] by spitting or throwing objects,” Detective Smith wrote in an affidavit.

The girl told investigators she was raped in an unrelated incident in January and that she was molested when she was younger. “The juvenile victim also mentioned the names of other males that the juvenile victim had a sexual relationship with as to avoid any questions regarding (the perpetrator.)”

No clear answer has emerged about why the girl was involved with the Department of Social Services, with Mrs. Taylor assigned as her social worker. Documents do show that on Sept. 6, Detective Smith approached Mrs. Taylor with information about the case.

The girl, according to records, had already planned to obtain an abortion at Preferred Women’s Health Center in Wilmington. After Detective Smith notified officials at the health center that police would become involved, the center canceled the procedure, documents show.

On Sept. 9, Detective Smith and the social worker appeared be cooperating in the case. Detective Smith played a tape for Mrs. Taylor of the tempestuous Aug. 15 interview with the girl, and told her that the girl might seek an abortion without telling anyone where or when. Detective Smith stressed to Mrs. Taylor that the evidence from the fetus was crucial to the statutory rape case.

In an affidavit, Detective Smith wrote that she needed to be present during an abortion “so that the product of conception could be collected immediately and the chain of custody not be tampered with.” “[I] had to watch the product of conception leave out of the juvenile victim’s operation room, then place [it] in cooler on ice and transport [it] to [a] Burlington lab to see if there was DNA to collect that could be used.”

There are no indications that Detective Smith had a court order to collect the fetus or its DNA. Attorneys familiar with the case and constitutional law experts question whether a clinic would actually provide a fetus without such authorization.

Matters grew more complicated when the detective told Mrs. Taylor that she would be out of town for a number of days. Detective Smith told Mrs. Taylor that if an abortion occurred at that time, she would be unable to attend. She asked that Mrs. Taylor inform her if she learned that an abortion would occur, so that another detective could be present.

On Sept. 16, while Detective Smith was out of town, the girl underwent an abortion at a Raleigh clinic, documents show. No provisions were made for a detective to be present.

Four days later, Detective Smith learned that the girl’s father had recorded a conversation between the girl and the rape suspect. On the tape, documents state, the girl said Mrs. Taylor warned her that police would try to collect the DNA and had advised her to obtain an abortion.

“Juvenile victim stated on tape that social worker told her that (I) was on vacation and that the juvenile victim had like a week or so to do the procedure,” Detective Smith wrote.

On the tape, she said, the girl told the 27-year-old man that Mrs. Taylor accused police of “overstepping boundaries.”

The social worker, according to Oct. 12 interviews cited by Detective Smith, told the girl’s mother the detective was “too far in the case” and it was not necessary for law enforcement to be involved with the abortion procedure. The detective, according to her affidavit, was accused by the social worker of being “out for vengeance to get the tissue from the abortion.”

Legal and ethical experts agree that without a court order demanding the information, Mrs. Taylor was right not to inform detectives of the planned date and time of the abortion – if she indeed had that information – under penalty of strict state laws concerning confidentiality.

Whether warning her client of the police interest and the scheduling issues constitute obstruction of justice will be up to either District Attorney Ben David or the state attorney general to decide. Mr. David said an announcement concerning the fate of the case would be made Monday.

Nationally recognized experts, such as Robert M. Bloom of Boston University School of Law, expressed surprise upon learning of the case against Mrs. Taylor.

“It is an unusual situation where they would go after a social worker for obstruction of justice where she was probably looking out for the interests of her client,” said Dr. Bloom. “It seems to me like they are going through a lot of effort.”

Dr. Michael Davis of Chicago’s Illinois Institute of Technology teaches ethics for both law enforcement officers and social service workers.

He said officers are routinely called upon to do social-service related work. It was also not unusual for caseworkers like Mrs. Taylor to become closely entangled with some clients, noting the volatile nature of a 14-year-old girl with behavior problems.

Acts leading up to Mrs. Taylor’s arrest as detailed in the case documents, could have resulted from the officer and the social worker striving to maintain the ethical standards of their respective professions.

“To some degree ethics come into conflict,” he said.


http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar
ticle?AID=/20051030/NEWS/51029024/-1/Arts_style

Sheriff: Abortion Timing At Issue in DSS Arrest

Abortion 'Timing' At Issue

A New Hanover County social worker’s advice to a 14-year-old rape victim allowed the child to obtain an abortion on a day when detectives were unavailable to collect DNA evidence that would identify the father of the fetus, law enforcement authorities said. New Hanover County Sheriff Sid Causey said that’s why he believes Susan L. Taylor, a 20-year social work veteran, crossed the legal line and was the reason she was arrested last week on a charge of obstructing justice.

A 27-year-old man suspected of sexual relations with the young teen, Sheriff Causey said, remains on the streets because detectives were thwarted, and he lays blame in the lap of Mrs. Taylor. But Mrs. Taylor’s attorney, Geannine Boyette, vigorously defended her client.

“The social worker didn’t schedule the abortion, the social worker wasn’t present when the abortion happened, and she wasn’t aware the abortion occurred until much later,” Ms. Boyette said. “We deny that the social worker in any way did anything wrong ... It boils down to the social worker is not the person who can consent to the abortion.” Only parental consent or a court order, Ms. Boyette said, can result in the abortion actually being performed. She said Mrs. Taylor provided neither.

The defense lawyer reaffirmed her belief that Mrs. Taylor was only doing her job when explaining abortion options to the girl. The case has raised eyebrows among some area social workers, who question why Mrs. Taylor was arrested when all she was doing was providing information.

The polar positions of the sheriff and Mrs. Taylor’s attorney highlight conflicting goals of law enforcement and social work that become more evident as information about the case becomes more public. New Hanover County Department of Social Services Director LaVaughn Nesmith refused to comment on the case Thursday, citing restrictions because an internal investigation is ongoing. On Wednesday, he said it appeared Mrs. Taylor did nothing wrong.

Problems with the statutory rape case, Sheriff Causey said, were compounded by the girl’s lack of cooperation with authorities and refusal to name the suspect.

“She thinks this is her boyfriend,” Sheriff Causey said, noting that the timing of the abortion, which case records show was performed Sept. 16 in Raleigh, was at issue.

An assistant district attorney, Sheriff Causey said, was consulted before the arrest was made and determined there was probable cause for the obstruction charge.

Case records obtained by the Star-News show that Detective T.A. Smith began investigating the case in August when the girl was between two and four weeks pregnant. The child, Sheriff Causey said, sought to protect the identity of the fetus’ father.

Detective Smith, records show, learned that Mrs. Taylor was handling a newly-opened DSS child protective case involving the girl and that an abortion was planned.

According to case records, the detective told the social worker that she would have to observe the abortion to ensure that the evidence obtained to identify the father of the child was collected lawfully. Detective Smith also told Mrs. Taylor, the records show, that she would be out of town around Sept. 16 due to a family emergency and that another detective should be contacted if an abortion was scheduled.

The girl’s parents told authorities on Sept. 19 that the abortion had already been performed.

Sheriff Causey remains steadfast in his assertion that the issue of abortion itself had nothing to do with the criminal charge made against Mrs. Taylor.

“We didn’t say ‘you should have this child,’” Sheriff Causey said. Sheriff Causey added that his department’s focus remains on the statutory rape case.

“We’re still trying to put a case together,” he said, stressing the importance of the DNA evidence. “We need to be sure we are going to get the right person.”


http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar
ticle?AID=/20051028/NEWS/51027044/-1/Arts_style

Indecision, hostile victim complicate statutory rape case

Complications In Statutory Rape Case

14-year-old refuses to identify her rapist

WILMINGTON, N.C. -- Police who accused a social worker of interfering in a statutory rape case faced a collection of challenges in their investigation, including an uncooperative teenage victim and indecision on the part of her parents on whether she should have an abortion, legal documents show.

Susan L. Taylor, 57, was arrested Oct. 20 at the headquarters of the New Hanover County Department of Social Services on charges that she obstructed justice by helping the teenager get an abortion.

Authorities said the abortion resulted in the destruction of DNA evidence investigators wanted for the statutory rape case.

At the time, questions focused on whether Taylor acted appropriately. But case records reported Sunday in the Star-News show officers also had to cope with confusion on the part of the girl's parents over how to deal with her pregnancy.

District Attorney Ben David planned to say Monday whether he will pursue a prosecution against Taylor.

The statutory rape investigation was opened in August by New Hanover County Sheriff's Detective T.A. Smith, when the victim was two to four weeks pregnant, documents cited by the newspaper said. At the time, the girl's father was considering whether his daughter's pregnancy could be terminated.

The records showed Smith sought information on an abortion pill the father was considering, including whether it would affect her ability to collect DNA from the aborted fetus to use as evidence.

The investigation was complicated by the refusal of the girl, who became pregnant when she was 14, to identify the 27-year-old suspect as the child's father, and by her uncooperative and unmanageable behavior during questioning on Aug. 15, the documents showed.

"During this interview the juvenile victim was unstable in regards to language used towards parents, body language, refusal to follow instructions by remaining in the designated room with parents or parent, threats of tampering with (the) file and threats of assaulting (a detective) by spitting or throwing objects," Smith wrote in an affidavit.

She also told investigators she was raped in an unrelated incident in January, was molested when she was younger and named other men with whom she "had a sexual relationship ... to avoid any questions regarding (the suspect.)"

It was unclear why the girl was involved with the Department of Social Services, where Taylor was her social worker. Documents show that Smith approached Taylor with information about the case on Sept. 6, the Star-News reported.

At that point, the girl already planned to receive a surgical abortion at a clinic in Wilmington, but the clinic canceled the procedure when Smith notified it that police would be involved.

Smith told Taylor on Sept. 9 that the girl might seek an abortion without telling anyone, and stressed to Taylor that fetal evidence was critical to the case. Smith wrote in an affidavit that she needed to be present to collect the fetal remains and keep the "chain of custody" of the evidence intact.

Smith told Taylor she would be out of town for a number of days and asked her to make sure investigators knew if an abortion was planned so another detective could be present. The abortion took place at a Raleigh clinic on Sept. 16, while Smith was away, and no other detective was notified, the documents said.

Smith said she later learned that the girl's father had recorded a conversation between the girl and the rape suspect, in which the girl said Taylor warned her that police would try to collect the DNA and had advised her to obtain an abortion while Smith was away.

On the tape, Smith said, the girl told the 27-year-old man that Taylor accused police of "overstepping boundaries." Smith also said that, in interviews, the girl's mother claimed that Taylor said Smith was "too far in the case" and "out for vengeance to get the tissue from the abortion."

Legal experts said the case against Taylor was surprising.

"It is an unusual situation where they would go after a social worker for obstruction of justice where she was probably looking out for the interests of her client," said Robert M. Bloom of Boston University School of Law. "It seems to me like they are going through a lot of effort."

The parents are concerned that Taylor was arrested in the course of trying to help their daughter, said their attorney, Tommy Hicks.

"My clients are very distraught over the fact that a woman that did absolutely nothing but trying to help them has had this happen to her," Mr. Hicks said.


http://www.charlotte.com/mld/ob
server/news/local/13038078.htm

Births to Unmarried U.S. Women Set Record

Fornicators are Bastardizing U.S.

Fornication is defiling the Marriage Covenant and destroying
the Family: 1.5 Million Illegitimate Births in U.S. Sets Record

WASHINGTON -- Nearly 1.5 million babies, a record, were born to unmarried women in the United States last year, the government reported Friday. And it isn't just teenagers any more.

"People have the impression that teens and unmarried mothers are synonymous," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics.

But last year teens accounted for just 24 percent of unwed births, down from 50 percent in 1970, she commented.

The increases in unmarried births have been among women in their 20s, she said, particularly those 25 to 29.

Many of the women in that age group are living with partners but still count as unmarried mothers if they haven't formally married, Ventura noted.

The 20s are the prime childbearing years, regardless of whether the mother is married or not, she said.

Among teens, more than 80 percent of mothers were unmarried.

There were 1,470,152 babies born to single women in 2004, 35.7 percent of all births in the country, NCHS said. That was up from 1,415,995 a year earlier.

Births to older women continued to increase, Brady Hamilton of NCHS pointed out, reflecting choices these women are making in terms of careers and having families.

The birth rate for women aged 35 to 39 increased 4 percent from 2003 to 2004. It was up 3 percent for women aged 40 to 44 and 9 percent for those 45 to 49.

Other findings of the report included:

_There was a total of 4,115,590 births in the country in 2004, up from 4,089,950 in 2003.

_Births to whites declined by nearly 18,000 while Hispanics were up 32,000, there was an increase of more than 8,000 in births to Asians and a rise of just 72 births among black women.

_The total birth rate was 14.0 per 1,000 women, down from 14.1 in 2003.

_The birth rate for women aged 15 to 19 was 41.2 per 1,000, down from 41.6 in 2003 and a record low.

The teen birth rate was 61.8 in 1991 and has been declining since.

___

On the Net:

National Center for Health Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051
028/ap_on_re_us/american_births_1

New Court Nominee Expected Within Days

New Nominee Expected Within Days

Bush Expected to Announce New Supreme Court
Nominee Within Days After Bruising Fight Over Miers

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, eager to put a bruising brawl within his own party behind him, is expected to announce his new pick for the Supreme Court within days.

Bush has offered no hint about his thinking on a new nominee, but he isn't starting from scratch. The president already has vetted and interviewed several candidates, and White House officials wouldn't rule out the possibility that an announcement could be made as early as Friday.

Bush said Miers, the White House counsel, was the most qualified candidate to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But for three weeks, his fellow conservatives criticized the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidante for having thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.

That could point Bush back to a slate of federal appellate judges often mentioned as top contenders. That list includes Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Alice Batchelder, Priscilla Owen and Karen Williams as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

Miers' lack of judicial experience was not the key reason the president's supporters opposed her.

Bush had trumpeted his decision to pick someone outside the "judicial monastery" and boasted Miers would offer a "fresh approach" to the court. Instead, Miers' critics complained there was no clear record to suggest how she would interpret the Constitution something that is expected to be more evident with his next nominee.

Bush might also turn to a current or past senator, such as Republican John Cornyn of Texas, because the Senate would be more likely to embrace one of its own.

Other prospective candidates who are not judges include Maureen Mahoney, a frequent litigator before the high court. She sometimes is referred to as the "female version" of John Roberts Bush's choice for chief justice, who was confirmed by the Senate 78-22.

Still another is PepsiCo attorney Larry Thompson. Bush likes and trusts Thompson, who as deputy attorney general was the highest-ranking black law enforcement officer in Bush's first term. Thompson, however, might be tagged like Miers as someone beholden to the White House.

Bush, who leaves on a trip to Argentina, Brazil and Panama on Thursday, has said he'll make his next nomination in a "timely manner." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he expected an announcement within days, with confirmation hearings perhaps before Christmas.

Brad Berenson, a former staff member of the White House counsel's office in the Bush administration, said he thinks the president is likely to return to a short list of candidates that both the left and right agree are the most qualified.

"My own view is that we probably will not get any of the individuals who are the very top of the Democrats' hit list," Berenson said. "I think he's going to try to repeat his experience with John Roberts someone who can be confirmed without touching off battle royale."

The White House said it was not the firestorm of opposition from Bush's right flank, but the Senate's demand for documents covered by attorney-client and executive privileges that forced Miers' withdrawal. Both these reasons might make Bush wary of choosing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a longtime ally.

As with Miers, senators would seek documents Gonzales handled in his previous post as White House counsel, and the White House again would claim executive privilege to deny their release.

Nominating Gonzales also would re-ignite the very opposition Bush is trying to dampen on the Republican right, which doesn't think Gonzales is a reliable conservative vote on abortion and affirmative action.

Fearing that Bush's next pick will be a darling of the right, Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way, urged Bush to resist calls for an ultraconservative and pick someone with a mainstream legal philosophy.

"The president must not let the extreme right dictate his next choice, but instead choose a nominee who can bring us together and maintain a fair and independent balance on the Supreme Court," Neas said.

With his job approval rating the lowest of his presidency, Bush may feel it is necessary to appease his base, especially with the possibility that members of the White House staff may be indicted in the CIA leak investigation.

"They are clearing the decks," said Hamilton College government professor Philip Klinkner, who believes the White House would have trouble responding to indictments and defending Miers at the same time. "This means that the Miers withdrawal becomes a page two story, limiting its political damage. Finally, they can nominate someone who will rally their base, rather than divide it."

Ironically for conservatives, Miers' withdrawal extends the tenure of O'Connor, whose vote has been decisive on 5-4 rulings that upheld abortion rights and affirmative action and limited the death penalty. Some of those issues are on the upcoming court calendar.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS
tory?id=1258836&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Bush's FDA Backs Transplants of Aborted Fetal Cells

Aborted Fetal Cell Transplants

Modern Day Cannibalism:

Federal regulators have approved what would be the first transplant of fetal stem cells into human brains, a procedure that if successful could open the door to treating a host of neural disorders.

The transplant recipients will be children who suffer from a rare, fatal genetic disorder.

The Food and Drug Administration said that doctors at Stanford University Medical Center can begin the testing on six children afflicted with Batten disease, a degenerative malady that renders its young victims blind, speechless and paralyzed before it kills them.

An internal Stanford review board must still approve the test, a process that could take weeks.

The stem cells to be transplanted in the brain are not human embryonic stem cells, which are derived from days-old embryos. Instead, the cells are immature neural cells, from miscarriages, aborted fetuses and other surgical procedures, that are destined to turn into the mature cells that make up a fully formed brain.

Parkinson's disease patients and stroke victims have received transplants of fully formed brain cells before, but the malleable brain cells involved here have never been implanted.

Batten disease is caused by a defective gene that fails to create an enzyme needed in the brain to help dispose of brain cellular waste. The waste piles up and kills healthy cells until the patient dies. Most victims die before they reach their teens.

The idea is to inject the sick children with healthy, immature neural stem cells that will "engraft" in a brain that will direct them to turn into cells able to produce the missing enzyme.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2
005/10/21/AR2005102102110.html?nav=rss_nation/science

The 'Krauthammer Cover'

Charles Krauthammer Was Right!

THE EXCERPT from Charles Krauthammer's Oct. 21 column:

The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

Miers Failed to Win Support of Key Senators and Conservatives

The Suggested 'Face-Saving' Scenario

WASHINGTON -- Harriet E. Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court this morning after weeks of increasingly heated debate over her the depth of her conservative beliefs and her qualifications to fill the seat to be vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Ms. Miers, President Bush's White House counsel, told the president in a letter this morning that she feared that the confirmation process "presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country." She said that even though her long career offered enough basis for senators to consider her nomination, "I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and information will continue."

Mr. Bush issued a statement in which he accepted Ms. Miers's decision with regret, praised her "extraordinarily legal experience" and her character and said he agreed that senators were intent on gaining access to internal White House documents about her service. Surrendering such paperwork would undercut any president's ability to get frank and unfettered advice from key aides, Mr. Bush said.

"Harriet Miers's decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her," the president said. Mr. Bush said he would announce a new nominee "in a timely manner."

Although the president and Ms. Miers cited the principle of separation of powers as the basis for her withdrawal, there appeared to be much more to it than that. The nominee had been severely criticized by senators of all political stripes - by conservatives who doubted her commitment to their cause, especially her feelings about abortion, and by moderates and liberals, who said they knew too little about her, especially since she had never been a judge.

That lack of a "paper trail" was the reason that senators offered for seeking documents related to her White House service - documents that Mr. Bush said he would never submit. Indeed, not many days ago Mr. Bush said that principle was "a red line" that he would never cross.

Coincidentally or not, Ms. Miers's withdrawal, ostensibly over the principle of separation of powers as it relates to White House papers, is the very scenario that some conservative commentators have suggested as a face-saving ploy for the nominee and the White House.

Hovering over the nomination process in the three weeks since President Bush announced the selection of Ms. Miers was the sense that, in addition to the other hurdles she faced, she was not very lucky. Her lack of judicial experience, and her failure to persuade senators of her qualifications in face-to-face meetings, made her suffer in comparison to Judge John G. Roberts Jr., Mr. Bush's nominee for chief justice.

Judge Roberts, who was confirmed by 78 to 22, had sat on the influential United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and it was generally acknowledged that his intellect and knowledge of constitutional law dazzled many senators.

Ms. Miers has been described by friends and associates as intelligent, principled and discreet to the point of shyness. She was also one of the first women to become a partner of a major Texas law firm and to head the Texas Bar Association. But in the end, those qualities were not enough. With opposition from both Republicans and Democrats, it had become increasingly likely that Ms. Miers, 60, would fail to garner enough votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

Ms. Miers's withdrawal comes at a time when senior members of the Bush administration face possible tment growing out of the disclosure of the identity of a C.I.A. officer two years ago. Public opinion polls also show that the president's popularity has fallen dramatically as the war in Iraq continues to claim Iraqi and American lives with no end in sight.

The fierce opposition to Ms. Miers's nomination from within Republican ranks, and her subsequent withdrawal, raised the possibility that Mr. Bush might seek to placate conservatives with a nominee whose views could harden opposition among Democrats.

Concern among conservatives over Ms. Meiers's views on abortion and judicial philosophy heightened on Wednesday when The Washington Post reported that Ms. Miers, in a 1993 speech in Dallas, spoke approvingly about a trend toward "self-determination" in resolving debates about law and religion, including those involving abortion rights and religion in public schools and public places.

Before Ms. Miers was nominated by President Bush, those said to have been under serious consideration for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor included Judge Karen J. Williams, 54, of Orangeburg, S.C., who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.

Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said that he believed that Ms. Miers was forced to withdraw because she lacked the requisite support among Republicans.

"I think it was a lot of the president's friends and supporters in the Senate who said, 'We're really not comfortable with this nominee,' " Mr. Lott told CNN.

Mr. Lott said it was not concerns about Ms. Miers' stances on such issues as abortion, gay rights and religion in public life, but the "breadth of her experience and her qualifications."

He added however, that the president should appoint a "strict constructionist conservative."

. Before becoming the president's counsel, Ms. Miers had served as assistant to the president, the president's deputy chief of staff, and staff secretary at the White House.

A close friend of the president since Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Ms. Miers had been co-managing partner at the Texas law firm Locke Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P., from 1998 to 2000. Mr. Bush had appointed her as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, where she served from 1995 until 2000.

In 1985, she became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association, and in 1992, she became the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar. A graduate of Southern Methodist University, she had also been a member of the Dallas City Council.

Questions about the extent of Ms. Miers's conservatism led several powerful Republicans to publicly question the nominee, a rare revolt against a president who is generally seen as a champion of conservative causes.

Conservatives on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including both Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, both said they had concerns about Ms. Miers's positions on abortion rights and other issues.

In the meantime, Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer of New York, expressed concern that as a justice, Ms. Miers might support overturning Roe v. Wade.

Moderate Republicans attacked her lack of judicial experience, with Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, remarking that Ms. Miers could benefit from a "crash course in constitutional law."

Another Republican moderate, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, said this week that he needed "to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues."

He added, "I certainly go into this with concerns."

Senator Schumer said today that President Bush should take his time in picking a new nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, who has announced her retirement. The selection process, said Mr. Schumer, should include discussions about potential nominees with the Senate.

"One of the real reasons for this mistake was there was no real consultation," he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/poli
tics/politicsspecial1/27cnd-scotus.html

Bush Abandons Push for Miers Nomination

Dems accused Bush of bowing to "radical right"

WASHINGTON -- Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front — the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.

Democrats and Republicans braced for a political brawl over Bush's third Supreme Court pick. With Chief Justice John Roberts hearing his first cases, Bush could turn to the list of candidates passed over in favor of Miers, including Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge supported by many conservatives, administration officials said.

Democrats urged Bush to nominate a moderate. "The president has an opportunity now to unite the country. In appointing the next nominee, he must listen to all Americans, not just the far right," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts.

Bush, after weeks of insisting he did not want Miers to withdraw, blamed the Senate for her demise.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said shortly before leaving for Florida to assess hurricane damage.

There were few regrets on Capitol Hill, from either party. Republicans control 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, but several GOP lawmakers were wavering on Miers amid intense lobbying from conservative interest groups. Republicans and Democrats alike questioned her qualifications — Miers had never served as a judge — and Bush faced charges of cronyism for tapping his former personal lawyer for the highest court in the land.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist spoke with White House chief of staff Andy Card Wednesday night and offered a "frank assessment of the situation in the committee and in the full Senate," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential 2008 presidential nominee who is courting conservative activists, said he had been "feeling less comfortable all along" about the nomination.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers' nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: "I don't believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked."

"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president. "They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."

Whomever Bush picks, a united GOP caucus holds the upper hand. Democrats would have to use their 44 voters (there is one independent) to try to block the nomination procedurally, a move loaded with political and logistical hurdles.

Republican consultants predicted that Bush would satisfy the conservatives who helped him to two election victories and now want their due. "The conservative movement has made it fairly clear from their standpoint that they would like someone that many people have been fighting for, or involved in these battles over 30 years," said consultant Greg Mueller, who was deeply involved in the Miers nomination fight.

While conservatives cheered her withdrawal, Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way, said the decision demonstrated that "ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court to the right that they pounded their own president's nominee into submission and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials."

Miers' withdrawal means the justice she was chosen to replace, Sandra Day O'Connor, will delay her retirement further. O'Connor has been a swing voter on numerous emotional social issues, and more are set to come before the Supreme Court, including two abortion cases this fall.

Before the president chose Miers on Oct. 3, speculation had focused on her and two other Bush loyalists: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's longtime friend who would be the first Hispanic on the court, and corporate lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official as deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.

A senior administration official said Gonzales and Thompson would probably run into similar criticism as Miers. They are Bush confidants with sparse records.

Other candidates mentioned frequently include conservative federal appeals court judges Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams and Alice Batchelder; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan and Maureen Mahoney, a frequent litigator before the high court.

Bush promised a new nominee "in a timely manner." Frist said he expected a nominee within days. Miers will remain White House counsel.

A second senior administration official said it had become increasingly clear that her nomination was facing a collision on Capitol Hill that needed to be prevented.

Miers called the president in his private residence at 8:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday to tell him of her decision. Twelve hours later, she walked into the Oval Office to hand him her letter of withdrawal.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Miers came to the decision on her own. The administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the nomination, said it was clear to everybody in the White House that Bush could not afford the fight.

Polls show Bush is at the weakest point of his presidency with growing numbers of voters disapproving of his job performance and his policies on Iraq.

Since Miers' nomination, there have been widespread complaints about her lack of legal credentials, doubts about her ability and assertions of cronyism because of her longtime association with Bush.

In a letter on Wednesday, Sen. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sought assurances that Miers would show no favoritism toward Bush if confirmed as a justice. It may have been the last straw, coming from a moderate Republican who said Oct. 11 there was no chance Miers would withdraw before her hearings.

"I think that would be a sign of incredible weakness," he said at the time.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2005102
7/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_withdraws_15

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination

Harriet Miers withdrews nomination

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front — the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Miers notified Bush of her decision at 8:30 p.m., according to a senior White House official who said the president will move quickly to find a new nominee.

In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

Miers' nomination has been under withering criticism ever since Bush announced her selection on Oct. 3. There were widespread complaints about her lack of legal credentials, doubts about her ability and assertions of cronyism because of her longtime association with Bush.

Most recently she has been Bush's White House counsel. Bush said that with her withdrawal, she would remain as counsel. He did not indicate when he would name a successor.

"My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains," Bush said in a statement. "I will do so in a timely manner."

Before Bush chose Miers on Oct. 3, speculation focused on Miers and two other Bush loyalists: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's longtime friend who would be the first Hispanic on the court; and corporate lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official as deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.

Other candidates mentioned frequently included conservative federal appeals court judges J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder and Samuel Alito; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan; and Maureen Mahoney, a well-respected litigator before the high court.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2005102
7/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_withdraws_5

Critics and a Senator Raise Ante for Miers

New Signs Of Eroding Support

WASHINGTON -- In new signs of eroding support for Harriet E. Miers, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent her a sharply worded list of questions Wednesday on constitutional law, and one of the nation's leading grass-roots evangelical organizations called for the withdrawal of her Supreme Court nomination.

Concerned Women for America, one of the nation's largest Christian advocacy groups, changed its "wait-and-see" position after reading speeches she gave in the early 1990s in which she supported, among other things, "the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."

The speeches "indicate a radical feminist worldview, a penchant for judicial activism, race and sex quotas, a liberal characterization of the abortion debate and government spending, and an inability to articulate her positions clearly," the group said in a statement.

"We do not think there is anything she could say at her hearing that would satisfy our concerns," Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, said in an interview.

White House officials played down the development, repeating that Miers would have a chance to prove herself to critics at Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Nov. 7.

Miers' nomination has come under increased pressure in recent days as conservative opposition against her has coalesced. Two websites urging her withdrawal — http://www.withdrawmiers.org and http://www.betterjustice.com — began operating this week, and anti-Miers ads began airing Wednesday on cable TV and radio.

The nomination process has also been hampered by a lack of enthusiasm even from White House allies. One of them, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Miers a letter Wednesday listing 10 questions he planned to ask during the confirmation hearing, most of which concerned treatment of terrorist detainees and limits on executive branch authority.

"What assurances can you give the Senate and the American people that you will be independent, if confirmed, and not give President Bush any special deference on any matter involving him which might come before the court?" Specter asked in the letter.

Specter prepared similar letters for the previous Supreme Court nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts. But in light of complaints that Miers lacks legal stature and is too close to the president to be a check on executive power, Specter's questions to her had a notable edge.

"Without inquiring in any way concerning the advice you have given the president because of the doctrine of executive privilege, what standard would you apply, if confirmed, in recusing yourself on any subject where you have advised the president?" Specter wrote.

Miers, who serves as White House counsel, was to have provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with revised answers to parts of a questionnaire by Wednesday.

Last week, Specter and the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), asked her to resubmit those answers, saying her initial response was "insufficient."

Miers' resubmission had not arrived on Capitol Hill by late evening. White House officials had said they would be delivered by midnight.

Senators of both parties have expressed frustration with a lack of information from the White House about Miers' qualifications to sit on the nation's highest court. Liberals fear she is too politically conservative to protect individual rights, and fear that her personal friendship might make it hard for her to make decisions against the president. However, liberals have kept largely silent, allowing the stiffest criticism to be voiced by conservatives.

Republican senators, concerned about her lack of judicial experience and the complaints of social conservatives, have asked the White House to provide more documentation to demonstrate Miers' judicial philosophy. One of them is Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who met with Miers on Wednesday and came away undecided about supporting her.

"My central question still remains to be answered, however: Is there objective, written evidence from prior to her nomination that fully shows that she has a truly consistent and well-grounded conservative judicial philosophy?" he said in a statement issued after their meeting.

Miers was Bush's personal lawyer and advised him while he was governor of Texas. In his five years as president, she has held three White House jobs: staff secretary, deputy chief of staff for policy and White House counsel.

While Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court has generated little enthusiasm among Republicans, no senators have said they would vote against her. She appears capable of getting the 51 votes she needs in the Senate to win confirmation.

However, social conservatives have warned the White House that her Senate confirmation would come at an electoral price for the Republican Party. Social conservatives helped mobilize Christians around the country to elect and reelect Bush as president, and so far they have long been seen as being among his most ardent supporters.

In part because of assurances that Miers is an evangelical Christian, leaders of several evangelical organizations, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, have expressed support for her.

But in recent days, those endorsements have faded amid more forceful calls for her withdrawal from a range of social-conservative groups and leaders, who have joined together to run the two anti-Miers websites. Concerned Women is among the largest and most influential organizations to join their ranks.

According to Concerned Women for America's website, the group was founded in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye to "protect and promote Biblical values for women and families — first through prayer, then education and finally, by influencing our elected leaders and society."

The group is active in pressing a social agenda that includes opposition to abortion and gay marriage, among other issues.

Despite growing signs of discontent among its allies, White House officials insisted Wednesday that neither Miers nor Bush was considering backtracking on her nomination.

"We're continuing to move forward on the confirmation process," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said at his daily press briefing.

LaRue of Concerned Women said that reports about Miers' speeches, which were among documents provided to the Judiciary Committee last week, were the final straw that led the group to openly oppose her nomination. She pointed in particular to a 1993 address by Miers to Executive Women of Dallas, a nonprofit organization of professional women and those in upper management.

According to a transcript of her remarks, Miers expressed the view that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about abortion — a sharp departure from her stance in 1989, when as a candidate for the Dallas City Council, she pledged to work against Roe vs. Wade and promote a state measure outlawing abortion.

In the speech, Miers said that "abortion clinic protesters have become synonymous with terrorists" and that the courts were being "besieged" by cases challenging a woman's right to choose abortion.

"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Miers told the group.

She added: "The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, another large Christian advocacy group that has declined to endorse or oppose Miers, called her language "very disturbing."

"Miss Miers' words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision," Perkins said in a message to supporters. "Her use of terms like 'criminalize abortion' to characterize the pro-life position and 'guarantee freedom' to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
nation/la-na-miers27oct27,0,3538156.story

Hurricane Wilma

Florida Raises Wilma Death Toll to 10
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Authorities raised Florida's death toll from Hurricane Wilma from five to 10 Wednesday and urged the storm's survivors to have patience as they endured long waits for food, water and other necessities. The 21st storm in the busiest Atlantic hurricane season on record, Wilma killed at least 12 people in Haiti, four in Mexico and one in Jamaica before hitting Florida. State emergency management director Craig Fugate said Wednesday that Florida's death toll was 10, up from the five deaths previously reported.

A look at deaths blamed on Hurricane Wilma
MIAMI -- State officials say Hurricane Wilma killed 10 people in Florida. Wilma swept through the southern half of the state early Monday morning as a Category 3 hurricane with winds in excess of 100 mph.

Most of South Florida without power
Army of FPL workers make progress on restoring power
Florida Power & Light Co. has brought so many workers into the state in recent days -- about 2,000 have joined the 8,000-strong workforce in the last 24 hours -- that the company had to set up tent cities for workers at Calder Racetrack in Miami, as well as sites in St. Lucie and Fort Myers. Outside workers are arriving from 33 states and Canada, the company said, and 2,600 more are expected by Sunday.

It’s Expected To Take Weeks To Restore Power
And Water Service To Storm-Battered Region
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Repair crews across Florida struggled Tuesday to restore electricity to up to 6 million people, reopen the region’s airports and replace windows blown out of downtown high-rises during Hurricane Wilma’s ruinous dash across the state. Officials said it could take weeks for Florida’s most heavily populated region — the Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach area — to return to normal.

October 25, 2005

Five deaths blamed on Wilma
WESTON, Fla. -- A day after Hurricane Wilma swept through the state, Florida residents are lining up for supplies outside the stores that are able to open. Millions of businesses and homes remain without power and officials warn it could take weeks for utilities to be restored. Meanwhile, officials now confirm five deaths from the storm in Florida -- not six, as they earlier reported.

Wilma Leaves at Least 6 Dead, 6M Without Power in Florida
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Hurricane Wilma knifed through Florida with winds up to 125 mph Monday, shattering windows in skyscrapers, peeling away roofs and knocking out power to 6 million people, with still a month left to go in the busiest Atlantic storm season on record. At least six deaths were blamed on the hurricane in Florida, bringing the toll from the storm's march through the tropics to 25.

October 24, 2005

Wilma Batters Florida; One Death Reported
NAPLES, Fla. -- Hurricane Wilma plowed into southwest Florida early Monday with howling 125 mph winds and pounding waves, swamping Key West and knocking out power to millions of people as it dashed across the state toward Miami and Fort Lauderdale. At least one death in Florida was blamed on the storm. The same storm that brought ruin over the weekend to resort towns along Mexico's Yucatan Coast came ashore in Florida as a strong Category 3 hurricane, but within 2 1/2 hours it had weakened into a Category 2 with winds of 110 mph. It flattened trees, tore off roofs and screens, littered the streets with signs and downed power lines, and turned debris into missiles.

Governor urges residents to be careful, heed officials
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida's governor is warning residents not to be fooled by the calm in the very large eye of Hurricane Wilma. Jeb Bush says conditions are very dangerous as the hurricane moves across the state -- and will remain so even after the storm passes. He says he's had reports of significant flooding from the storm surge in parts of the Florida Keys. He says several tornadoes have been reported. And as many as two and a-half (m) million homes have lost power. Crews will work to restore service first to critical facilities such as hospitals.

Hurricane Wilma crashes into Florida
Crashing through the state's back door, Hurricane Wilma made landfall in Florida this morning as a major hurricane. Millions of people shuddered in shuttered homes as the storm roared through the lower half of the already battered state. The leading edge of its eye touching the mainland at Cape Romano as a major hurricane. Landfall came just before 6:30 a.m., about 20 miles south of Marco Island along the lower Gulf Coast. Wilma is the eighth hurricane to strike or brush Florida in 14 months.

October 23, 2005

Wilma Heads for Fla. As Category 2 Storm
KEY WEST, Fla. -- Hurricane Wilma churned toward Florida on Sunday as tens of thousands of residents were ordered to flee from vulnerable islands and coastal areas. Forecasters predicted the storm would pick up speed "like a rocket" after flooding the Mexican coast. The southern half of Florida's peninsula was under a hurricane warning Sunday in anticipation of Wilma, a Category 2 storm with 100 mph sustained wind. Landfall was expected around dawn Monday.

Hurricane Wilma aims at Florida after Mexico chaos
CANCUN, Mexico -- Hurricane Wilma bore down on Florida on Sunday after devastating Mexico's Caribbean resorts with flood water and wild winds that smashed thousands of homes and killed at least seven people. Dazed tourists waded through knee-deep water in the streets of Cancun, one of the world's top beach spots, to seek food and water after three nights in damp shelters without electricity. "People are starting to get sick. Some of the elderly people are becoming ill. There is water but they are telling us to conserve it," said American Doug Ruby, a computer security programmer.

Wilma kills eight in Mexico, heads for US
CANCUN, Mexico -- Reinvigorated after a deadly strike on Mexico's Yucatan peninsula, Hurricane Wilma roared toward Florida where storm-weary US authorities ordered mass evacuations. Wilma killed at least eight people in Mexican tourist resorts, and the Caribbean braced for more trouble as Tropical Storm Alpha also gathered strength, having become the record 22nd storm of the Atlantic season.

October 22, 2005

Tropical Storm Alpha forms
KEY WEST, Fla. -- A hurricane watch has been issued for the entire southern Florida peninsula ahead of Hurricane Wilma. The Florida Keys were clearing out under a mandatory evacuation order. And at the same time, a record 22nd tropical storm -- Alpha -- formed in the Atlantic. Wilma was the last entry on the 21-name list for storms this season. So for the first time in almost 60 years of naming storms forecasters switched to the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet.

Wilma's 120 Mph Winds Rip Mexico's Yucatan
CANCUN, Mexico -- Ocean waves surged over the narrow strip of land holding Cancun's resort hotels Saturday as Hurricane Wilma crawled over Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, keeping some 30,000 tourists huddled in hotels and shelters amid shrieking winds and shattering glass. The slow advance of the storm, which killed 13 people in Haiti and Jamaica last week, gave Florida more time to prepare but meant another day of misery for people riding out 120 mph winds and flooding in hot, leaky shelters with little food and water.

October 21, 2005

Deadly Wilma Officially Makes Landfall
CANCUN, Mexico -- Hurricane Wilma tore into Mexico's resort-studded Mayan Riviera on Friday with torrential rains and shrieking winds, filling the streets with water as thousands of stranded tourists hunkered down in hotel ballrooms and emergency shelters. Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami said Wilma officially made landfall about 4:30 p.m. EDT, with the center of the storm's eye hitting the cruise-ship magnet island of Cozumel. The fearsome Category 4 storm, which killed 13 people in Haiti and Jamaica, was expected to pummel the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula for two days, sparking fears of catastrophic damage. It is forecast to sideswipe Cuba before bearing down on Florida.

October 20, 2005

Emergency Declared in Fla. As Wilma Slows
NAPLES, Fla. -- The governor declared a state of emergency Thursday ahead of approaching Hurricane Wilma, but the state got a little breathing room when the storm's slower pace postponed its likely landfall. National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield said the slowdown could weaken the hurricane from a Category 4 storm to a Category 3 or less before it strikes Florida's southwest coast sometime Sunday — a day later than previously thought. He said weather conditions will be less favorable for storm strengthening once Wilma enters the Gulf of Mexico.

Wilma Delayed:
Hurricane Wilma will not reach South Florida as quickly as previously expected. However, those that live there should not let their guard down. The reason the storm will be late is that it will miss a connection with the jet stream. If it had been picked up by the westerlies right away, it would have reached Florida Saturday then raced up the Eastern Seaboard Sunday and Monday. Doubt was cast on that notion late Wednesday, and by Thursday it was quite obvious that the storm was going to move much slower. Hurricane Wilma will punish the northern Yucatan for a day or so, then it will finally move to the northeast. That will bring the storm within striking distance of South Florida Sunday afternoon.

Hurricane Wilma roars toward Cancun
CANCUN, Mexico -- Much of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula was under a hurricane warning Thursday, as Hurricane Wilma swirled off its eastern shore. Forecasters pushed back their prediction of when the storm might hit Florida. Tourists were ordered to leave the Florida Keys, and everyone was told to evacuate the island of Isla Mujeres, near Cancun. Authorities were poised to move out thousands of others Thursday from low-lying areas in a 600-mile swath covering Cuba, Mexico, Belize, Honduras, Jamaica, Haiti and the Cayman Islands.

Officials order Florida Keys evacuation
Much of Florida went on high alert Wednesday as Wilma exploded into the most intense hurricane on record and remained on a course that could pummel South Florida on Saturday with winds as high as 120 mph and driving rains. Officials in the Keys ordered mandatory evacuations starting today. In South Florida, coastal residents and those in mobile homes might be ordered to evacuate by Friday.

October 19, 2005

Bands of runoff from Katrina spread to Fla.
ST. PETE BEACH, Fla. — A plume of green runoff from Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters has spread from the Louisiana coast and across the Gulf of Mexico. One 7-mile-wide band has drifted more than 500 miles toward southwestern Florida, where the Gulf Stream, a powerful ocean current, is likely to carry it up the Atlantic Coast.

Supreme Court Politics - Miers Pushed 'Self-Determination' on Abortion

Miers Pushed 'Self-Determination' on Murder

Miers Pushed Legal 'Self-Determination' on Abortion
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has argued "self-determination" should direct sensitive legal questions such as abortion. Speaking in 1993 to a women's group in Dallas, Miers said touchy issues in the legal system suggest "self-determination makes sense," The Washington Post reported after analyzing speech texts Miers turned over to the Senate Judicial Committee. Conservatives have voiced concern about Miers and whether President Bush had selected a true conservative to fill the Supreme Court position of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Post's disclosure of the "self-determination" philosophy -- that outside influences should not play a part in some decisions -- did not enhance the nominee's position with Bush's key constituency. Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver told the newspaper: "I think it shows that she is a judicial activist. This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support of things like abortion or same-sex marriages and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution." U.S. Senate hearings for Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court are set to begin Nov. 7.

Related
Miers in 1993 Speech Said 'Self Determination'
Should Steer Decisions on Issues Such As Abortion
Kaiser Foundation
Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers in a 1993 speech said that "self determination" should be a guiding principle for government action on issues such as abortion, adding that "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act," the Washington Post reports. In a speech to the Executive Women of Dallas, Miers -- then president of the State Bar of Texas -- said that although the "debate continues" to "once again criminalize abortions" or to "once and for all guarantee" abortion rights, those seeking to resolve such disputes should remember that "we gave up" long ago on "legislating religion and morality" (Becker, Washington Post, 10/26).

Conservative group starts anti-Miers ads
WASHINGTON -- A conservative group opposing Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers bought $250,000 of TV and radio time Tuesday to broadcast an advertisement nationwide calling for President Bush to withdraw her nomination. The White House said it was standing behind Miers. "She is going to be going before the Senate Judiciary Committee in less than two weeks," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said. "She looks forward to answering their questions. And I think that people should not try to rush to judgment on it."

Ex-lottery official may testify about Miers
He alleged in lawsuit that Miers protected
company because of Bush connection
The Senate Judiciary Committee is moving toward questioning a former Texas lottery official who has alleged that the state's Lottery Commission under Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers protected a contractor because one of its consultants had helped President Bush get into the National Guard.

GOP doubts about Miers on rise
Washington -- The drumbeat of doubt from Republican senators over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers grew louder Tuesday as several lawmakers, including a pivotal conservative on the Judiciary Committee, voiced new concerns about her selection. Emerging from a weekly luncheon of Republican senators in which they discussed the troubled nomination, several lawmakers suggested that as Miers continues her visits on Capitol Hill, she is not winning over Republican lawmakers.

Miers On The Way Out
With pressure and criticism building against Harriet Miers, President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, the White House is allegedly making contingency plans should Miers or the White House withdraw her name from consideration. Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff said that Miers’ meetings with several senators have gone poorly, with Committee Chairman Arlen Specter remarking that she needs a “crash course” in constitutional law. A conservative political consultant and the leader of a conservative interest group, both unnamed and with close ties to the White House, told the Washington Times that the administration is making calls to outside conservative consultants on what to do should Miers’ name be withdrawn. The conservative consultant said he received a call on this matter from Sara Taylor, director of the Office of White House Political Affairs. Taylor and the White House both deny making any calls.

Thinking About Harriet Miers
There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth among conservative pundits over George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and understandably so. Miers is, for all practical purposes, a blank slate. Those who trust Bush, such as James Dobson, can project their faith in him onto her. Those who do not, including many who just a year ago were firmly in the Bush camp, fear that she may turn out to be another David Souter, the quite liberal justice appointed by a previous, ostensibly conservative President George Bush on a "trust me" basis.

Miers Nomination Losing U.S. Public Support, Gallup Poll Says
Harriet E. Miers's embattled U.S. Supreme Court nomination is losing public support, according to a new poll that shows Americans oppose her confirmation by a margin of 43 percent to 42 percent. Support for Miers has slipped since an earlier survey taken Oct. 13-16 when 44 percent said they favored confirmation and 36 percent opposed it. Both polls were conducted by the Gallup Organization for Cable News Network and USA Today. Some conservative Republican senators continue to question Miers's qualifications and have asked the White House to give the Senate Judiciary Committee more information about her. Conservative activists say Miers has a thin record because she was never a judge.

Judiciary Questions Dobson, Bauer on Miers
Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), their respective party leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are asking "conservative leaders" about conversations they had with White House officials regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Two conservatives who have been questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee include Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Gary Bauer, head of Campaign for Working Families.

Ex-lottery official may testify about Miers

Ex-Lottery Official May Testify

He alleged in lawsuit that Miers protected company because of Bush connection.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee is moving toward questioning a former Texas lottery official who has alleged that the state's Lottery Commission under Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers protected a contractor because one of its consultants had helped President Bush get into the National Guard.

Robert Vincent, a spokesman for Gtech, the Rhode Island-based company that ran the Texas lottery, confirmed Tuesday that the committee had contacted his company to see whether it would object to questioning of Lawrence Littwin, whose lawsuit against Gtech ended with a settlement that included a gag order barring him from discussing the allegations.

Vincent said the settlement allows Littwin, a former Texas lottery executive director, to "respond to any government inquiries" about his five-month stint at the Texas Lottery Commission in 1997.

Miers was an appointee of then-Gov. Bush who led the three-member commission from 1995 to 2000.

"We indicated we would fully cooperate with any request (the committee) might have," Vincent said.

Littwin's federal lawsuit, which sought $2.6 million but was settled in 1999 for $300,000, alleged that Gtech interference contributed to his firing. The firing came shortly after Littwin began looking into state campaign finance records to see whether Gtech had made illegal contributions to politicians.

In his lawsuit, Littwin said Gtech held sway over the commission because company consultant Ben Barnes, a former Texas lieutenant governor and House speaker, had had a direct role in getting Bush into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The company called the allegations "preposterous" and admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.

Littwin declined to comment. Earlier this month, when Miers was nominated, Littwin said, "If they call me to testify, I would testify."

Bush, in announcing his selection of longtime friend and adviser Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, cited Miers' tenure at the Lottery Commission as evidence of her fairness and integrity.

A Judiciary Committee spokesman declined to discuss the panel's interest in Littwin's allegations. Miers' confirmation hearings are set to begin Nov. 7.


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/
editions/wednesday/news_34f5a2ea74b671d00067.html

Proposition 73: Text

Proposition 73: Text

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Findings and Purposes

The people of California have a special and compelling interest in and responsibility for protecting the health and well-being of children, ensuring that parents are properly informed of potential health-related risks to their children, and promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility.

SEC. 3. Parental Notification

Section 32 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 32. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined to mean:

(1) "Abortion" means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born. For purposes of this section, "abortion" shall not include the use of any contraceptive drug or device.

(2) "Medical emergency" means a condition which, on the basis of the physician's good-faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant unemancipated minor as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

(3) "Notice" means a written notification, signed and dated by a physician or his or her agent and addressed to a parent or guardian, informing the parent or guardian that the unemancipated minor is pregnant and that she has requested an abortion.

(4) "Parent or guardian" means either parent if both parents have legal custody, or the parent or person having legal custody, or the legal guardian of a minor.

(5) "Unemancipated minor" means a female under the age of 18 years who has not entered into a valid marriage and is not on active duty with the armed services of the United States and has not received a declaration of emancipation under state law. For the purposes of this section, pregnancy does not emancipate a female under the age of 18 years.

(6) "Physician" means any person authorized under the statutes and regulations of the State of California to perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 1 of Article I, or any other provision of this Constitution or law to the contrary and except in a medical emergency as provided for in subdivision (f), a physician shall not perform an abortion upon a pregnant unemancipated minor until after the physician or the physician's agent has first provided written notice to a parent or guardian either personally as provided for in subdivision (c) and a reflection period of at least 48 hours has elapsed after personal delivery of notice; or until the physician can presume that notice has been delivered by mail as provided in subdivision (d) and a reflection period of at least 48 hours has elapsed after presumed delivery of notice by mail; or until the physician or the physician's agent has received from a parent or guardian a written waiver of notice as provided for in subdivision (e); or until the physician has received a copy of a waiver of notification from the court as provided in subdivision (h), (i), or (j). A copy of any notice or waiver shall be retained with the unemancipated minor's medical records. The physician or the physician's agent shall inform the unemancipated minor that her parent or guardian may receive notice as provided for in this section.

(c) The written notice shall be delivered to the parent or guardian personally by the physician or the physician's agent. A form for the notice shall be prescribed by the State Department of Health Services. The notice form shall be bilingual, in English and Spanish, and also available in English and each of the other languages in which California Official Voter Information Guides are published.

(d) In lieu of the personal delivery required in subdivision (c), written notice may be made by certifi ed mail addressed to the parent or guardian at the parent's or guardian's last known address with return receipt requested and restricted delivery to the addressee, which means a postal employee may only deliver the mail to the authorized addressee. To help ensure timely notice, a copy of the written notice shall also be sent at the same time by first-class mail to the parent or guardian. Notice can only be presumed to have been delivered under the provisions of this subdivision at noon of the second day after the written notice sent by certified mail was postmarked, not counting any days on which regular mail delivery does not take place.

(e) Notice of an unemancipated minor's intent to obtain an abortion and the reflection period of at least 48 hours may be waived by a parent or guardian. The waiver must be in writing, on a form prescribed by the State Department of Health Services, signed by a parent or guardian, dated, and notarized. The written waiver need not be notarized if the parent or guardian personally delivers it to the physician or the physician's agent. The form shall include the following statement: "WARNING. It is a crime to knowingly provide false information to a physician or a physician's agent for the purpose of inducing a physician or a physician's agent to believe that a waiver of notice has been provided by a parent or guardian." The waiver form shall be bilingual, in English and Spanish, and also available in English and each of the other languages in which California Official Voter Information Guides are published.

(f) Notice shall not be required under this section if the attending physician certifies in the unemancipated minor's medical records the medical indications supporting the physician's good-faith clinical judgment that the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

(g) Notice shall not be required under this section if waived pursuant to this subdivision and subdivision (h), (i), or (j). If the pregnant unemancipated minor elects not to permit notice to be given to a parent or guardian, she may file a petition with the juvenile court. If, pursuant to this subdivision, an unemancipated minor seeks to file a petition, the court shall assist the unemancipated minor or person designated by the unemancipated minor in preparing the petition and notifications required pursuant to this section. The petition shall set forth with specificity the unemancipated minor's reasons for the request. The court shall ensure that the minor's identity be kept confidential and that all court proceedings be sealed. No filing fee shall be required for filing a petition. An unemancipated pregnant minor shall appear personally in the proceedings in juvenile court and may appear on her own behalf or with counsel of her own choosing. The court shall, however, advise her that she has a right to court-appointed counsel upon request. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for her. The hearing shall be held by 5 p.m. on the second court day after fi ling the petition unless extended at the written request of the unemancipated minor, her guardian ad litem, or her counsel. If the guardian ad litem requests an extension, that extension may not be granted for more than one court day without the consent of the unemancipated minor or her counsel. The unemancipated minor shall be notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing on the petition. Judgment shall be entered within one court day of submission of the matter. The judge shall order a record of the evidence to be maintained, including the judge's written factual findings and legal conclusions supporting the decision.

(h) (1) If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice of a parent or guardian.

(2) If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that notice of a parent or guardian is not in the best interests of the unemancipated minor, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice. If the finding that notice of a parent or guardian is not in the best interests of the minor is based on evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a parent or guardian, the court shall ensure that such evidence is brought to the attention of the appropriate county child protective agency.

(3) If the judge does not make a finding specifi ed in paragraph (1) or (2), the judge shall deny the petition.

(i) If the judge fails to rule within the time period specified in subdivision (g) and no extension was requested and granted, the petition shall be deemed granted and the notice requirement shall be waived.

(j) The unemancipated minor may appeal the judgment of the juvenile court at any time after the entry of judgment. The Judicial Council shall prescribe, by rule, the practice and procedure on appeal and the time and manner in which any record on appeal shall be prepared and filed and may prescribe forms for such proceedings. These procedures shall require that the hearing shall be held within three court days of fi ling the notice of appeal. The unemancipated minor shall be notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing. Judgment shall be entered within one court day of submission of the matter. The appellate court shall ensure that the unemancipated minor's identity be kept confidential and that all court proceedings be sealed. No filing fee shall be required for filing an appeal. Judgment on appeal shall be entered within one court day of submission of the matter.

(k) The Judicial Council shall prescribe, by rule, the practice and procedure for petitions for waiver of parental notification, hearings and entry of judgment as it deems necessary and may prescribe forms for such proceedings. Each court shall provide annually to the Judicial Council, in a manner to be prescribed by the Judicial Council to ensure confi dentiality of the unemancipated minors filing petitions, a report, by judge, of the number of petitions filed, the number of petitions granted under paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h), deemed granted under subdivision (i), denied under paragraph (3) of subdivision (h), and granted and denied under subdivision (j), said reports to be publicly available unless the Judicial Council determines that the data contained in individual reports should be aggregated by court or by county before being made available to the public in order to preserve the confidentiality of the unemancipated minors filing petitions.

(l) The State Department of Health Services shall prescribe forms for the reporting of abortions performed on unemancipated minors by physicians. The report forms shall not identify the minor or her parent(s) or guardian by name or request other information by which the minor or her parent(s) or guardian might be identified. The forms shall include the date of the procedure and the unemancipated minor's month and year of birth, the duration of the pregnancy, the type of abortion procedure, the physician who performed the abortion, and the facility where the abortion was performed. The forms shall also indicate whether the abortion was performed at least 48 hours after either personal delivery of a notice pursuant to subdivision (c) or presumed delivery of a notice by mail pursuant to subdivision (d) to a parent or guardian; or was an abortion performed after a parent's or guardian's waiver of notice pursuant to subdivision (e); or was an emergency abortion performed without a notice pursuant to subdivision (f); or was an abortion performed after a judicial waiver of notice pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h) or subdivision (i) or (j).

(m) The physician who performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor shall within one month file a dated and signed report concerning it with the State Department of Health Services on forms prescribed pursuant to subdivision (l). The identity of the physician shall be kept confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

(n) The State Department of Health Services shall compile an annual statistical report from the information specified in subdivision (l). The annual report shall not include the identity of any physician who fi led a report as required by subdivision (m). The compilation shall include statistical information on the numbers of abortions by month and by county where performed, the minors' ages, the duration of the pregnancies, the types of abortion procedures, and the numbers of abortions performed after notice to a parent or guardian pursuant to subdivision (c) or (d); the numbers of emergency abortions performed without notice to a parent or guardian pursuant to subdivision (f); the numbers performed after a parent's or guardian's waiver of notice pursuant to subdivision (e); and the number of abortions performed after judicial waivers pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h) or subdivision (i) or (j). The annual statistical report shall be made available to county public health officials, Members of the Legislature, the Governor, and the public.

(o) Any person who performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor and in so doing knowingly or negligently fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the unemancipated minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification. A person shall not be liable under this section if the person establishes by written evidence that the person relied upon evidence sufficient to convince a careful and prudent person that the representations of the unemancipated minor or other persons regarding information necessary to comply with this section were bona fide and true. At any time prior to the rendering of a final judgment in an action brought under this subdivision, the parent or guardian may elect to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In addition to any damages awarded under this subdivision, the plaintiff shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees. Nothing in this section shall abrogate, limit, or restrict the common law rights of parents or guardians, or any right to relief under any theory of liability that any person or any state or local agency may have under any statute or common law for any injury or damage, including any legal, equitable, or administrative remedy under federal or state law, against any party, with respect to injury to an unemancipated minor from an abortion.

(p) Other than an unemancipated minor who is the patient of a physician, or other than the physician or the physician's agent, any person who knowingly provides false information to a physician or a physician's agent for the purpose of inducing the physician or the physician's agent to believe that pursuant to this section notice has been or will be delivered, or that a waiver of notice has been obtained, or that an unemancipated minor patient is not an unemancipated minor, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(q) Notwithstanding any notices delivered pursuant to subdivision (c) or (d) or waivers received pursuant to subdivision (e), paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h), or subdivision (i) or (j), except where the particular circumstances of a medical emergency as defi ned in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or her own mental incapacity precludes obtaining her consent, a physician shall not perform or induce an abortion upon an unemancipated minor except with the consent of the unemancipated minor herself.

(r) Notwithstanding any notices delivered pursuant to subdivision (c) or (d) or waivers received pursuant to subdivision (e), paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h), or subdivision (i) or (j), an unemancipated minor who is being coerced by any person through force, threat of force, or threatened or actual deprivation of food or shelter to consent to undergo an abortion may apply to the juvenile court for relief. The court shall give the matter expedited consideration and grant such relief as may be necessary to prevent such coercion.

(s) This section shall not take effect until 90 days after the election in which it is approved. The Judicial Council shall, within these 90 days, prescribe the rules, practices, and procedures and prepare and make available any forms it may prescribe as provided in subdivision (k). The State Department of Health Services shall, within these 90 days, prepare and make available the forms prescribed in subdivisions (c), (e), and (l).

(t) If any one or more provision, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this section or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the same is hereby declared to be severable and the balance of this section shall remain effective notwithstanding such unconstitutionality or invalidity. Each provision, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this section would have been approved by voters irrespective of the fact than any one or more provision, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or word might be declared unconstitutional or invalid.

(u) Except for the rights, duties, privileges, conditions, and limitations specifi cally provided for in this section, nothing in this section shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any other rights, duties, privileges, conditions, and limitations relating to abortion or the funding thereof.

Elections and Voter Information (www.ss.ca.gov/elections)

Supreme Court Politics - Hint of Miers pullout

Hint of Miers pullout

Insiders see hint of Miers pullout
The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday. "White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times yesterday. The White House denied making such calls.

Misguided defenders of Miers
Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Bush says won't release papers on court pick Miers
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush, citing confidentiality, said on Monday he would refuse to release documents showing what U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers recommended to him as a White House lawyer. "That would breach very important confidentiality, and it's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Bush told reporters, setting up a possible showdown with lawmakers. Senate Democrats and Republicans have sought White House documents related to Miers' work for Bush as they prepare for her confirmation hearing, set to begin on November 7.

Conservatives Escalate Opposition to Miers
WASHINGTON -- Conservative activists intensified their opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers Monday, launching two Web sites and planning radio and television advertising aimed at forcing her withdrawal. The advocacy groups, which had expected to use their vast mailing lists and fund-raising networks to support President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, instead are employing those tools to sow concern about Miers' conservative credentials and lack of judicial experience among their constituents outside Washington.

Vicesimus Knox: Minister of Peace

The Anti-Falwell

by Laurence M. Vance

Christian, is your preacher a minister of war or a minister of peace?

It is a horrible blight on Christianity that many of the preachers in America today who claim to be conservative Christians waste their time defending the president and upholding the Republican Party instead of defending the Bible and upholding Christianity. Instead of indoctrinating their congregations in the Christian faith, they propagandize them in government falsehood. Instead of exalting the name of Jesus Christ, they exalt the name of George Bush. Instead of diligently studying and giving their church members the truth, they indolently watch Fox News and give their church members government lies. Instead of helping their parishioners grow in their Christian life, they help them grow in their admiration for the state.

What an embarrassment that some preachers parrot Fox News instead of preach the gospel! What a shame to hear a sermon that glorifies the sacrifices of U.S. troops in Iraq instead of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary! What a disgrace that some preachers are ministers of war instead of ministers of peace!

LewRockwell.com


http://www.lewrockwell
.com/vance/vance59.html

Supreme Court Politics - Miers lacks votes

Miers lacks the votes

Schumer says Miers lacks votes
WASHINGTON -- A Democrat on the Senate committee that will consider Harriet Miers' nomination said Sunday that President Bush's Supreme Court choice lacks the votes now to be confirmed, saying there are too many questions about her qualifications. "If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or the floor," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. On the 18-member GOP-controlled committee, "there are one or two who said they'd support her as of now."

Senate could call on Dobson to testify
He says he was assured on Miers
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to summon a leading conservative Christian to explain the private assurances he says he received from the White House about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, the committee's chairman said yesterday. Testimony by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson would heighten the political and religious overtones of the already high-stakes confirmation hearing for Miers, scheduled to start two weeks from today. Dobson is among several evangelical leaders enlisted by the White House to vouch for Miers's conservative credentials among right-leaning groups unhappy with her nomination. He spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove shortly before President Bush announced the nomination, and later hinted he had received privileged information.

Conservatives Now Realize--George Bush Is Not One Of Us!
It seems my conservative brethren have finally woken-up to the fact that the man who owes them his political life, will never repay his debt. George Bush has been a constant disappointment to true conservative Americans and much like hi latest nominee to the Supreme Court--is unfit for high office. Failing to nominate a hard-line conservative to the high court is only the latest, though the most crushing blow dealt by Bush to his conservative base. We have been waiting two decades to replace the turncoat O'Connor with a fire-breathing, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-life nominee. Bill Clinton rewarded his liberal base with chief counsel to the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while the best we can get is a one-term Dallas City Councilwoman.

O'Connor Prepares for Final Days on Court
WASHINGTON -- Her legacy not yet sealed, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is getting an unexpected final chance to select fights for the Supreme Court to take on and to influence colleagues in abortion, capital punishment and assisted suicide cases. O'Connor's delayed retirement leaves in place - at least for a couple of months - a power broker, popular and respected among the other justices.

Harriet Miers covered-up Texas Lottery crimes
The Texas Lottery Commission fired lottery Executive Director Larry Littwin on Oct. 29, 1997, to end an investigation he had launched to uncover a criminal pattern of political influence buying that involved GTECH, the Rhode Island company operating the lottery, prominent Texas lobbyists on GTECH's payroll, and a laundry list of Texas politicians, including both Democrats and Republicans. When Gov. George Bush wanted Littwin's investigation stopped, Commissioners Harriet Miers and John Hill complied.

Republicans, Democrats confounded by Miers' nomination
WASHINGTON -- Harriet Miers' embattled Supreme Court nomination has both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate in a bind. Their supporters on the left and the right both oppose her, and she's having trouble convincing lawmakers that she's qualified to sit on the nation's highest court. For Republicans, a vote for or against Miers is a choice between loyalty to the president and loyalty to their conservative base. It means trusting that Bush selected a true conservative when he chose Miers, a Texas ally who's now his White House counsel but has no record of championing conservative causes.

Harriet Miers: A Virgin-At-Law
If the Senate doesn’t lay down before pharaoh, but instead seriously vets Harriet Miers, they will find a candidate that is a virgin-at-law. The paucity of information about her, which exists for lack of judicial maturity as an arbiter of law, speaks for itself. Her puerile views in support of “gay rights” miss the fact that gay politics is not about equal rights – it is about radical feminists taking over the marriage contract, as a matter of “preference”, at the wholesale expense of men, as I have covered in my previous articles Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional and Why Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional, Too.

Miers Wraps Up Visits With Senators
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has wrapped up her courtesy calls with individual senators, meeting about a quarter of them. However, Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed bewilderment and concern over her refusal to take a specific stand on critical social issues like abortion and privacy rights, the Washington Times said Friday. "No one is walking out of these meetings thinking they've just met with a star," a Republican Judiciary staffer told the newspaper. Meetings with Democrats have not gone much better.

Embarrassing setback for Bush's nominee
President Bush's controversial supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers, stumbled at her first formal hurdle yesterday, when the Senate asked her to rewrite answers to a questionnaire on her background and opinions. It was the first time that American legal observers could remember a supreme court nominee being asked to redo the questionnaire, normally considered a formality. The request represents an embarrassment for an administration struggling to regain its balance in a hailstorm of scandals and mistakes.

Rough going in ragged confirmation campaign on Miers' behalf
WASHINGTON -- Behind closed doors, the former senator trying to smooth the way for confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers appealed for patience. She is qualified, said Dan Coats, asking that those in the audience wait for hearings before making up their mind. It was a routine request. Except that Coats, R-Ind., was speaking to a roomful of dubious Republican senators, rather than Democrats, in remarks that underscored Miers' clouded confirmation prospects.

Hurricane Wilma crashes into Florida

Wilma crashes into Florida

Crashing through the state's back door, Hurricane Wilma made landfall in Florida this morning as a major hurricane. Millions of people shuddered in shuttered homes as the storm roared through the lower half of the already battered state.

The leading edge of its eye touching the mainland at Cape Romano as a major hurricane. Landfall came just before 6:30 a.m., about 20 miles south of Marco Island along the lower Gulf Coast.

Wilma is the eighth hurricane to strike or brush Florida in 14 months.

Its maximum winds were measured at 125 mph, making it a strong Category 3 hurricane. Powerful gusts swept the entire region, including Miami-Dade and Broward counties.

Authorities in Miami-Dade said conditions compelled them to stop responding to most 911 calls for help. At the National Hurricane Center, forecasters lowered storm shutters over the doors. The blue-green glow of electrical transformers exploding lit the sky over Miami International Airport.

More than 316,000 customers of Florida Power & Light already were without power, including some in Miami Beach, other parts of Miami-Dade and in Broward, including Cooper City.

Repair crews, including those in 1,000 utility trucks waiting to the north, cannot be deployed until winds fall below 30 mph -- which could be late this afternoon.

The storm was carving through the lower part of the state with lightning forward speed -- between 20 and 30 mph.

It will bring much of its worst weather to Miami-Dade and Broward, forecasters said.

''It's not going to have time weaken over land,'' said Ed Rappaport, the National Hurricane Center's deputy director. ``The roughest weather in South Florida will be over the next four to five hours.''

Gusts of 85 mph already were reported at the hurricane center in West Miami-Dade, 70 mph at the Broward County Emergency Operations Center in Plantation, 66 mph in Cooper City, 59 mph at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and 51 mph at Miami International Airport.

The Florida Keys were under a particularly intense attack. Instruments measured wind gusts of 120 mph at Cudjoe Key, 101 mph at Sombrero Key and 74 mph at Long Key.

Forecasters warned that eight-foot storm surges could sweep over the islands and sea water severed U.S. 1 at Mile Markers 74 and 75.

Damage reports were spotty, but flooding on the Atlantic Ocean side of Key West was extensive, according to Billy Wagner Sr., Monroe County's senior emergency manager. Some reports mentioned four feet of water in the city.

''They're getting clobbered all the way up the Keys,'' Wagner said.

He also said flooding in Marathon was worse than during Hurricane Georges, which pounded its way through the Florida Keys in 1998.

And, for now, lousier weather was still on the way.

''We haven't even seen Wilma's core pass yet,'' said Tony Carper, Broward's director of emergency management. ``We can expect this to be stronger than anything we've seen in the last couple of years.''

Sustained tropical storm winds will blanket the entire region later this morning, in many areas growing into hurricane force winds.

Forecasters said Wilma's expansive, 65-mile-wide eye soon would move farther inland.

The most powerful squalls surrounded that eye and were expected to slam into Miami-Dade and portions of Broward.

Emergency managers urged residents not to venture outside during the brief period of calm that occurs when the eye rolls overhead. Downed power lines and other debris pose lethal danger, and the strong wind will return without warning.

''We're going to see some very hard weather, probably until mid-afternoon,'' Carper said. ``People need to stay indoors and off the road until it's all clear.'' In Miami-Dade, the wind and rain compelled authorities to close the Rickenbacker Causeway between the mainland and Key Biscayne, except for emergency vehicle, though even they were affected by Wilma.

The county's fire and emergency vehicles stopped responding to 911 calls shortly after 6 a.m. -- standard procedure when winds begin reaching hurricane strength.

Emergency calls ''will be handled on a case by case basis,'' said Cynthia Martinez, spokeswoman for Miami-Dade's office of emergency management.

''The wind is just too strong and too dangerous,'' she said.

In Sunny Isles Beach, the wind rattled windows, bent palms trees and bounce electric wires. Police on the Bravo portion of an emergency Alpha/Bravo shift monitored events from their station.

''All we know is what we see on the TV,'' said Sgt. Edward Santiago. ``It's just too dangerous out there.''

A massive storm tide -- up to 18 feet -- is now occurring along the Gulf Coast in south Collier County. Roads to Marco Island, Everglades City and Chokoloskee are believed to be flooded.

Forecasters warned that some causeways in Miami-Dade could be flooded by three to five feet of water later this morning.

Around the region:

• Some parts of Key West were believed to be under at least four feet of water, with at least 30 percent of the city severely flooded, but officials could not get outside to accurately assess the situation.

''There is flooding in New Town. The worst is by the high school,'' said Michael Haskins, a spokesman for the city.

Power was out in Key West and other areas of the Keys and parts of U.S. 1 and other roads were believed to be impassable. A water main break in Key West sharply reduced water pressure and triggered concerns over water quality.

Officials at Monroe's primary Emergency Operations Center in Marathon and the EOC in Key West were operating on generator power. Cell service was out in many areas.

Power lines sparked a fire at the home of county Administrator Tom Willi on Summerland Key, but firefighters were not yet able to respond to the scene because of weather conditions.

The ocean side of Marathon was flooded up to U.S. 1, according to county Sheriff Rick Roth, but much more was expected to come:

An anticipated flood surge from Florida Bay was expected later this morning. Roth said water near the bay side of Marathon looked as if it had receded with Wilma's initial motion.

But the waters were forecast to return with a surge that could roil up to eight feet of water onto some parts of the Keys.

''We definitely have more to come. We are going to start experiencing flooding on the Gulf Side,'' Roth said.

• In Fort Myers, north of the storm's center, conditions began deteriorating early this morning. Curtains of rain lashed the area, flooding parking lots and invading low-lying buildings.

• In Martin County along the East Coast, near where Wilma was forecast to reach the Atlantic around noon, the pre-dawn darkness brought swift gusts of warm damp air, seasoned occasionally with sprinkles of rain.

Wind whined in the massive communications tower above the emergency operations center. Underneath it, in a bunker banked with sod, emergency management workers watched the progress of the storm or prepared for the aftermath while others caught a few minutes of sleep -- preparing for a busy day.


http://www.miami.com/mld/mi
amiherald/news/12980176.htm

Court Rules Kan. Can't Single Out Gay Sex With Children

Abomination in Kansas Court System

Reprobate Judges Reject Deterrent That Helps State Protect Children From 'Gays'

TOPEKA, Kan. -- The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts, saying "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment.

In a case closely watched by national groups on all sides of the gay rights debate, the high court said the law "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."

Gay rights groups praised the ruling, while conservatives bitterly complained that the court intruded on the Legislature's authority to make the laws.

The case involved an 18-year-old man, Matthew R. Limon, who was found guilty in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy and was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had one of them been a girl, state law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months.

The high court ordered that Limon be resentenced as if the law treated illegal gay sex and illegal straight sex the same. He has already served more than five years.

Limon's lawyer, James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said: "We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison. We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent in prison simply because he is gay."

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said in a statement that he does not plan to appeal.

A lower court had ruled that the state could justify the harsher punishment as a way of protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values. But the Supreme Court said the law was too broad to meet those goals.

"The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it," Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."

The Kansas court also cited the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law against gay sodomy.

Limon and the other boy, identified only as M.A.R., lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. Limon's attorneys described their relationship as consensual and suggested that they were adolescents experimenting with sex.

Kline's office described Limon as a predator with two previous such offenses on his record. Kline contended that such a behavior pattern warranted a tough sentence and that courts should leave sentencing policy to the Legislature.

Kansas law prohibits any sexual activity involving a person under 16.

However, the state's 1999 "Romeo and Juliet" law specifies short prison sentences or probation for sexual activity when an offender is under 19 and the age difference between participants is less than four years - but only for opposite-sex encounters.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the Texas decision and Friday's ruling "shore up the principle that gay people are entitled to equal protection."

"But no one's quite sure how firm that foundation is," he said.

Mathew Staver, attorney for the conservative Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, said the different treatment was justified by the state's interest in protecting children and families. He also said the court does not have the right to rewrite the statute.

"That's a legislative function," he said. "This is clearly a sign of an activist court system."

Patricia Logue, a senior counsel for the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said she hopes the decision will slow efforts in various states to enact legislation targeting gays.

"A lot of the reasoning used here by the state comes up again and again," she said. "What the court is saying is, `If you've got a better reason, you would have told us by now. The ones you've come up with are not good enough, and they amount to not liking gay people.'"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2005
1021/ap_on_re_us/sodomy_case_7

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

By Charles Krauthammer

It's no secret that I think the Harriet Miers nomination was a mistake. Nonetheless, when asked how she will do in her confirmation hearings, my answer is, I hope she does well. I have no desire to see her humiliated. Nor would I take any joy in seeing her rejected, though I continue to believe it would be best for the country that she not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

And while I remain as exercised as anyone by the lack of wisdom of this choice, I part company with those who see the Miers nomination as a betrayal of conservative principles. The idea that Bush is looking to appoint some kind of closet liberal David Souter or even some rudderless Sandra Day O'Connor clone is wildly off the mark. The president's mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and exceptionally well known to him.

The problem is that this strategy blew up in his face. Her obscurity is the result of her lack of constitutional history, which, in turn, robs her of the minimum qualifications for service on the Supreme Court. And while, post-Robert Bork, stealth seems to be the most precious asset a conservative Supreme Court nominee can have, how stealthy is a candidate who has come out publicly for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion?

So, imagine the hearings. First she will have to pass an implicit competency test. As case upon case is thrown at her on national television, she dare not respond, as she apparently did to Sen. Chuck Schumer while making the rounds, that she will have to "bone up on this a little more." Then there will be the withering fire of conservatives such as Sen. Sam Brownback who will try to establish some grounds to believe that (a) she has a judicial philosophy and (b) it is conservative.

And then there will be the Democrats who, in their first act of political wisdom in this millennium, have held their fire on Miers, under the political axiom that when your opponent is committing suicide, you get out of the way. But now that Miers is so exposed on abortion, the Democrats will be poised like a reserve cavalry to come over the hills to attack her from the left -- assuming she has survived the attack from the right.

The omens are not good. When the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee express bipartisan exasperation, annoyance and almost indignation at her answers to the committee's simple questionnaire, she's got trouble. This after she confused Chairman Arlen Specter about her position on Griswold , the second most famous "right to privacy" case, and seemed confused when answering ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy's question about her favorite justice.

But it gets worse: There's the off-stage stuff. John Fund reports that in a conference call of conservative leaders, two Miers confidants explicitly said that she would overturn Roe v. Wade . The subsequent denial by one of these judges that he ever said that, and the subsequent affirmation by two of the people who had heard the call that he did say so, create the nightmare scenario of subpoenaed witnesses contradicting each other under oath. We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001635.html

Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?

Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

The president’s advisory panel on tax reform held a public meeting last week to discuss possible changes to our tax code, which most Americans view as a disgrace. Unfortunately, the reform panel consists almost entirely of Washington beltway insiders who have absolutely nothing in common with ordinary American taxpayers. The members are former Congressmen and Senators, DC think tank scholars, university professors, and-- unbelievably-- a former commissioner of the IRS! It’s hard to imagine someone more opposed to taxpayer interests than the head of the IRS, the very agency that millions of Americans want abolished.

It’s doubtful that former politicians and tax bureaucrats will propose meaningful tax reform. After all, we’ve heard this song before. Remember the big tax reform bills of 1986, 1997, and 2001? We were promised a simpler tax code each time, but it never happened. Some slight progress has been made in terms of very modest rate reductions and a slow phaseout of the estate tax, but even those changes may be reversed by revenue-hungry future congresses.

The reform panel should have two simple goals: make taxes lower, and make taxes simpler. Anything else quite frankly is insulting to the American public. But during several hours of discussion last week, the various panelists talked about everything but those two objectives. Instead they embraced the practice of using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, debating what exemptions, credits, and deductions should be tinkered with to steer taxpayers toward or away from certain activities.

The panelists also misused the term “tax subsidy” over and over. A true subsidy is very simple: certain individuals or businesses receive taxpayer money from the government. But the panel members clearly have accepted the thoroughly leftist idea that all income belongs to the state, and therefore the state “subsidizes” you by letting you keep some of the money you earned. This is nonsense. If the government uses tax dollars to build you a house, you have received a subsidy. Taxpayers have given you something. But if you pay less in income taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction, you have not been “subsidized” by anyone. The government has not given you something; it simply has taken less. What kind of tax reform proposals can we expect from people who can’t understand the fundamental difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?

When it comes to actual tax reform legislation in Congress, don’t underestimate the lobbying influence of accountants, tax attorneys, tax preparers, IRS employees, and mortgage companies, just to name a few. Many, many groups and industries benefit from our Byzantine tax system in one way or another. They will not accept major changes to the tax code without a fight.

True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.


http://www.house.gov/paul/
tst/tst2005/tst101705.htm

White House Backs Ban on Some Abortions

'The Big Show'

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Bush administration urged a federal appeals court Thursday to overturn a judge's decision nullifying a congressional ban on a type of late-term abortion.

The case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is one of three in which federal judges have ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. Last month the Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear another of the cases.

The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act _ which never went into force _ bans a procedure carried out in the second trimester in which the living fetus is partly removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. The law allows a doctor to cut up a fetus before it is removed from the woman.

Abortion-rights advocates contend the law is vaguely written and could halt almost all second-trimester abortions.

The government argued Thursday that Congress determined the procedure is never medically necessary, and therefore a woman's options for an abortion are not limited.

Judge Sidney Thomas wondered whether Congress' findings "matter at all," given the conflicting testimony of doctors in lower courts. Judge William Fletcher said a doctor may end up performing the banned method during an abortion "in order to do it properly" and "for the health of the woman."

In response, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Katsas said "there are medical arguments on both sides," but the court should defer to Congress' findings.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America attorney Eve Gartner argued that if the act were reinstated, it would have a "significant chilling effect" on doctors, who might stop doing abortions. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

The court did not indicate when it would rule.

In the case the Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up, another appeals court in July upheld a ruling by a federal judge in Nebraska that the ban is unconstitutional.

A third case on the same issue is pending before a New York federal appeals court.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001790.html

Congress Set to Pass Law Eliminating Liability For Vaccine Injuries

Congress Eliminating Vaccine Liability

WASHINGTON -- The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005"(S. 1873), which passed out of the U.S. Senate HELP Committee one day after it was introduced "a drug company stockholder's dream and a consumer's worst nightmare." The proposed legislation will strip Americans of the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government to take whenever federal health officials declare a public health emergency.

The legislation's architect, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, told the full HELP Committee yesterday that the legislation "creates a true partnership" between the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry and academia to walk the drug companies "through the Valley of Death" in bringing a new vaccine or drug to market. Burr said it will give the Department of Health and Human Services "additional authority and resources to partner with the private sector to rapidly develop drugs and vaccines." The Burr bill gives the Secretary of DHHS the sole authority to decide whether a manufacturer violated laws mandating drug safety and bans citizens from challenging his decision in the civil court system.

The bill establishes the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA), as the single point of authority within the government for the advanced research and development of drugs and vaccines in response to bioterrorism and natural disease outbreaks such as the flu. BARDA will operate in secret, exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, insuring that no evidence of injuries or deaths caused by drugs and vaccines labeled as "countermeasures" will become public.

Nicknamed "Bioshield Two," the legislation is being pushed rapidly through Congress without time for voters to make their voices heard by their elected representatives. Co-sponsored by Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH), the legislation will eliminate both regulatory and legal safeguards applied to vaccines as well as take away the right of children and adults harmed by vaccines and drugs to present their case in front of a jury in a civil court of law.

"It is a sad day for this nation when Congress is frightened and bullied into allowing one profit making industry to destroy the seventh Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing citizens their day in court in front of a jury of their peers," said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of NVIC. "This proposed legislation, like the power and money grab by federal health officials and industry in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, is an unconstitutional attempt by some in Congress to give a taxpayer-funded handout to pharmaceutical companies for drugs and vaccines the government can force all citizens to use while absolving everyone connected from any responsibility for injuries and deaths which occur. It means that, if an American is injured by an experimental flu or anthrax vaccine he or she is mandated to take, that citizen will be banned from exercising the Constitutional right to a jury trial even if it is revealed that the vaccine maker engaged in criminal fraud and negligence in the manufacture of the vaccine."

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is legally responsible for regulating the pharmaceutical industry and ensuring that drugs and vaccines released to the public are safe and effective. Drug companies marketing painkillers, like Vioxx, and anti-depressants, which have resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of children and adults, are being held accountable in civil court while the FDA has come under intense criticism for withholding information about the drugs' dangers from the public. Since 1986, vaccine makers have been protected from most liability in civil court through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in which Congress created a federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that offers vaccine victims an alternative to the court system. Even though the program has awarded nearly $2 billion to victims of mandated vaccines, two out of three plaintiffs are turned away.

"The drug companies and doctors got all the liability protection they needed in 1986 but they are greedy and want more," said Fisher. "And the federal health agencies want more power to force citizens to use vaccines without having to worry about properly regulating them. If the Burr bill passes, all economic incentives to insure mandated vaccines are safe will be removed and the American people are facing a future where government can force them to take poorly regulated experimental drugs and vaccines labeled as "countermeasures" or go to jail. The only recourse for citizens will be to strike down mandatory vaccination laws so vaccines will be subject to the law of supply and demand in the marketplace. The health care consumer's cry will be: No liability? No mandates."

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was founded by parents of vaccine injured children in 1982 and co-founders worked with Congress on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. For more information, go to http://www.nvic.org./


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?A
CCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-19-2005/0004172810

Supreme Court Politics - Slouching Towards Miers

Slouching Towards Miers

Slouching Towards Miers
Bush shows himself to be indifferent,
if not hostile, to conservative values.
By Robert H. Bork
With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

Permanent link for: Slouching Towards Miers

Slouching Towards Miers

Slouching Towards Miers

Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

By Robert H. Bork

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

There is a great deal more to constitutional law than hostility to Roe. Ms. Miers is reported to have endorsed affirmative action. That position, or its opposite, can be reconciled with Christian belief. Issues we cannot now identify or even imagine will come before the court in the next 20 years. Reliance upon religious faith tells us nothing about how a Justice Miers would rule. Only a commitment to originalism provides a solid foundation for constitutional adjudication. There is no sign that she has thought about, much less adopted, that philosophy of judging.

Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely. She cannot be expected to endorse originalism; that would alienate the bloc of senators who think constitutional philosophy is about arriving at pleasing political results. What, then, can she say? Probably that she cannot discuss any issue likely to come before the court. Given the adventurousness of this court, that's just about every issue imaginable. What we can expect in all probability is platitudes about not "legislating from the bench." The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing.

But that is only part of the damage Mr. Bush has done. For the past 20 years conservatives have been articulating the philosophy of originalism, the only approach that can make judicial review democratically legitimate. Originalism simply means that the judge must discern from the relevant materials--debates at the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, newspaper accounts of the time, debates in the state ratifying conventions, and the like--the principles the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting. The remainder of the task is to apply those principles to unforeseen circumstances, a task that law performs all the time. Any philosophy that does not confine judges to the original understanding inevitably makes the Constitution the plaything of willful judges.

By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists.

Finally, this nomination has split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues into those appalled by the administration's cynicism and those still anxious, for a variety of reasons, to support or at least placate the president. Anger is growing between the two groups. The supporters should rethink. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough.

It is said that at La Scala an exhausted tenor, after responding to repeated cries of "Encore," said he could not go on. A man rose in the audience to say, "You'll keep singing until you get it right." That man should be our model.


Mr. Bork is a fellow of the Hudson Institute and editor of "A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values" (Hoover, 2005). He is co-chairman of the Federalist Society.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/ed
itorial/feature.html?id=110007424

Supreme Court Politics - Miers vs. Miers

Miers vs. Miers

Miers vs. Miers
Harriet Miers is ill-equipped to interpret the Constitution's separation of powers, a chief task of the United States Supreme Court. She may be summoned against herself to prove the point. On June 11, 1995, as a former president of the State Bar of Texas, Miss Miers cobbled together an alarmist letter urging then-Gov. George W. Bush to veto a free enterprise bill (H.B. 2987) enacted by the state legislature that allegedly trespassed on the powers of the Texas Supreme Court to regulate attorney's fees.

Strategy on Miers Backfiring
WASHINGTON -- The White House is trying to have it both ways in marketing Harriet Miers to disgruntled Republicans. To conservatives, the president's aides talk up a 1989 document showing she held clear anti-abortion views. Then they pivot and tell everyone else those were just the personal views of a candidate for the Dallas City Council and not a sign of how she might vote on the Supreme Court. Bush emphasized last week that "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." Almost immediately, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained that too much was being made of her membership in an evangelical Christian church. Bush said he knows her heart and that she won't change. Except she has. She was a Catholic when she was young. And she was a Democrat who turned Republican.

Specter, Leahy Demand More Info From Miers
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers said she would try to give more information about herself to senators in charge of her confirmation after one said what she has submitted so far was "incomplete to insulting." The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, and the top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy, agreed Wednesday to begin Miers' hearings on Nov. 7. Specter, R-Pa., and Leahy, D-Vt., also sent a letter to the White House counsel asking her to more fully answer a questionnaire she submitted Tuesday.

Past presidents of Dallas Bar endorse Miers
A group of former Dallas Bar Association presidents sent a letter Wednesday to senators reviewing the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, calling her "a fair and studious lawyer of great integrity." "We have all known and worked with Ms. Miers for many years and remain impressed by her depth of knowledge of the law, and her unrelenting work ethic, as well as her commitment to the constitutional principles that make our nation great," the letter to Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., read. It was signed by 19 past presidents of the Dallas Bar and its current president, Timothy W. Mountz.

Supreme Court Politics - America's flim-flam faith

America's flim-flam faith

Cal Thomas: Faith, works and Harriet Miers
Her friend, Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht, was asked on Fox News Sunday (Oct. 9) how Miers could separate her faith from her work. Hecht replied it is "easy" because, "Legal issues and personal issues are just two different things. Judges do it all the time. In fact, a judge is going to take an oath that says I'm going to judge rightly in cases, which means that you have to set aside your personal views in deciding the case. And if you don't do that, you're either a bad believer in your views, a bad judge or both." From that answer comes this question: If Harriet Miers can easily set aside her faith on the job, what is the point of nominating someone with such faith? Why not nominate someone of no faith and the question would never come up? Is faith good only for the confirmation process, but not the job?

Exclusive Interview With Long-Time Personal Friend of
Harriet Miers Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht
Our 27th nationally-syndicated, one-hour radio show, “The American View,” co-hosted by Michael Anthony Peroutka and “recovering Republican” John Lofton, features an exclusive interview with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, a long-time personal friend of Harriet Miers. We discuss: Miss Miers and abortion; God; the Bible; judging; what is “law”; oaths; and much more.

Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Peroutka
Conservative pundits and columnists and other assorted talking heads and bloggers have finally had enough of the Bush II administration's ideological heresies when it comes to their true faith. The nomination of Miss Miers, the President's personal lawyer, to the Supreme Court has triggered a fire fight of criticism from leading conservatives in Washington over her qualifications to serve on the high court as well as her lack of any concrete statements of her views on such issues like abortion, the so-called "paper trail." These conservatives were all geared up for a fight to see one of their own, an intellectual and legal giant of conservative judicial philosophy, make his or her case to the Senate Judiciary Committee and make the Democrats and liberal Republicans on that committee like it.

Sexism and the First Family
Asked on NBC’s Today show if criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination might be rooted in sexism, first lady Laura Bush seemed to welcome the question. What the first lady and Gillespie seek to accomplish by tarring critics of Miers’ nomination sexist—i.e., men bigoted against women—thus impugning the motives and character of conservatives who have loyally supported President Bush, escapes me.

Bush Calls Posse to the Oval Office
Six Texas Supreme Court justices to help nominee The White House yesterday sought to move away from a debate over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religion to tout her qualifications for the high court, returning to the strategy devised before last week's conservative outcry against the nomination. President Bush held a photo opportunity with six former members of the Texas state Supreme Court, who were lined up by the White House last week to deliver testimonials on behalf of Miss Miers.

'Miers fix' is on in Texas
Reliable sources within the Texas lottery scandals that pressure from prominent Texas Democrats, including former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, is being placed on Democratic senators considering the high-court nomination of Harriet Miers – whom Gov. George W. Bush appointed as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission – to keep away from investigating the lottery scandals. WND was told, "The fix is on." Why? The corruption surrounding Texas lottery operator GTECH buying political influence in Texas was bi-partisan, reaching across from the administration of Democratic Gov. Ann Richards into the administration of Republican Gov. Bush.

George Bush Gives Up
George Bush has given up. The evidence of his surrender is all around. The man who spent years denying global warming is now borrowing talking points from Jimmy Carter to call for energy conservation. He can't even convince himself -- let alone anyone else -- that the "mission-accomplished" occupation of Iraq is functional, let alone a success story. He has essentially abandoned his primary domestic-policy initiative for 2005, admitting during a Rose Garden press conference that there is a "diminished appetite" for his scheme to privatize Social Security. And when it came to what is arguably the most important appointment of his presidency -- the selection of a replacement for the critical "swing" justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – he didn't even try. In defending his selection of his attorney, Harriet Miers, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush claimed that, "I picked the best person I could find." He obviously did not look very hard.

The trouble with Harriet – and George W
The President’s ill-conceived Supreme Court appointment has exposed disturbing flaws in his Administration
It is not just that Harriet Miers is so obviously unfit to hold the office of associate justice of the US Supreme Court, though she is certainly that. It is the simple, depressing lack of seriousness demonstrated by the White House in coming up with such a candidate, the sheer cramped and occluded smallness of the thinking that now seems to characterise the Bush Administration’s approach to governing. It is hard to overstate the mood of demoralisation among conservatives in America. The rising tide of disillusionment is ready to break the dam of loyalty.

How She Slipped Through
The skepticism is not abating. "If you oppose this nomination, you oppose the president." Everyone knows what the political ramifications of that can mean in the world of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Schedule proposed for Miers hearings
Senate Republicans hope to begin confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers the week of Nov. 7, officials said yesterday. Officials in both parties said that Republicans have proposed a schedule for Miers' confirmation process that calls for a vote in the full Senate before Thanksgiving. It was not clear whether Democrats would agree or ask for changes.

Study Reveals Vast Scope of Sodomite Priest Abuse

Parishes Infested With Sodomites

Sodomite priests worked in three-fourths of the 288 parishes under the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

The clergy sexual abuse scandal reached far more broadly across the Los Angeles Archdiocese — and put far more children at risk — than has previously been known, according to a Los Angeles Times study that examined the records of hundreds of accused priests.

Although the sexual abuse scandal has been the subject of more than 560 court claims and a report by the archdiocese, basic information on the dimensions of the problem have remained sketchy. The L.A. Times analysis is the first to quantify the breadth of the scandal in the archdiocese.

Molestations have been alleged at roughly 100 parishes. But because the accused priests moved around the archdiocese on average every 4.5 years, the total number of parishes in which alleged abusers served is far larger — more than three-fourths of the 288 parishes, according to the study, which examined records back to 1950.

The affected parishes were in neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties both rich and poor, suburban and urban, some predominantly white and others with African American or Latino majorities. The study does not support the contention made by some critics of the church that problem priests were dumped into poor, Latino and African American communities.

Based on the allegations, the number of abusive priests peaked in 1983. More than 11% of the diocesan priests — those who worked directly for the archdiocese, rather than for religious orders — who were in ministry that year eventually were accused of abuse.

The widespread placement of alleged abusers raises the question of whether molestations may have gone unreported at many parishes.

J. Michael Hennigan, the lead defense attorney for the archdiocese, said he thought the immense publicity about clergy sexual abuse had drawn out most victims.

But David Clohessy, executive director of the victim support group Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said he believes many victims remain unknown and unwilling to pay the emotional price for stepping forward.

There's "a great misconception" that when one victim comes forward, others will follow, Clohessy said. In reality, he said, "the next 15 victims breathe a sigh of relief" that someone else is shouldering the burden.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, who has led the archdiocese since 1985, declined to comment on The Times study.

Hennigan said the church never knowingly put children at risk. Archdiocese officials routinely transferred priests, especially early in their careers, he said.

In at least eight cases, the archdiocese allowed priests to remain in ministry after receiving information about their alleged sexual interest in minors.

Hennigan said all priests who were transferred after complaints received psychological evaluation and treatment before they were returned to parishes. Mahony has since removed them all from ministry.

Church officials have said their policy toward alleged abusers evolved over time into the current "zero-tolerance" stance. But, Hennigan added, "I am not aware of a single instance in the archdiocese in which a credible allegation was made about sexual misconduct and the solution was to simply transfer him to another parish."

Since the archdiocese was confronted by a flood of lawsuits 2 1/2 years ago, Mahony has declined litigants' requests to tell parishioners if accused priests ever worked or lived at their churches.

Mahony also has fought release of confidential church files containing complaints, correspondence and priest assignments. The files would detail what diocesan officials knew about the allegations and what they did about them.

The cardinal and his lawyers argue that releasing the data would violate the privacy of individual priests and the church's constitutional right to keep certain religious matters confidential.

Lawsuits for the most part have been filed against the church, rather than individual priests, and in some cases identify the alleged abusers only as John Does. The parishes where they served during the accusations are not always named in the suits.

The litigation has been in closed-door mediation almost since the cases were filed, further limiting public airing of the facts of the scandal. Because the accusations are too old to prosecute and the church insists it intends to settle civil complaints out of court, most molestation complaints may never be proved or disproved.

To prepare its study, The Times tracked the assignments from 1950 through 2003 of 228 priests who have been named by plaintiff's attorneys or identified by the archdiocese as the subject of abuse complaints. The study does not include 19 priests whose names were released by the church on Tuesday. It also does not include as many as 30 priests whose names the church has withheld because church officials feel the complaints against them lacked credibility.

The study shows a slow climb in the percentage of accused priests in the archdiocese from the 1960s through the '70s. The increase was especially notable among diocesan priests as opposed to those in religious orders.

Overall, the analysis shows that the percentage of priests in Southern California who were accused of molesting children largely tracked estimates that 4% to 5% of priests nationwide are accused.

But diocesan priests in the archdiocese were accused at a rate of at least 7% across the decades, which is higher than estimates of the national average for diocesan priests. Religious-order priests such as Franciscans, who answer to other superiors and move in and out of Los Angeles parishes, were accused at less than half the rate of the diocesan clerics.

Religious-order priests usually do not work in parishes or elementary schools where they would have charge of young children, Hennigan said.

Starting in the 1950s, the percentage of diocesan priests who eventually would be accused of wrongdoing climbed steadily from about 6% to a high of 11.5% in 1983.

From there, the percentage of accused priests gradually fell, remaining above 5% until 2002, when Mahony implemented the "zero-tolerance" policy and removed seven accused priests from ministry.

Hennigan said the church found the same sharp rise in alleged abuse, peaking in 1979.

"The curve is quite a sharp one; it goes up sharply and falls off sharply," he said. "We have talked about it internally. I don't understand why that peak."

An independent review board studying the sex-abuse crisis nationwide found that a "laxity" in seminary admissions, the sexual revolution and radical changes within the church sent the number of accused priests soaring around 1980.

Hennigan attributed the drop-off starting in the 1980s to improved screening of priest candidates, the introduction of sexuality curriculum in seminaries, and recruitment of older candidates with life experience.

A few churches had unusual concentrations of alleged abusers, the study showed. Seventeen parishes had been assigned five or more accused priests over the 55-year span of the study. Several parishes had two or three at the same time.

Critics such as former Benedictine monk A.W. Richard Sipe say the church nationwide tried to keep the scandal quiet by shuffling priests from parish to parish instead of reporting them to police or firing them.

"There were thousands of kids who were put at risk because these were not one-time offenders or offenders in only one parish, but they were moved from parish to parish," he said.

"As a parent, it makes me furious," said Margaret Schettler, who works at Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church in Encino and has counseled parishioners and abuse victims. "It could have been my children."

Today, most of the accused priests are dead or retired, or have left the area, and newer parishioners are unaware that their churches were touched by the scandal.

Lindy Lizenbery became a parishioner at St. Genevieve's in Panorama City in 1978 and now works in the church office. Eight priests who worked at the parish at one time have been accused. Lizenbery said she doubts all eight are guilty. "There were those that I thought, 'Probably,' and a couple that I said, 'No way,' " she said. "If one of these guys did something to a child, that's one too many."

But most parishioners contacted by The Times said they did not want to talk about clergy sexual abuse. "Everybody has to live there," said an usher at Holy Family Catholic Church in Glendale, explaining why people did not want to talk. "It has to do with simple, common parishioners who don't want to engage their fellow parishioners in something as sensitive as this."

But because of the dearth of information, many Los Angeles-area Catholics are unaware their own parishes were affected by the scandal.

"Some people are afraid of the issue," Schettler said. "Some wish survivors would just get over it."


Priest abuse accusations in the Los Angeles Archdiocese

--

The 228 priests who have been accused of child molestation were assigned to three out of four parishes in the Los Angeles Archdiocese at some point from 1950 to 2003. Though they were accused of molestation at about 100 parishes, the priests lived or worked in the 221 parishes mapped below. The parishes are in Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

--

Breakdown of types of accused clerics:

Diocesan priests -- those employed by the archdiocese -- account for almost half of those accused. Religious-order priests such as Franciscans accounted for more than a third.

Diocese 47.5%

Order 35.9%

Visiting 8.5%

Brother (cannot give sacraments) 8.1%

--

Parishes with five or more accused priests:

(Note: For the sex offenders to be spread so evenly between the parishes there had to be planned effort to make it so).

Parish - City - Accused Priests

St. Genevieve - Panorama City - 8

Our Lady of Peace - North Hills - 7

Sts. Peter and Paul - Wilmington - 7

St. Alphonsus - Los Angeles - 7

Mary Star of the Sea - San Pedro - 6

San Roque - Santa Barbara - 6

Santa Clara - Oxnard - 6

St. Joseph - Pomona - 6

Buenaventura Mission - Ventura - 6

Resurrection - Los Angeles - 5

St. Anthony of Padua - Gardena - 5

St. Brendan - Los Angeles - 5

St. Francis de Sales - Sherman Oaks - 5

St. Kevin - Los Angeles - 5

St. Michael - Los Angeles - 5

St. Philomena Carson - 5

St. Rose of Lima - Maywood - 5

Sources: Los Angeles Archdiocese, lawsuits, the official Catholic Directory. Data analysis by Doug Smith and Sandra Poindexter


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priestdata1
3oct13,0,7327729,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"Bloggers" may not be eligible for Shield Law protection

Free Flow of Information Act of 2005

H.R. 581 & S. 340


Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

Lugar did say that he expects plenty of debate on the matter, but added "Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

The reason all of this matters, of course, is because it is essential that journalists receive special protections to ensure them freedom of the press. The case of ThinkSecret et alia comes to mind (although that problem largely looks solved now, as TS has managed to report several conflicting rumors relating to today's big Apple event in the span of a week—one could say that they give all insanity equal billing).

Sayeth Dick Lugar:

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

In all of this talk of privilege, there is a mounting fear in some journalism circles that the federal government may want to leverage this "privilege" with a federal licensing program of sorts, which is enough to make some people twitch. How else will this dilemma be solved? And two demerits to the person who pops up and says, "false dilemma!"


http://arstechnica.com/news
.ars/post/20051012-5421.html

Top Court Allows Abortion For Missouri Inmate

Roberts Court Kills First Baby

The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.

In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases.

Officials said Missouri has a prison policy that female prisoners will be sent out of their institutions for abortions only if the procedure is medically necessary.

They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.

Even if there is some infringement of the prisoner's constitutional rights to choose an abortion, "a prison regulation may validly impinge on such rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," state officials argued.

According to the court record in the case, the woman, identified only by the pseudonym "Jane Roe," is approximately 16 or 17 weeks pregnant. Her attorneys said that for seven weeks prison officials have prohibited her from obtaining an abortion.

Talcott Camp, an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the inmate, said in a statement that women do not give up the right to terminate a pregnancy when they enter prison.

"The state's actions in this case were contrary to Missouri's own long-standing policy when it comes to inmates' access to reproductive healthcare, in addition to policies in the federal prison system and all the state prison systems we know of," Camp said.

Gov. Matt Blunt expressed disappointment and said the high court's order "is highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2005
1017/us_nm/court_abortion_dc_4

Man Robs Maryland Abortion Clinic

Man Robs Abortion Clinic

FREDERICK Maryland -- A man wielding a handgun robbed a Frederick abortion and gynecological clinic on Toll House Avenue Sunday night, according to a police report.

Employees of American Women’s Services Clinic, at 801 Toll House Ave., told Frederick city police that the suspect looked like a businessman. He demanded money from employees just as they were closing for the day about 8 p.m., according to police.

Police did not disclose how much cash was taken. Police are still looking for the man who is described as white, 30 to 35 years old, medium build with short brown hair. He was wearing large square black-framed glasses, a white, button-front, long-sleeved shirt and black pants. Anyone with information is asked to call Frederick police at 301-694-2100.


http://www.gazette.net/stories/
101705/fredcou110342_31909.shtml

Supreme Court Politics - Bush Betrays The Base

Bush Betrays The Base

Bush Betrays The Base: The GOP's Supreme Quag-Miers
George W. Bush has betrayed the base, blatantly and intentionally, with his selection of Harriet Miers for the United States Supreme Court. The tens of millions of social conservatives who voted, recruited, and worked for him in the 2004 campaign did so not out of any interest in a 21st-century King George, right or wrong. George W. Bush promised that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom are willing to overturn Roe, Kelo, and comparably un-Constitutional decisions right now. George W. Bush promised such Justices to the conservative base. George W. Bush lied.

Miers Writings Show No Aptitude
Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early '90s, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian. Nothing excuses sentences like this: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Miers meant to 'keep lid' on lottery scandals
The pattern of criminal influence buying that put a Texas lottery contractor's national sales director into federal prison may have reached into Gov. George W. Bush's office. Sources close to the state lottery scandals while Bush was governor told WND Harriet Miers was put on the Texas Lottery Commission to "keep the lid on the scandals" and to make sure investigations were stopped before embarrassing inquiries reached the governor himself.

Why They Can't Hit The Right Note
With even Laura off-key on Miers,
Bush plans to change the message--again
Get ready for a whole new Harriet. After a disastrous two weeks, White House officials say they hope to relaunch the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court by moving from what they call a "biographical phase" to an "accomplishment phase." In other words, stop debating her religion and personality and start focusing on her résumé as a pioneering female lawyer of the Southwest. "We got a little wrapped around the axle," an exhausted White House official said. "As the focus becomes less on who she's not and more on who she is, that's a better place to be."

Harriet's Hail Mary
OK, so the religious line didn't work so well. The White House is back with a new strategy for its embattled high-court choice.
For 25 years, Tom Rath has been the Bush family's New Hampshire go-to guy: an affable lawyer, member of the Republican National Committee-and prize catch for any would-be contender in the GOP's next presidential race. It was no surprise, then, that when George W. Bush's political team wanted to send ambitious Republican senators a firm message about Harriet Miers (crude summary: "Lay off her if you ever want our help"), they chose Rath to deliver it. On his own, or through an allied group called Progress for America, Rath last week made the family's view clear to George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas, likely candidates on scouting missions to the first-in-the-nation primary state. Not coincidentally, a Bush financial backer in Houston, who had attended a recent Brownback event there, called the Capitol to echo the same-how to put it?-concerned message. "Miers deserves a fair hearing," Rath told NEWSWEEK. "That's all we're saying."

Miers' Firm Busted 3 Times For Aiding Investment Cheats
WASHINGTON -- While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers presided over a major Texas law firm, the company was forced to pay more than $30 million to settle claims with investors cheated out of millions by two clients and came under federal scrutiny for its role in a tax-shelter case. While Miers' record of managing Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC has been praised by President Bush as one of the major qualifications for her Supreme Court nomination, her tenure at the helm was "rocked by one investment scam scandal after another," as characterized by WND columnist Jerome Corsi, who has been investigating her record.

Pro-Abort Rice Defends Miers for High Court
WASHINGTON -- Criticism of Harriet Miers as an unqualified crony of the president is unfounded, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday, praising the Supreme Court nominee for a "probing intellect" that will make her a great justice. President Bush earlier this month chose Miers, a longtime confidante who has never been a judge, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Since then, Miers' nomination has caused division among conservatives, who say it was a risky choice because she was a blank slate on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

Our Political Federal Courts by Rep. Ron Paul

Our Political Federal Courts

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

The nomination of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her qualifications and political ideology. Conservatives and liberals alike fear that Ms. Miers will not represent their views, and will rule on issues in ways that harm our nation. But clearly we are not asking the right questions about Supreme Court nominees. The issue is not how candidates intend to wield judicial power, but rather whether they understand that the Constitution imposes limits on that power in the first place. We are guilty of permitting our federal courts to become politicized, when the proper role of those courts is to protect us from the very abuses that arise from politics.

Instead of viewing federal judicial nominees as liberals or conservatives, we ought to be viewing them as activists or originalists. Judicial activism is a popular and often misused term in politics today, but if we define it properly we can better understand the problem with our courts. Judicial activism is the practice of judges legislating from the bench, by interpreting law in a manner that creates an outcome to fit their political views. But judicial activism is more than this. Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place-- particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9th and 10th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century. Activist courts enable activist government.

The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess. Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake.

How did this come to pass? Unfortunately, our nation has embraced the flawed notion that only scholars, judges, or attorneys are qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution. We have come to accept that constitutional law must be revealed to us from on high by our black-robed masters. Yet nothing could be further from the ideal of constitutional jurisprudence envisioned by our founders. The Constitution is written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it. It simply establishes a system of shared, limited power between the three branches of the federal government, while reserving most government power to the states themselves.

It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles.

The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.


http://www.house.gov/paul/
tst/tst2005/tst101005.htm

Supreme Court Politics - Calls for withdraw get louder

Calls For Withdraw Get Louder

Calls for Miers to withdraw get louder
Moves to mollify critics aren't working
Washington -- Calls by conservatives for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination intensified Thursday as White House efforts to reassure critics continued to backfire. "The calls to withdraw are serious, and they're going to increase," said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a conservative alliance of groups interested in judicial nominations. "The more that we heard from the nomination's defenders, the more people became convinced that there was no substance in the nomination and that her friends were her worst enemies."

White House Whipping Grassroots to Pressure Senators
The White House is seeking the help of Republican activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to pressure GOP senators with presidential hopes to support Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. The effort, coming as the White House seeks to reassure conservatives skeptical about Miers' qualifications, is largely aimed at turning up the heat on Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, White House aides acknowledged on Thursday. The White House effort to try to pressure Brownback and others through prominent Republicans in New Hampshire was first reported on Thursday by the New Hampshire Union-Leader. White House aides confirmed the account and said a similar effort was being made in Iowa. Some GOP activists attending a Brownback appearance at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., on Tuesday brought with them a letter to the senator signed by Republican National Committeeman Tom Rath and three others expressing confidence in Miers and asking that she receive fair treatment.

White House fights anti-Miers bloggers
Top US Republicans are reaching out into to the world of high technology to tame the conservative backlash against Harriet Miers, Supreme Court nominee. Within minutes of the nomination of Ms Miers last week, conservative blogs exploded with outrage, providing the first sign of serious conservative discontent over the choice Ms Miers. Now the White House is trying to quell the revolt of the blogs: on Wednesday, Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, reached out to the bloggers who have been leading the charge against Ms Miers in a conference call whose content appeared almost instantaneously on the internet.

Miers protected money launderer?
At Wednesday's White House press briefing, Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, said in response to a question from WND regarding the Texas Lottery scandals that he would encourage the newssite "to go back and look at the records" and comments that were made at the time. WND has now obtained several hundred newspaper articles from Texas in 1997-1998, when Harriet Miers was chairwoman of the three-member Texas Lottery Commission. Contrary to what McClellan might like us to believe, the public record is that the Texas Lottery was in nearly constant scandal from the time Harriet Miers was appointed as chairwoman by then-Gov. George W. Bush in 1995, until she unexpectedly resigned in March 2000, trying to step out of the way of new scandals before she completely ruined her chance to get into the White House should then-presidential candidate Bush win the election.

Democrats withhold fire, but Republicans take aim at Miers
WASHINGTON -- Republicans have long planned for a big Supreme Court battle. They just didn't realize it would be among themselves. While Democrats have been keeping their powder dry, President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers has drawn the most fire from conservative activists who have spent decades seeking to move the high court to the right. Many feel Miers endangers that shift. They cite her lack of judicial experience and question her conservative credentials. "She is a totally unknown character and nominee," said Kate O'Beirne, Washington editor of National Review, a magazine critical of the Miers selection. "There is a bench of people - a co-ed bench - who have the background and qualifications that tell us something about their constitutional jurisprudence." The reaction has surprised some White House officials, though they remain confident that more conservatives will come aboard once they get to know Miers.

James Carville Sees Miers Withdrawing
Democrat Party strategist James Carville is predicting that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers will withdraw her name from consideration rather than put the White House through a politically-bruising fight to win her confirmation. Carville made the prediction at a book party Tuesday night that he and wife Mary Matalin hosted for Vince Flynn, author of the newly released thriller "Consent to Kill."

Media uncritically repeated Dobson's purported disclosure of "confidential" information
In October 12 reports, numerous media outlets -- including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post -- uncritically reported Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson's purported defense of his prior refusal to reveal "confidential" information that he claimed to have received from the White House about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. In fact, the information that Dobson now claims to have received from White House senior adviser Karl Rove, which he said at the time reassured him about the Miers nomination, had already been widely reported following Miers's nomination, even as Dobson was claiming he couldn't disclose it because it was confidential. Thus, either Dobson was not telling the truth then -- and was not in fact in possession of confidential information about Miers -- or he is not telling the truth now and has yet to disclose the confidences Rove shared with him. By uncritically repeating what Dobson now claims to have learned from Rove, the media are letting Dobson get away with not telling the truth about that conversation.

Cronyism Is As American As Apple Pie,
But This Time Bush Has Gone Too Far
There are few things quite as hypocritical as American politicians hurling accusations of cronyism. The Democrats are lambasting George Bush about his weakness for promoting people such as Michael Brown, the horseman turned emergency-agency chief. [T]he real question about Mr Bush's appointment of Ms Miers is not whether it is cronyism, but whether he has stepped over the line that separates business-as-usual from offensive favouritism. A definitive answer to that question may not be clear for years. But the early signs are that he has overstepped, and done so in a clumsy way.

Plan B Abortifacient Pill Stalled Over Questions of Availability to Young Girls

Report: Handling of Abortifacient Unusual

WASHINGTON -- A long-awaited report on the 2004 Food and Drug Administration decision to reject an application to allow easier access to the "morning after pill" concludes that the decision was highly unusual, was made with atypical involvement from top agency officials and may well have been made months before it was formally announced.

The draft report by the Government Accountability Office, requested by Congress in the summer of 2004, is to be finalized and made public by the end of the month. But some congressional staffers have been briefed on its conclusions in recent weeks, and some were allowed Wednesday to read the findings.

As described by some familiar with the draft, the GAO found that top FDA officials participated in assessing the application to allow the emergency contraceptive Plan B to be sold without a prescription, and that such unusual high-level involvement was justified by the perceived sensitivity of the issue.

Critics of the FDA's May 2004 decision, and of a subsequent postponing of any decision-making this August, have accused the agency of giving in to political pressure from social conservatives.

Although an FDA advisory panel overwhelmingly supported the proposal in late 2003 on scientific grounds and the agency's medical reviewers were similarly convinced it should be approved, the agency's top leaders have said it could not be approved because of outstanding questions about whether it should be available to young girls, and if not, how to keep it from them.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm
l/nationworld/2002559943_planb14.html

Los Angeles Files Recount Decades of Sodomite Priests Abuse

126 Sodomite Priests in L.A.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has remained the leader of the Los Angeles Archdiocese despite covering up sex abuse by shuffling sodomite priests around to new parishes allowing more boys to be attacked.

LOS ANGELES -- The confidential personnel files of 126 clergymen in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles accused of sexual misconduct with children provide a numbing chronicle of 75 years of the church's shame, revealing case after case in which the church was warned of abuse but failed to protect its parishioners.

In some cases, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony and his predecessors quietly shuffled the priests off to counseling and then to new assignments. In others, parents were offered counseling for their children and were urged to remain silent.

Throughout the files, cases of child molesting or rape are dealt with by indirection or euphemism, with references to questions of "moral fitness" or accusations of "boundary violations." For years, anonymous complaints of abuse were ignored and priests were given the benefit of every doubt.

The personnel files - some of which date from the 1930's - were produced as part of settlement talks with lawyers for 560 accusers in a civil suit here. The church provided them to The New York Times in advance of their public release in the next few days. The archdiocese is releasing them in part to make good on a promise to parishioners to come clean about the church's actions in the scandal, church officials said. It also hopes that the release will spur settlement talks, which appear to have stalled in recent months.

Raymond P. Boucher, the lead lawyer for those suing the church, said the versions of the files released by the church were cleansed of much of the damaging details of the accusations and the church's response. Their release was chiefly a public relations move by the church as both sides prepared for the first cases to go to trial, Mr. Boucher said.

"Unfortunately, these files do not contain the full story of the participation by the church in the manipulation and movement of these priests," he said. "The full files would show how deep and pervasive this problem was and how much the church put its own interests ahead of those of the children and others who were molested by the priests. That is a broader and deeper story."

The files reveal that only recently did the church come to grips with the abusive and criminal behavior in its ranks and act aggressively to contain it.

The Los Angeles cases are in many ways typical of the sexual abuse claims that have stained the church around the country in recent years. The behavior of priests in Southern California was no worse than that seen elsewhere, and the response of senior church officials was generally no better. But the sheer scope of the claims and the potential for a huge payout to victims sets Los Angeles apart from archdioceses in other major American cities.

Perhaps the most egregious case here concerns the Rev. Michael Baker, who voluntarily revealed in 1986 to then-Archbishop Mahony a sexual relationship with two young boys from 1978 to 1985. Archbishop Mahony did not report the abuse to the police, but rather sent Father Baker for counseling and prohibited him from having any close contact with minors, the documents show. But he was soon assigned to parishes where he found it easy to prey on young boys again. After several more unsuccessful efforts at therapy, Father Baker was finally removed from the priesthood in 2000, but only after it was learned that he had molested as many as 10 victims over the previous 20 years.

There are many cases in which the accusations were not made until years after the alleged incidents and some in which early complaints were not deemed credible. But in all, the files paint a portrait of an institution in denial about what now looks like widespread sexual misconduct.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is the nation's largest Roman Catholic diocese, covering 8,700 square miles and serving nearly five million Catholics. The size of the priestly abuse problem here rivals that in Boston, where more than 500 members of the clergy were accused of abusing children over the past 60 years and where the church paid $85 million in 2003 to settle civil claims against it.

Since then, the stakes have risen. Late last year, the Diocese of Orange County in California paid $100 million to settle 85 cases.

Lawyers involved in negotiations in Los Angeles said that if an overall settlement was reached between the 560 plaintiffs and the church, the payout would be significantly higher than in Boston or Orange County, perhaps exceeding $500 million. The cost of litigating each case individually could rise far beyond that.

Since 1985, the archdiocese has settled a handful of child molesting cases, paying a total of $10 million.

The archdiocese received relatively few complaints of sexual abuse by priests, no more than a couple dozen a year, until 2002, when the church scandal exploded with news reports from Boston. Since then, the Los Angeles Archdiocese has received hundreds of complaints against more than 250 priests and other church workers, of whom roughly half are now included in settlement talks.

The documents will be posted within a day or two on the archdiocese Web site (www.la-archdiocese.org) or on a site kept by the church's lawyers (www.la-clergycases.com), said J. Michael Hennigan, lead lawyer for the archdiocese. [The documents are currently posted here.]

Mr. Hennigan said the priest files, even though they do not contain a lot of detail about the alleged offenses, would provide the public with a better sense of how the church's response to such charges has evolved.

"We wanted to show what happened, when it happened, what we knew and how we dealt with it," Mr. Hennigan said.

In the case of the Rev. Kevin Barmasse, parents of a young boy wrote to top officials of the archdiocese in 1983 to complain that the priest had abused their son at St. Pancratius Church in Lakewood, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles. Two weeks later, the archdiocese sent Father Barmasse to serve as associate pastor at a parish in the Diocese of Tucson, on the condition that he receive therapy.

Within three years, according to later reports, he made sexual advances toward several male high school students. In 1992, he was stripped of his priestly duties.

Mr. Hennigan said Father Barmasse was one of very few priests that the Los Angeles Archdiocese allowed to move to another parish and continue ministering to children after a credible complaint had been received. He said Cardinal Mahony's inclination to trust in therapy was typical of the church response at the time.

For years, the church treated sexual abuse by members of the clergy as a moral failing and a sin that could be confessed and forgiven. It is only within the last 15 years or so that church officials recognized that pedophiles are by nature repeat offenders and cannot be permitted unsupervised contact with children, Mr. Hennigan said.

He contrasted the behavior of church officials here to that of officials in Boston, who repeatedly shuffled sexual predators from parish to parish with no warning to the public. Such incidents, including the notorious cases of the former priests John J. Geoghan and Paul R. Shanley, led to the reassignment of Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston and forced the closings of dozens of parishes and Catholic schools to pay damage awards.

Despite a number of well-publicized abuse cases here, Cardinal Mahony has remained the leader of the archdiocese and the Los Angeles church appears to be on fairly sound financial footing. Mr. Hennigan said he believed the archdiocese has sufficient resources and insurance to handle settlements without closing schools or selling church property.

Lawyers for the accused priests tried to keep the personnel files secret, saying that their release violates employee record confidentiality laws and that the information in them will prejudice the courts and the public against their clients.

The church, while arguing that some material from the files is protected by priest-penitent or psychotherapist-patient privilege, said it wanted to release the majority of the contents as part of a process of expiation. The material has been in the hands of plaintiffs' lawyers for nearly three years, but courts have ordered it sealed. The church interprets a court ruling last month as allowing it to release edited versions of the personnel files. The files do not include accusers' names.

"What the church is trying to do is repair the damage that was done and make sure, as much as is humanly possible, that it doesn't happen again," said Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese. "This whole sad chapter in the church's life is an opportunity for purification."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/
10/12/national/12priests.html

Staff killed patients while floods rose, claims doctor

Doctor: Staff Killed Patients

As the citizens of New Orleans are called home, bodies in a mortuary are tested for lethal drugs

The Mayor of New Orleans appealed to displaced citizens to return to the city yesterday but his plea was overshadowed by news of an investigation into allegations that medical staff killed patients who could not be moved from a flooded hospital.

Forty-five bodies found at the Memorial Medical Centre after the disaster will be tested for toxic substances. Euthanasia is illegal and doctors could be charged with manslaughter if the claims are substantiated.

The mercy killing claims were based on an interview with a doctor from the hospital who said that he saw staff entering wards with syringes after a discussion about euthanasia. Bryant King told CNN that he did not see any patient being injected but was suspicious after hearing a conversation between a hospital official and another doctor, who suggested that patients be put out of their misery.

Dr King said: “One of the other physicians — not the one who had the conversation with me but another — had a handful of syringes. I don’t know what’s in the syringes . . . The only thing I heard her say is, ‘I’m going to give you something to make you feel better.’ ”

He was evacuated from the hospital shortly afterwards and said that he did not know what happened next.

Frank Minyard, the Orleans Parish Coroner, said that investigators had told him that “they thought someone was going around injecting people with some lethal medication”.

The incident, which took place three days after Hurricane Katrina hit and as rising floodwaters made hospital care almost impossible, is under investigation by the state attorney-general.

Tenet Healthcare, which owns the hospital, told CNN that many of the patients who died were critically ill. Eleven patients found in the mortuary had died the weekend before the hurricane, it said.

But Dr King said: “Only one person died overnight. The previous day there were two. For there to be, from Thursday to Friday, ten times that many just does not make sense.”

The euthanasia allegations came as Ray Nagin, the Mayor, began a tour of emergency shelters as the cost of housing the homeless in hotels reached $11 million (£6.27 million) a day, a figure that could rise to $425 million by the October 24 deadline set by President Bush to empty emergency shelters.

Mr Nagin’s message is that New Orleans is ready for its residents to return. Streets are dry, restaurants and offices open, and some schools will begin lessons next month.

But without a critical mass of employees to run the shops, restaurants and amenities, Mr Nagin knows that many thousands will refuse even to contemplate a return.

Some estimates put the num- ber of uninhabitable homes at 200,000, with a disproportionate amount in the poorest areas of the city where evacuees have no resources to rebuild.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a
rticle/0,,23889-1825021,00.html

Baby saved on Michigan Campus Tour!

Baby saved on Michigan Campus Tour!

FALL 2005 CAMPUS TOURS Wisconsin & Michigan
Missionaries to the Preborn


Dear Friends of the Preborn,

By clicking on the link, you will be taken to our website where you can read about just a few of the things that took place on the Wisconsin and Michigan Campus Tours. I hope the information is a blessing to your heart. One student at Wayne State University in Detroit decided NOT to abort her child! You can read all the details at the link.

We also had a couple of firsts at one campus, namely, classes were canceled because students were so upset about the photographs, and a group of about 30 Christian professors prayed for our efforts over the noon hour!

These Tours are so important. Too often those of us in Christianity spend too much time talking to one another, rather than going out and talking to those who do not know the Lord. We need to disciple the nations in all the Lord has commanded. These Tours do exactly that. We cannot thank all of you enough for your financial support of our efforts as it keeps us well-equipped out on the streets!

Pastor Matt Trewhella

Sex offenders gone missing after Katrina

Hundreds of Sex Offenders Unaccounted For

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Marshals Service has dramatically increased its number of deputies in Louisiana and Mississippi to help state and local authorities find hundreds of registered sex offenders who fled storm-battered areas.

The Marshals Service, which normally has roughly 32 deputies assigned to the region, has nearly 200 deputies there to help find missing sex offenders and to update local registries that were created to track thousands of offenders after their release from prison, said Marshals Cmdr. Geoff Shank.

There are an estimated 1,300 sex offenders registered in the New Orleans area and another 3,500 in Mississippi. The New Orleans police department and Mississippi's Department of Public Safety have identified 197 unaccounted-for sex offenders who could pose a particular threat to the public.

Those offenders are the focus of the Marshals Service, which has found about half of them — some as far away as Connecticut, according to Shank and John Clark, a chief inspector with the Marshals Service. Marshals' deputies found that three missing offenders in Mississippi had been killed during the storm, Shank said.

New Orleans police Lt. David Benelli said the increasing urgency of the search reflects the threat that such offenders could pose, as well as authorities' desire to make sure that registries are updated so citizens can be aware of such risks.

"We have no idea where they all are," said Benelli, commander of the department's sex crimes unit. "Wherever they are, they have the potential of creating problems."

When offenders are found, authorities in those jurisdictions are notified. Registered offenders who move without notifying authorities normally could face charges, but it's unclear whether those who were part of the storm-related exodus will be charged for not reporting their new locations.

Shank said that in a few cases, investigators who were trying to determine whether registered offenders were staying in hurricane shelters have been stymied by shelter managers. He said the managers have cited privacy policies while rejecting requests for information about those in the shelters.

"We do not have a working relationship with the shelters," Shank said. "All of our inquiries ... have been turned back. We stopped asking completely. Had they cooperated, it would have made our job a lot simpler."

Shank said the Marshals Service had not received any reports of registered offenders committing crimes in shelters.

The American Red Cross, which has managed shelters throughout the Gulf Coast region, said it was unaware that any law enforcement requests for such help had been rejected. Red Cross spokeswoman Stephanie Millian said the organization's policy is to comply with law enforcement requests by allowing investigators to review rosters of evacuees.

Millian said, however, that she did not know how many times police have requested help, or how often shelter managers have provided information.

Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said the agency is prohibited from disclosing personal information about storm victims. But she said the agency cooperates with police when they make formal requests for such information.

Andrews said FEMA has received only one such request concerning shelters that were set up after Hurricane Katrina. That came from the Louisiana State Police, which was seeking information from the agency's database of 2.3 million people who have registered for any type of federal assistance.

It was unclear whether that request was part of the search for registered sex offenders.

Meanwhile, Shank and Clark said the Marshals Service is preparing for an extended deployment of extra deputies in the region. Clark said he expects the New Orleans police department to seek the Marshals Service's help in finding up to 100 more offenders.

"We've got no shortage of work here," Clark said.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005
-10-12-katrina-sex-offenders_x.htm?csp=34

Supreme Court Politics - Dobson fooled by Rove

Dobson fooled by Rove

Rove characterized Miers as pro-life to key Christians
Dobson spills beans about private phone call with Rove
WASHINGTON -- In a private conversation designed to garner support for the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court, White House aide Karl Rove told a key conservative Christian leader that the Texas lawyer had taken positions that "would not be supportive of abortion." The unusual contact between Rove and James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, came two days before President Bush announced Miers' nomination. Dobson made the disclosure in a radio address tape-recorded Tuesday for broadcast today, following threats that the Senate Judiciary Committee might subpoena him and force him to describe his conversation with Rove. "I'm gonna tell them what I would say to them if I were sitting before the Judiciary Committee," Dobson said at the outset of the broadcast. Dobson said Rove told him in an Oct. 1 telephone conversation that Bush wanted to name a woman to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and that Miers was on "the short list" of nominees. Dobson said Rove described Miers as "an evangelical Christian from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," who had "taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion." She had also been a member of the Texas Right to Life, Dobson said. (Read: Transcript: Dobson, Rove conversation

Related
Dobson 'Probably Shouldn't Know'
In supporting President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, James Dobson told listeners last week, "When you know some of the things that I know that I probably shouldn't know—that would take me in this direction—you would understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice." During Wednesday's broadcast, "I've had a long-standing policy of not going out and revealing things that are said to me in confidence," he said. "I think it's a mistake and maybe even an ethical problem for people to do that—to go out and brag about being a player on the national scene, maybe to make themselves to look important," he told his listeners. "You know, I just wish that didn't happen like it does, and I certainly didn't want to be part of it." (In other words, since I can't keep my big fat mouth shut, next time don't bother to call me)

Joseph Farah: Miers to withdraw
Harriet Miers is never going to be grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is going to withdraw her name from consideration before such hearings ever begin. You can take that to the bank. Why? Because, even though Democrats in the Senate seem more pleased with the choice of Miers than do Republicans, the questions that must be asked of the nominee for Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court seat would be among the most embarrassing ever raised about her boss, President Bush.

ABA's probe of Miers' record, rating may be key for confirmation
WASHINGTON -- With a scant paper trail to follow in searching for Harriet Miers' qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association's exhaustive investigation of her record - and rating of it - could prove pivotal to her Senate confirmation. The ABA's rating process is sometimes controversial. Conservatives have long complained that the ABA favors liberal nominees. But with skepticism about Miers' qualifications widespread - even cartoonists and Jay Leno lampoon her as unqualified - high marks from the legal establishment could be the seal of approval she needs to win the Senate's blessing.

Specter Hopes to Start Miers Hearing Soon
PHILADELPHIA -- Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Tuesday he hopes to start the confirmation hearing on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers within a month and to wrap it up within a week. The nomination has drawn growing criticism from conservatives who say Miers lacks proven conservative credentials and a judicial background.

Sen. Committee Begins Miers Questioning
CAPITOL HILL -- The Senate Judiciary Committee is putting questions to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers before her confirmation hearings. The panel has sent her a 12-page questionnaire. Lawmakers want to know whether she's given anyone assurances about how she would vote on any Supreme Court case. And they want to probe her connections with the president and Republican interest groups.

Bush administration aims to `clarify the record' of Miers
White House Launches Fresh Round of Outreach to Conservative Groups
WASHINGTON -- Facing growing criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill and threats of revolt from conservative legal supporters, the White House has mounted a furious effort to salvage the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but some tactics are only deepening hostility and division among the base.

Bush plays the 'Religion Card' to market Harriet
WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Wednesday that it is appropriate for the White House to invoke Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religion in making the case for her to skeptical conservatives. The assertion triggered a debate over what role, if any, her evangelical faith should play in the confirmation battle. Bush said that religion was part of Miers' overall background much like her work as a corporate lawyer in Texas and that "our outreach program has been just to explain the facts to people."

Trust Me?
Many “conservatives”, whatever that term means, have pointed out reasons to oppose the nomination. Whether it be cronyism, lack of a paper trail, poor legal qualifications, past political contributions, the reasons to not support her are varied and valid. As all of the cable news shows have ramped up their coverage of the nomination ‘fight”, I have watched with disgust, the same tired old faces marched out by the media to give us the “Christian” position on Ms. Miers. From Rev. Falwell, to Pat Robertson, James Dobson to Jay Sekulow, like good soldiers they have marched before the cameras, saluted, and justified the president’s choice.

The Biggest Problem With Miers Is The Advancement of Gay Rights
My biggest problem with Harriet Miers is the same as it was for John Roberts, the new chief justice of the Supreme Court. It is the same as it has been for President Bush. It is an issue from which pro-family leaders and leaders of the religious right – the groups that got out the votes that put Bush over the top in the last two presidential elections – have shied away. It is the advancement of gay rights. President Bush has done more than any president in history to advance gay rights.

Miers' law firm backed Hillary
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' law firm contributed $1,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000, Federal Election Commission reports show. Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP PAC, the political action committee of the Houston law firm Miers co-managed, made the contributions on May 19, 2000, two days after Miers contributed $415.91 to the PAC.

Bush moves the Supreme Court to the Left
On October 3rd, President Bush announced his nomination of his longtime friend, White House Counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee for the vacancy created by the departure of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Miers had been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court.

US mulls federal troops for bird flu quarantine

Federal Troops For Flu Quarantine

The Pentagon is looking at the possibility of using federal troops to enforce a quarantine in the event of an outbreak of pandemic bird flu in the United States, a senior official said on Wednesday.

President George W. Bush said last week he would consider using the military to "effect a quarantine" in response to any outbreak of avian influenza, but provided few details.

Bush at the time also suggested he might place National Guard troops, normally commanded by state governors, under federal control as part of the government's response to the "catastrophe" of such a flu pandemic.

Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said quarantine law historically has been under the primary jurisdiction of states, not the federal government.

"And my expectation is that any quarantine measures that would be put in place would likely involve a substantial employment of the National Guard, probably under command and control of the governor of an affected state," McHale told a group of reporters.

"However, we are looking at a wide range of contingencies, potentially involving Title 10 forces (federal troops) if a pandemic outbreak of a biological threat were to occur," McHale added.

The H5N1 avian influenza virus has killed or forced the destruction of tens of millions of birds and infected more than 100 people, killing at least 60 in four Asian nations since late 2003.

Experts fear that the virus, known to pass to humans from birds, could mutate and start to spread easily from person to person, potentially killing millions worldwide. Experts have questioned America's preparedness.

McHale said he believed there would be a clearer understanding within a few weeks of the military role in response to pandemic bird flu as part of a broader federal response. Pentagon officials were meeting on Wednesday to discuss the department's role in a flu pandemic.

LEGAL BARRIERS

One issue that could face the U.S. government in the event of an outbreak is whether or how to cordon off parts of the country to prevent the disease from spreading.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, enacted during the post-Civil War reconstruction period, prohibits federal military personnel from taking part in law-enforcement within the United States. But a president can waive the law in an emergency.

National Guard troops under the command of state governors are permitted to perform law enforcement duties, but would not be permitted to do so if they were put under federal control.

McHale noted that the military has been used only under extraordinary circumstances for domestic law enforcement and restoring civil order.

While not specifically referring to enforcing a quarantine, McHale said the Pentagon has active-duty federal military units on alert and deployable at the direction of the president "to deal with occurrences of massive civil disturbance." He did not identify the units.

On the topic of possible domestic attack involving biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, McHale said the government needs "a more robust civilian capability" to respond so the country is not exclusively dependent on the military.

McHale said the Pentagon is working to help make the Department of Homeland Security better able to make strategic plans for natural disasters or domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The department's Federal Emergency Management Agency was strongly criticized for its slow response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster on the U.S. Gulf Coast in August.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/ts_
nm/birdflu_usa_pentagon_dc_2&printer=1

Republican Congressman Slams Bush On Militarized Police State Preparation

Ron Paul slams Bush

Ron Paul says indictment story is far more damaging than media is portraying, avian flu martial law provisions aimed at gun confiscation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He also serves on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, and the International Relations committee.

Paul appeared on the Alex Jones show yesterday and raised some interesting points about the possibility of imminent indictments of top Bush administration figures.

"I think there's a lot more excitement coming and it's not going to be good for the Republicans," stated Paul.

"The things that I hear have to do with Karl Rove and Abramoff and that's much much worse than anybody would believe and it involves DeLay as well."

"And that type of an indictment will be much more serious than the indictment of shifting campaign funds around.....there's some political infighting which could make that really interesting."

On the subject of the police state, Paul stated,

"If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."

"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."

Paul responded to President Bush's announcement last week that he would order the use of military assets to police America in the event of an avian flu outbreak.

"To me it's so strange that the President can make these proposals and it's even plausible. When he talks about martial law dealing with some epidemic that might come later on and having forced quarantines, doing away with Posse Comitatus in order to deal with natural disasters, and hardly anybody says anything. People must be scared to death."

Paul, himself a medical doctor, agreed that the bird flu threat was empty fearmongering.

"I believe it is the President hyping this and Rumsfeld, but it has to be in combination with the people being fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse. My first reaction going from my political and medical background is that it's way overly hyped and to think that they have gone this far with it, without a single case in the whole country and they're willing to change the law and turn it into a military state? That is unbelievable! They're determined to have martial law."

Paul opined that the martial law provisions now being promoted by the Bush administration were a direct response to people's unwillingness to relinquish their firearms, as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul opined that the government was on a delusional power trip that threatened the country.

"These guys are ready to start a war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or China. They can't possibly do that, it's so insane, we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, we probably don't even have the ammunition."

"But, if they are truly delusional they just might do something that's totally irrational."

Paul expressed his hope that finally some conservatives are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration is a trojan horse, especially after arch-liberal Harriet Miers was chosen by Bush to supposedly move the Supreme Court to the right, even though her record is atrocious and she has been involved in the past covering up for the Bush crime family's activities.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articl
es/october2005/121005slamsbush.htm

American Girl Dolls Linked to Abortion, Pro-Life Group Warns Parents

American Girl Dolls Linked to Abortion

To: National Desk

Contact: Ann Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League, 773-777-2900, 312-965-1030 cell, ann@prolifeaction.org

CHICAGO -- The Pro-Life Action League is warning parents of ties between the popular American Girl doll company and Girls Inc., a group that promotes abortion, lesbianism and easy access to birth control for teens.

In August, the American Girl company, a subsidiary of Mattel Toys, Inc., launched the "I Can" campaign, which involves taking a pledge and purchasing a special bracelet. Seventy cents of each one-dollar bracelet sold will be donated to Girls Inc. American Girl is also donating an additional $50,000 to Girls Inc.

"Parents need to know that this effort to promote self-esteem among girls is not as innocent as it seems," commented League Executive Director Ann Scheidler. "While Girls Inc. has some good programs, they also support abortion, oppose abstinence-only education for girls, and condone lesbianism."

Scheidler points to the Girls Inc. web site, which declares that "girls need and have a right to . . . convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception," and that "Girls Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade" (Source: http://www.girlsinc.com/ic/page.php?id=4.3.4)

"Parents associate American Girl dolls with wholesome American family values, yet Girls Inc. contradicts parents' most basic moral beliefs," Scheidler said. "We're encouraging parents, grandparents and other family members to write and call American Girl President Ellen L. Brothers to object to the company's support for Girls Inc."

Scheidler hopes American Girl will sever ties with Girls Inc. before the League calls for a boycott of American Girl products and launches a picketing campaign at the American Girl Place retail stores in Chicago and New York.

Letters, phone calls and e-mails should be directed to:

Ellen L. Brothers, President
American Girl
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton, WI 53562
Tel: 1-800-845-0005
Fax: 608-828-4790
ellen.brothers@americangirl.com

Transcript: Dobson Comments on Miers/Rove Conversation

Transcript: Dobson, Rove conversation

Focus on the Family's 30-minute daily radio program is aired on over 3,000 radio facilities each day across the United States.

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE MIERS NOMINATION (rough, unedited transcript)

Date: 10-12-2005

TRANSCRIPT

OPENING VOICE TRACK:

John: It’s Wednesday. I’m John Fuller and you’re tuned to “FOF” with psychologist and author, Dr. James Dobson. And Doctor, what a crazy week you’ve had!

BODY:

JCD: Well, John, if our listeners and friends have been monitoring the news on radio and television and the Internet and if they have been listening to other talk shows in the past week, then they know well, that I have been a topic of conversation from the nation's Capitol to the tiniest burg and farming community. And the issue that's propelled this unprecedented interest in something that I've said is my conversation with Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, that occurred on October 1st, just a few days ago. And that was the day before President Bush made his decision to nominate White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court.

Now, as you know and as I'm sure many of our listeners know, there are members of the judiciary committee who are running from one talk show to another, threatening to subpoena me to find out what occurred in that conversation with Karl Rove. And I am going to make their job easier (Laughter), because in the next few minutes, I'm gonna tell them what I would say to them if I were sitting before the judiciary committee. And this is the essence of what transpired between the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House and me. So, is that clear?

John: I think that is. And for our listeners, you wouldn't believe all that's going on here at Focus, as so many of the mainstream media--most of the mainstream media--is contacting us. They, like those Senators, want to know, "What does Dr. Dobson know? What did he talk about? Tell us, please."

JCD: Well, John, I think it's time that I did that.

John: Okay, before you do though, it probably would be helpful for our listeners to understand why you can talk about that now and previously you couldn’t.

JCD: Yeah, I haven’t been willing to. The reason is because Karl Rove has now given me permission to go public with our conversation. And I’m gonna say a little more about that in a minute.

John: Okay. Well, fill us in then on what happened.

JCD: Well, let me go back through the sequence of events and...and explain what happened. The President announced his decision on Monday morning, October 3rd, that Harriet Miers was his selection and the debate was on. And a few hours after that, many conservative Christian leaders were involved in a conference call, wherein some of those men and women were expressing great disillusionment with President Bush's decision and there was a lot of anger over his failure to select someone with a proven track record in the courts. And I came in a little bit late and I caught just a bit of that angst and then I shared my opinion, that Harriet Miers might well be more in keeping with our views than they might think and that I did believe that she was a far better choice than many of my colleagues were saying and that they obviously believed.

Well, my reasons for supporting her were twofold, John. First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy which was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning. Now he told the voters last year that he would select people to be on the Court who would interpret the law rather than create it and judges who would not make social policy from the bench. Most of all, the President promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr. Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and that the President knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.

Then he suggested that I might want to validate that opinion by talking to people in Texas who knew Miers personally and he gave me the names of some individuals that I could call. And I quickly followed up on that conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known Harriet Miers for more than 25 years. And so, we talked to him and we talked to some others who are acquainted with Ms. Miers.

So, I shared my findings with my colleagues, not only what I just mentioned, but other calls I made. I talked to Chuck Colson, my great friend, who is a constitutional attorney--

John: Uh-hm, uh-hm.

JCD: --and talked to him four times. He helped me kind of assimilate the information that we had garnered, but I would not say much about the phone call from Karl Rove, even though I'm very close to many of the people who are on the telephone. Why would I not do that? Because it was a confidential conversation and I've had a long-standing policy of not going out and revealing things that are said to me in confidence. That may come from my training as a psychologist, where you hear all sorts of things that you can't go out and talk about.

John: Sure.

JCD: And I feel very strongly about that. And frankly, I think it’s a mistake and maybe even an ethical problem for people to do that—to go out and brag about being a player on the national scene, maybe to make themselves to look important. You know, I just wish that didn’t happen like it does and I certainly didn’t want to be part of it.

So, I wouldn’t reveal any of the details about the call, although I did say to these pro-family leaders, which has been widely quoted, that Karl had told me something that I probably shouldn’t know. And you know, it really wasn’t all that tantalizing, but I still couldn't talk about it. And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday, the day before the President made his decision, I knew that Harrier Miers was at the top of the short list of names under consideration. And as you know, that information hadn’t been released yet, and everyone in Washington and many people around the country wanted to know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is not something I wanted to reveal.

But we also talked about something else, and I think this is the first time this has been disclosed. Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn’t want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.

So, even today, many conservatives and many of ‘em friends of mine, are being interviewed on talk shows and national television programs. And they’re saying, “Why didn’t the President appoint so-and-so? He or she would have been great. They had a wonderful judicial record. They would have been the kind of person we’ve been hoping and working and praying for to be on the Court. Well, it very well may be that those individuals didn’t want to be appointed.

John: For understandable reasons, because the grilling that they get in that confirmation process is just brutal.

JCD: Well, it’s true. The Democrats have so politicized that process that it’s become an ordeal and many people just don’t want to go through that. And I’m not sure I blame them. So, Karl Rove shared some of that with me. He also made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice O’Connor. And you can imagine what that did to the short list. That cut it…I haven’t looked at who I think might have been on that short list, because Karl didn’t tell me who was not willing to be considered.

But that many have cut it by 80 percent right there. But I was not gonna be the one to reveal this. I knew that people would eventually be aware of some of that information, but I didn’t think I had the right to say it. And so, I made my comment.

Now there’s…there’s something else I’ll say in a moment that I was referring to. But let me just say that some of my friends that I was talking to that day and thought I was speaking in confidence, went straight to the media and…and shared what I had said or what I had not said. And that’s where the firestorm began. You know, “What did Dobson know and when did he know it?”

Now let me go back to the statement that there were some things from my conversation with Karl Rove that I couldn’t talk about. And of course, the media has keyed on that statement. I had no idea that was going to be released to the media, but there it is.

So, what was it that I couldn’t talk about? The answer has everything to do with timing. It’s very important to remember that when I first made that statement about knowing things that I shouldn’t know, and shared that with my colleagues the day that the President made his announcement, maybe two or three hours after his press conference.

And then, that very night, I went on the Brit Hume program—the FOX News program—and…and talked about the President’s nomination. And then, the following day—Tuesday—I recorded a statement for FOF, which was heard on Wednesday. And that is the last time that I said that I had information that was confidential and that I really couldn’t talk about.

Why? Because what I was told by Karl Rove had been confirmed and reported from other sources by that time.

What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn’t reveal? Well, it’s what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the President had actually made this decision. I could not talk about that on Monday. I couldn’t talk about it on Tuesday. In fact, Brit Hume said, “What church does she go to?” And I said, “I don’t think it’s up to me to reveal that.” Do you remember my saying that?

John: I do, yes.

JCD: What I meant was, I couldn’t get into this. But by Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, all this information began to come out and it was no longer sensitive. I didn’t have the right to be the one that revealed it and that’s what I was referring to.

John: Well, I’d also guess, Doctor, that the answer you gave here about the contents of that conversation and why you couldn’t divulge some of those matters, won’t satisfy the senators on the judiciary committee, who were looking for some red meat.

JCD: Well, John, I have no doubt that what I’ve just said will be a great disappointment to Senator Schumer and Senator Salazar and Senator Biden and Senator Durban and Senator Leahy and Senator Lautenberg and some of the other liberal Democrats, because Karl Rove didn’t tell me anything about the way Harriet Miers would vote on cases that may come before the Supreme Court.

We did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the Court. I did not ask that question. You know, to be honest, I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade. But even if Karl had known the answer to that and I’m certain that he didn’t, because the President himself said he didn’t know, Karl would not have told me that. That’s the most incendiary information that’s out there and it was never part of our discussion.

One thing is clear. We know emphatically that Justices Souter and Kennedy and Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens have made up their mind about Roe v. Wade, by politicizing their decrees on that issue and others. They have usurped the right of the people to govern themselves and they imposed a radical agenda on this country. And John, as long as I’m talking about that, let me say one other thing.

More recently, they have been drawing some of their conclusions, not from the Constitution and not from precedent and not from the American people, but from public opinion in Western Europe. You know, that’s one of the most outrageous developments in the history of the Court. American public opinion is ignored and so are previous Court decisions or precedent. And frequently, the Constitution itself is bypassed. And instead they favor the views of people who have no commitment to our freedoms and our traditions that the Founding Fathers gave us.

So, I want the President to appoint someone who will go to the original intent of the Constitution and tell us what the founding fathers meant. If we don’t like what they wrote, there’s a process to change it. But the way it works now, every time the Court meets, it can be more or less a constitutional convention, where five or more justices reinterpret the meaning of that precious document.

Now Karl Rove didn't tell me all of that, but what he said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict constructionist, which is why the President likes her. And you know, I've never met her; I don't have any personal communication with her. I've never received a letter or a phone call from her or any firsthand knowledge, but I do believe President Bush is serious when he says this is the kind of person I'm looking for and Harriet Miers is such a person.

Nevertheless, what the Democrats have concluded in their wildest speculation is that Mr. Rove laid out for me a detailed promise that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and revealed all the other judicial opinions that she has supposedly prejudged. It did not happen, period!

Senator Leahy was speaking on George Stephanopoulos's program, "This Week" on Sunday, just past. And this is what he said and I quote. This is word for word: "James Dobson has said that he knew privately; he had private assurances of how she would vote." Well, Leahy is either lying or he's given to his own delusions or he's got some problem somewhere, because that's flat out not true. Nowhere have I been quoted making such a statement, because it's not true.

Again John, last Sunday, Democrats were on all the talk shows and nearly all of them mentioned me one way or another. Senator Schumer from New York, referred to my conversations with Karl Rove as a "wink and a whisper," you know, trying to make something sinister out of it. It's obvious what the agenda is here.

Now John, I feel like I have clarified the nature of my conversation with Karl Rove. Let me just say in the conclusion to my comments here --and I want to speak directly to members of the judiciary committee about the possibility of my coming to testify-- if they want to do that, then I just suggest that they quit talking about and just go do it. I have nothing to hide and I’ll be happy to come and talk to you. But I won’t have anything to say that I haven’t just told millions of people. And so, that’s really the end of my statement.

John: That...that is about as clear as you can make things, I think, for our listeners and we'll have this broadcast posted on the Web, if they'd like to refer back to it at any point in time. We do have time, I believe, Doctor [JCD], to get to a guest that you wanted to talk to on the phone about this matter of the nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court of Harriet Miers.

JCD: Well, John, I think it's about time I did that, 'cause I'm tired of talking (Laughter) and I'm tired of even listening to my own voice. So, let's do get on to a telephone conversation that we have placed. I think he's on the line now, with a personal friend and a friend to this ministry. I am delighted that Judge Kenneth Starr has agreed to be our guest to talk about his knowledge of Harriet Miers, because he does know her personally. Judge Starr or as he's known in academic circles, Dean Starr, is the Dean of Pepperdine Law School out in California.

He has been the independent counsel for five investigations, including Whitewater--1994 to 1999. He was Solicitor General of the United States and also U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. district. So, this man is very qualified to give us his opinion with regard to this nominee. He's also written a book called First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life. I'm really anxious to hear what he's gonna say.

John: That's a great book title and I believe you're right. We do have him on the line now.

JCD: Hello, Judge Starr. It's a real pleasure to have you on the program. I think this is the very first time. I hope it won't be the last. We want to talk about the new nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. How do you know her?

Ken: Dr. Dobson, I've had the privilege of knowing Harriet for about 15 years in a professional capacity...

(end of transcript)

President Bush Is The Problem On Abortion

Bush Is The Problem On Abortion

He Just Doesn’t Care About The Pro-Life Cause

Our 26th nationally-syndicated, one-hour radio show, “The American View,” co-hosted by myself and “recovering Republican” John Lofton, documents in detail how President Bush is the problem on abortion, how he really doesn’t care about the pro-life cause except to the extent that he could exploit this issue to get elected and re-elected. Pro-life means, of course, pro-every-unborn life – no exceptions, NONE!

Also, please, if you would like to help us keep our program on the air — which is presently on stations in 37 cities in 22 states — send us a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more. Make your check or money order out to: “The American View” and send it to:

The American View
8028 Ritchie Highway
Suite #303
Pasadena, MD 21122

And do, please, continue to pray for the success of our program that it might glorify God. Because, as He says in Psalm 127:1: “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Lawmakers Call For Abortifacient Morning-After Pill Approval

Lawmakers Call For Abortifacient Approval

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of 62 U.S. lawmakers have called on the new acting head of the Food and Drug Administration to allow sales of Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc's "morning-after" pill without a prescription, according to a letter made public on Tuesday.

In a letter to Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the members of Congress stopped short of accusing the agency of earlier postponing a ruling because of politics, but chided officials for ignoring evidence.

"We believe this new delay does not truly reflect valid scientific or regulatory concerns," they wrote in a letter dated Oct. 7.

Barr has pursued over-the-counter sales of its emergency contraceptive drug, called Plan B, for more than two years.

The drug contains higher levels of a hormone used in birth control pills and must be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse. It was approved as a prescription in 1999.

An FDA advisory panel overwhelmingly supported nonprescription sales, but early last year the FDA rejected Barr's proposal citing concerns about use among teen-aged girls younger than 16. The drug maker refiled its bid, proposing over-the-counter sales for those 16 and older.

In August, the FDA announced an indefinite delay over the issue. Agency officials said the drug was safe and effective, but that they were unsure how to regulate a restriction based on age.

"We find it contradictory and disconcerting that the FDA's concerns are a direct result of the agency's own recommendations last May," the lawmakers, which included six Republicans and one Independent, wrote.

Religious conservatives and other opponents say easier access to emergency contraceptive will spur promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases. Supporters, including most doctors and women's rights groups, say it will prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

"By further delaying the FDA's decision to expand access to EC (emergency contraception), you are seriously hindering efforts to reduce abortions across the U.S.," the lawmakers, said, calling on von Eschenbach to approve Plan B "without further delay."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051011
/hl_nm/congress_contraceptive_dc_2

Posted by Editor at 05:58 AM

Supreme Court Politics - Miers Backed Sodomite Rights

Miers Backed Sodomite Rights

Miers Backed Sodomite Rights
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring speacal rights for sodomites when she ran for Dallas city council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. The survey by the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas provides a hint of Miers' thinking on homosexual rights issues that could come before the court. Louise Young, a founding member of the coalition said Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

Harriet E. Miers 101
"She sure seems like a big ol' Texas lesbian to me." — Daily Kos Blog
WASHINGTON -- The scoop on Harriet Miers is simple: she's a Bush sycophant. She was his lawyer. She was the clean up girl on the Bush "Active Duty, Not" team helping to cover up George W.'s AWOL status in the National Guard. She has never been a judge. She has been the head of — and a cheerleader for — the Texas State Lottery Commission, which of course features the STATE pushing gambling at people who can least afford it. She was the head of a law firm with a client list that reads like the Cheney Oil Company's "Who's Who is Bush's A-List" and that is in bed with TRMPAC.

Bush Predicts Miers Will Be Confirmed
WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his wife, Laura, offered a double-barreled defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers on Tuesday while the White House worked to dampen opposition from the right and win confirmation for the president's pick. "Harriet Miers is going to be confirmed and people will get to see why I put her on the bench," Bush said in a television interview on NBC's "Today" show. The Bushes were in Covington, La., at a Habitat for Humanity housing work site just north of New Orleans.

Related
Bush Works to Reassure G.O.P. Over Nominee for Supreme Court
WASHINGTON -- "Harriet Miers will be the type of judge I said I would nominate: a good conservative judge," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address. He added, "When she goes before the Senate, I am confident that all Americans will see what I see every day: Harriet Miers is a woman of intelligence, strength and conviction."

Laura Acting Like a Leftist - Playing the Sexist Card Against Republicans
Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
COVINGTON, Louisiana -- First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers. "That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer made her a role model to young women. A week after President George W. Bush nominated Miers for a lifetime appointment to the highest U.S. court, he remained on the defensive against critics within his own Republican Party.

Some Dems Defend Miers From Conservatives
Barbara A. Mikulski: critics of Miers "incredibly sexist."
Sunday, October 9, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Some Senate Democrats are jumping in the middle of a Republican fray to defend Harriet Miers from conservative criticism that she isn't qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean Democrats will vote to approve President Bush's longtime confidante for the high court or give her an easy time at a Senate confirmation hearing. Behind the scenes, a half-dozen aides to Senate Democrats _ speaking on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs _ admit that they are enjoying watching the GOP's right wing beat up the president. None will say whether their bosses feel the same way _ or might be insincere when they heap praise on Miers and call her critics unfair. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being "incredibly sexist."

Quiz Hints At Miers' Views On Gay Rights
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave mixed answers on same-sex rights in a questionnaire she filled out from a Texas gay rights group during her successful 1989 run for the Dallas City Council. She told the group she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans. During her campaign for a seat on the Dallas City Council, Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas and interviewed with the group, according to Louise Young, a founding member who kept a copy in the now-defunct organization's archives. In the questionnaire, Miers was asked: "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?" Her response was "Yes," without any elaboration. When asked whether she believed qualified gay men and lesbians should be denied city employment because of their sexual orientation, including jobs as police officers and firefighters, she wrote, "I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors," not saying whether she believed sexual orientation would be relevant.

Dallas Gay Leaders OK Miers Pick
President Bush on Monday nominated Dallas native Harriet Ellan Miers to the United States Supreme Court — turning the eyes of the nation on a 16-year-old document stored in the garage of longtime lesbian leader Louise Young.

Miers’ Gay Survey Responses Raise Questions
“She wrote she supports ‘civil rights’ for gay Americans but that she would not support repealing a law that criminalized consensual sex between same-sex couples. That is a contradiction that the Senate should investigate. Still, in 1989 she supported AIDS funding, and recognized the importance of AIDS to the whole community,” added Solmonese. “There are more questions than answers when it comes to her stance on civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. But what we do know is that right-wing extremists are unhappy with the mere possibility that Miers is fair.”

Pro-Sodomite Arlen Specter Decries Bush 'Pummeling' on Miers
PHILADELPHIA -- Conservatives are giving President Bush an unfair "pummeling" over his selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Tuesday. The nomination has drawn criticism from conservatives who say Miers lacks proven conservative credentials and a judicial background. They want more information on whether she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. "I'm really sorry that on doctrinal grounds they don't understand that she cannot tip her hand on Roe. I really think ... they're failing to understand a very basic constitutional principle of judicial independence," Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with reporters and editors from The Associated Press. "I think the president is taking a tremendous pummeling on it — unfairly. I think the stampede to judgment is not right," he said. Specter said he would like to start the hearings in late October or early November and conclude them before Thanksgiving.

Court Watch

Court Watch

Supreme Court begins its year with Bush visit, historic ceremony
O'Connor could be on the court all term
WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice John Roberts took the Supreme Court bench for the first time Monday, as smiling justices stood and greeted their new leader. Roberts wore a plain black robe, without the gold arm stripes that had been used by his predecessor, William H. Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement starts the day her successor is confirmed, which is expected to take at least two months, if not longer. O'Connor, a 75-year-old moderate and key swing voter, will continue participating in cases. Because rulings take months to prepare, her votes would not count if she retires before they are done. "O'Connor could be on the court all term and end up casting deciding votes," said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University.

Court Refuses To Block Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital. An appeals court had said that the District of Columbia government and individual gun victims, including a man who was left a quadriplegic after being shot in 1997, could sue under a D.C. law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons.

Court Intervention Sought In Library Records Case
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court was asked Monday to let libraries speak out about FBI demands for their records in a case involving the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the emergency appeal, on behalf of an anonymous client, but the paperwork is censored and gives few details.

Some Conservatives Not Assuaged By Bush's Defense of Miers
WASHINGTON -- Some of President Bush's conservative supporters are unconvinced by his defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, creating dissension in a Republican Party that until now has reverently approved Bush's judicial candidates. Conservatives in some cases are expressing outright opposition, some are in wait-and-see mode and some are silent, all bad signs for a Bush administration used to having the full backing of all wings of the GOP when it takes on the Senate's minority Democrats over judicial selection.

Court Hears Case on Suicide Law
The Supreme Court held an intense oral argument yesterday on Oregon's first-in-the-nation law allowing physician-assisted suicide, with the new chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., sounding skeptical about the state's claim that it can make its own rules without federal interference. At issue is a 2001 directive by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft that threatens punishment of any Oregon doctor who prescribes a lethal dose of federally controlled drugs to help a terminally ill patient end his or her own life. Oregon enacted its law permitting such prescriptions in 1997, and the state says it falls within its traditional prerogative to regulate the practice of medicine.

Court rejects appeal of Exxon judgment from
Saudi Arabian oil concern Saudi Basic Industries
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an appeal from a Saudi Arabian oil concern that has been trying to overturn the bulk of a $417 million judgment it was ordered to pay Exxon Mobil Corp. after a joint venture between the two fell apart. The case was appealed to the high court from the Delaware Supreme Court, which had allowed the verdict to stand against Saudi Basic Industries Corp., also known as SABIC. SABIC was found by a Delaware court to have secretly added a profit margin to products it supplied to a petrochemical venture between the two companies. The joint venture between Exxon Mobil and Saudi Basic Industries dates to 1980, when the two companies formed Yanbu Petrochemical Co. and Exxon Chemical Arabia. Legal wrangling between the two oil companies began in 1998 when a dispute over a polyethylene patent led to disclosure of Saudi Basic Industries' profit markups.

Court won't take up California death case
WASHINGTON -- The US Supreme Court refused today to take up the case of California death row inmate "Tookie" Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang whose later work for peace won him a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Williams has been praised for his children's books and efforts to curtail youth gang violence. He claims prosecutors violated his rights when they dismissed all potential black jurors. California attorneys said Williams did not contest the makeup of the jury at trial and that it's too late to do so now.

Court Won't Weigh In On Cheaper Drugs Case
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from a generic drug company over the patent for the antidepressant Zoloft, in a case that sought to speed up development of a cheaper substitute. Justices declined without comment to review a lower court judgment for Pfizer Inc., maker of the popular antidepressant. That decision had been a split one, however, with one judge complaining that brand-name drug manufacturers had tried to delay the release of generic drugs. Generic medicines are usually cheaper than the brand names. At issue in the appeal, filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, was when federal courts can intervene in cases involving proposed generic drugs.

Laura Acting Like a Leftist - Playing the Sexist Card

Laura playing 'Sexist Card' against Republicans

COVINGTON, Louisiana -- First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer made her a role model to young women.

A week after President George W. Bush nominated Miers for a lifetime appointment to the highest U.S. court, he remained on the defensive against conservative critics within his own Republican Party.

They say Bush missed a chance to pick an experienced judge with clear conservative credentials who would firmly move the nine-member court to the right on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and church-state separation.

"Just because she hasn't served on the bench, doesn't mean that she can't be a great Supreme Court judge," said Bush, whose job approval ratings have sagged below 40 percent for the first time ever in recent polls.

Although some conservatives have supported the nomination of Miers to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, others have suggested Bush withdraw it and submit a new name, an appeal the president rejected last week.

Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.

"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.

Miers, 60, a longtime Bush ally and currently White House counsel, would be the third woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. O'Connor was the first and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been there since 1993.

CRITICS SAY CRONYISM

Some conservatives have also accused Bush of cronyism for nominating a White House insider to the court. They have expressed fears that since not much is known about Miers' views, she could end up being a liberal along the lines of David Souter, who was put on the court by the president's father, former President George Bush.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said 38 percent of those surveyed felt less favorably toward Miers because she has not served as a judge.

It said a narrow majority of conservative Republicans, 54 percent, favored her nomination, compared to 76 percent who in September backed the high court nomination of John Roberts.

Bush, who was in Louisiana on his eighth trip to check on the recovery from Hurricane Katrina after coming under criticism for the slow federal response to the disaster, said he knows Miers shares his conservative philosophy.

Miers has spent the last few days in her home town of Dallas gathering her written material in order to have it ready for her Senate confirmation hearings.

The suggestion Bush withdraw the nomination has not been echoed in Washington, where many Senate Republicans, even some who have expressed concerns about Miers, said they expected her to be confirmed by the Republican-led Senate.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101100515.html

Supreme Court Politics - What If Dobson Is Lying?

What If Dobson Is Lying?

What If Dobson Is Lying?
So Karl Rove whispered something sweet in James Dobson's ear and made him a believer in Harriet Miers? It must have been a revelation of biblical proportions. But since Dobson won't tell us what it is, we can only guess. ... [T]o the dismay of almost all of Dobson's allies, a corporate lawyer with no record of conservative views who is endorsed by Dallas gay-rights leaders and defended by Barbara Mikulski has scored a date with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Forgive me if I sound credulous, but I have a hard time believing that nice lady who timidly asked Pat Leahy about Vermont's fall foliage is harboring a dark, theocratic agenda. I therefore have an even harder time believing that Dobson is telling the truth about his conversation with Rove.

White House says Rove called Dobson seeking support
The White House has acknowledged that presidential adviser Karl Rove has been making calls seeking conservative support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, but it denied that Rove gave "backroom assurances” on Miers’ likely votes to secure that support. The issue arose after syndicated radio host James Dobson, founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, said he had spoken in confidence with Rove and that their conversation had persuaded him to support Miers.

Senators press Dobson to talk
What did Rove say about Miers? Judiciary panelists want to know what the Republican talk radio host was told to win his support for Bush's court nominee.
Momentum is building across party lines to pry loose whatever the White House told Focus on the Family's James Dobson about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, even if it means calling Dobson to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Dobson should tell the committee what kind of assurances he received from the White House about President Bush's choice.

Dobson to Clarify Info
Focus on the Family founder will talk on radio about Miers
WASHINGTON -- Focus on the Family founder James Dobson will take to the airwaves Wednesday and Thursday to clarify what information he got from the White House or other sources about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Dobson has faced a barrage of media attention in recent days because he has tentatively endorsed Miers just as other conservatives or evangelical Christian leaders have expressed doubts about her qualifications and concern about the lack of a paper trail outlining her views.

White House targets doubts on Miers nod
The White House yesterday dismissed early doubts from nearly half the Senate's Republicans over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, saying that lawmakers also expressed doubts about Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who was easily confirmed last month as chief justice.

For disappointed conservatives, ‘Souter’ is a four-letter word
There’s a new dirty word in Washington: “Souter.” Actually, it’s an old dirty word, just dusted off for a new round of abuse. The excuse this time is Harriet Miers’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives fear that Miers’s thin public record and uncertain ideology could lead to a repeat of the disappointment they endured 15 years ago, when David Souter was named to the court by the first President Bush.

Harriet Miers' Rush Job To Judgment
Poor Harriet Miers, who has to feel like Ruth Buzzi being called up on stage to juggle bowling pins after Superman has just captured Osama bin Laden, rescued a widow from a burning building and walked on water. Having to follow John Roberts, who makes John Boy Walton look like Lenny Bruce, hardly must make Miers feel all warm and fuzzy as her Senate hearing nears to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Simply Not Good Enough
DENVER -- White House counsel Harriet Miers' nomination to the United States Supreme Court shouldn't be scuttled merely because she has no prior experience as a judge. Some of the nation's best and most famous Justices came to the bench with no judicial background. In almost every case these men -- and they have all been men to this point -- were able to bring to the Court a sense of practicality and real-world perspective that often is notably missing from the world of appellate law.

Torture, War Crimes and Dubya's friend Harriet
Of all the scandals and junkets and leaks and what have you, the one that history will consider the most serious is the authorization of torture and the flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention. As Marty Lederman and Andrew Sullivan (to his credit) have made clear again and again, this administration is guilty of war crimes. And they know it. And one day, when all the facts are finally known (as they inevitably will), the legal reckoning will come. And I suspect that the Supreme Court will ultimately have the final say on a lot of these issues (though if I were Donald Rumsfeld, I wouldn’t go on any educational tours of the Hague anytime soon, or for the rest of his life).

What If Dobson Is Lying?

What If Dobson Is Lying?

Max Blumenthal

So Karl Rove whispered something sweet in James Dobson's ear and made him a believer in Harriet Miers? It must have been a revelation of biblical proportions. But since Dobson won't tell us what it is, we can only guess.

Could Rove have told Dobson that Harriet Miers supports the teaching of intelligent design and the Bible in public schools, as Dobson does? Or could he have offered his assurance that Miers advocates banning gay teachers from public schools, as Dobson does? Perhaps Dobson was informed Miers agrees with him that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is "the most dangerous man in America" and should be impeached, along with all insufficiently right-wing judges, including Sandra Day O'Connor and the entire 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Or maybe Rove told Dobson that Miers shares his belief that gay marriage will lead to "men marrying donkies" and "the destruction of this nation and many others."

If Miers holds to one of the positions, she would not satisfy Dobson. Only by affirming them all would she win his trust. Dobson has spent over 25 years working to transform America into a clerical authoritarian state more informed by biblical law than the Constitution and he will settle for nothing less. The departure of O'Connor, the Supreme Court's swing vote, was to have brought about the climax of his campaign. Bush would nominate a far-right jurist, the Democrats would be defeated in a rancorous confirmation battle, Roe v. Wade would be reversed, and the wall of separation would crumble. Praise the Lord!

But to the dismay of almost all of Dobson's allies, a corporate lawyer with no record of conservative views who is endorsed by Dallas gay-rights leaders and defended by Barbara Mikulski has scored a date with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Forgive me if I sound credulous, but I have a hard time believing that nice lady who timidly asked Pat Leahy about Vermont's fall foliage is harboring a dark, theocratic agenda. I therefore have an even harder time believing that Dobson is telling the truth about his conversation with Rove.

We need to consider the possibility that Rove revealed nothing to Dobson about Miers, and that Dobson is being disingenuous to obscure an even darker secret than anything Rove could have entrusted him with: his real motives for backing a lame horse.

Here are a few theories about Dobson's motives:

After pressuring Bush into declaring support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004, Dobson endorsed him for president. That means Dobson told millions of supporters on the over 3000 radio stations that broadcast his show that Bush would deliver the goods: a ban on abortion, gay marriage, etc. During the presidential campaign, Dobson's newly-formed 501 c-4, Focus on the Family Action, used the threat of Kerry victory as fodder to raise $8.8 million dollars in 5 months. When Bush won, FoF Action made the courts its priority, spending a whopping $1.2 million during last spring's Senate filibuster fight.

Dobson was nearly outdone by protege Tony Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council, a Washington-based think tank Dobson founded. Perkins sent out an unrelenting stream of fundraising pitches in advance of Justice Sunday I (an elaborate rally addressed by Dobson at the height of the filibuster fight) and Justice Sunday II (a rally for the confirmation of John Roberts and a generally more right-wing SCOTUS, which was also addressed by Dobson). In one pitch, Perkins specifically asked supporters for contributions upwards of $1000 dollars "to strike a great blow against judicial activism."

America has stopped bracing for that great blow. Indeed, the "Gang of 14" centrist senators averted a crisis with a compromise that torpedoed a number of Dobson's favorite nominees and provoked one his most memorable on-air hissy fits. John Roberts' nomination was a success, but he's no more conservative than the judge he replaced. And now comes Miers. After soliciting millions from his supporters to finance an apocalyptic battle with liberalism and enticing them with visions of an imminent far-right judiciary, Dobson has very little to show.

By condemning Miers, however, Dobson would be treading into nettlesome territory. Any denunciation would sound like a concession of defeat, thus betraying the confidence Dobson inspired in his donors. It would also damage his cozy relationship with the White House, which he will depend on for the next three years, no matter what happens. So Dobson has taken a cue from Rove and declared victory in the midst of defeat. In supporting Miers, Dobson has essentially donned a flight-suit and declared "Mission Accomplished."

Yet unlike Bush, Dobson might have an exit strategy. Consider how he phrased his endorsement of John Roberts during Justice Sunday II: "It looks like John Roberts is, and we think so, a strict constructionist. For now, at least, he looks good." If, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts had convinced Dobson he was the next David Souter, Dobson would have yanked his endorsement. Though Dobson endorsed Miers in less uncertain terms, if her performance before the Judiciary Committee is a complete embarassment, which it likely will be, Dobson can always change his mind.

There is also the chance that Rove twisted Dobson's arm or even blackmailed him into supporting Miers. Perhaps Rove threatened to leak information to the press about a scandal within Focus on the Family. (Not that he has ever done anything like that before). Dobson is a self-help guru at the helm of a $120 million dollar organization. You think he doesn't have something to hide?

Of course, Dobson could always divulge the secret information about Miers which Rove provided him. That would put all my wild and crazy theories to rest. Until then, we must assume that Dobson has violated the commandment against bearing false witness.

And as Dobson knows, lies make Baby Jesus cry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051010/cm_huffpost/008602;_yl
t=A86.I0Z7n0pDNKcAFg79wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

We Need A Well-Formed Biblical Worldview

We Need A Well-Formed Biblical Worldview

"You can't beat something with nothing"

by Gary North / Cultural Renewal

On September 26, 2005, John Armstrong published a report on the theory of James D. Hunter regarding the nature of cultural change. This caught my attention.

I read Hunter's book, "Evangelicalism," about 15 years ago. He argued that there is not much difference between the cultural opinions of evangelicals and secularists. Given the fact that most evangelicals attend tax-funded high schools and then attend humanism's self-accredited colleges, the congruence of opinion should be no surprise.

The humanists have adopted the cultural strategy of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 1: enroll the best and the brightest of the targeted victims' youth in the Establishment's best schools. The strategy works until the anti-biblical Establishment loses confidence in its first principles. Every anti-biblical Establishment eventually loses confidence. All empires fall (Dan. 2:44-45). So do all anti-biblical Establishments.

THIS THING CALLED CULTURE

Armstrong begins with a discovery.

I have been thinking a lot about culture lately. There are several reasons for my ruminations. First, I have come to realize that you cannot dichotomize Christian faith into private and public spheres. There is only one reality. Creation is whole. Life cannot be lived as if facts and values do not intersect directly at every crucial point. And Christians have been given a public mandate to change the world, not just to make private disciples of Jesus who revere him in their hearts and study their Bibles (Genesis 1:26-27).

This is a good first step. He is now where Abraham Kuyper was in 1880. I hope he keeps moving forward.

The question for present-day American Christians is simple really: "How come, if there are so many Bible-believing Christians in our culture, we are unable to stop the obvious slide of our modern society into secularism?" The question is obvious to all who observe the present situation carefully.

Well, no, this isn't obvious to the vast majority of observers, humanists or Christians. This is same the question R. J. Rushdoony raised about 40 years ago. He provided an answer: Christians have adopted the same cultural and philosophical premises that humanists profess, because Christians really do believe in the separation of Christian faith and culture.

The question is: Why? Rushdoony offered an answer. It is because of natural law theory: a two-truths system of ethical and philosophical analysis, one truth for Christian faith, narrowly defined, and the other for the big, broad world around us. Christians have moved into the suburbs of Athens by calling this downtown Jerusalem.

He began hammering away at this theme in his chapter, "Behold, It Was Leah," in his first book, "By What Standard?" (1959), an analysis of Cornelius Van Til's philosophy, which is the most consistent anti-natural law philosophy in Christian history. He carried this theme into his little book, "Intellectual Schizophrenia" (1961), a critique of Christian educational theory and the tax-funded public schools.

The problem, in short, is a debate over the nature of the Christian world-and-life view. Humanists have persuaded Christians of the truth of a self-professed, theologically neutral worldview for culture.

Armstrong continues:

But the simple fact is that our culture keeps moving like a rising tide in the opposite direction of increased Christian awareness and activity. Why? And what can we do about this, besides cursing the darkness?

What we can do about it, Rushdoony concluded, is to re-think every area of life in terms of biblical presuppositions. Then we must reconstruct every institution in terms of what we discover. This led him to a reconsideration of biblical law, which had been abandoned by the Puritans' spiritual heirs by 1700, and had never been taken seriously by non-Puritans. The result was "The Institutes of Biblical Law."

ENTER HUNTER

James Davison Hunter, a well-known Christian sociologist at the University of Virginia, has been studying these very questions for nearly twenty-five years. He notes that less than 14% of Americans call themselves "secular." Yet the cultural centers of business, law, government, and academic and entertainment institutions are all "intensely secular," says Hunter.

Rushdoony made the same observation long before Hunter began studying the question. But when he turned to biblical law as the non-natural law alternative, he was not followed by others who saw the same problem but resisted Rushdoony's solution. Francis Schaeffer was the most obvious example. He never did get around to answering his own question: "How should we then live?" It was a great book title, but the book offered no solution.

Armstrong again:

The general view as to why we have not made a difference is twofold. One idea is that we are not deeply spiritual enough. The second response suggests that we do not have a well-formed biblical worldview in the church or in our leaders. Hunter suggests these responses are inadequate because they come out of an "insufficient understanding of culture" itself. If he's right this, to my mind, is a very important insight.

It is quite important -- and dead wrong. The second response is correct: we do not have a well-formed biblical worldview in the church or in our leaders.

Armstrong invokes Genesis 1:26-28: the cultural mandate, as the Dutch call it, or the dominion covenant, as I call it.

Historically the Christian tradition has believed that this creation mandate, so-called, includes spheres within society like art, music, literature, commerce, law, science and scholarship. No institution, no relationship, no community and no family is left out of the divine mandate. To ignore or refuse this original command appears to be a form of treason.

I like the use of "treason." This is exactly what it is. The problem is, we cannot successfully reform culture with empty adjectives, e.g., "healthy."

Christians should nurture and support healthy culture. Healthy cultures nourish life. Decadent cultures destroy life. The church has never been healthy when it withdrew form the world around it. Historically, we have been the salt and light that preserved life and community. Now we seem to stand by, in protest for sure, while the culture drifts into deeper and deeper secularism.

The divisive issue is the nature of content: judicial-political, aesthetic, and social-institutional. Adjectives are not substitutes for "thus saith the Lord."

He says that Hunter says that there are three Christian models for influencing culture: evangelism, politics, and social reform. But nothing has worked.

The simple fact is clear. Over the past two centuries, despite a strongly Christian majority culture joined with spiritual, political and social efforts of great impact, the culture has become increasingly secular. One could say that what finally changed in the 1960s was that the culture became militantly secular.

http://shurl.org/hunterculture1

To which Rushdoony would have said: "No kidding!" Take Enlightenment thought, structure every institution in terms of it, and presto: instant secularism.

Rushdoony took the process back a century before Rousseau. He fully understood the implications of what Louis Bredvold described in his book, "Brave New World of the Enlightenment" (1961): add Hobbes' mechanistic worldview (neutral numbers) to his view of the State, and you get Enlightenment political theory.

Armstrong promised to continue his discussion of Hunter's observations in the following issue. He did. But for some reason, the follow-up article has not been posted in the archives section of his website. The October 10 issue is there, but not the October 3 issue. He sent it by email, and I quote from it.

TOP-DOWN RE-CAPTURE

James Davison Hunter believes the standard model for explaining what happened to our culture, and why Christians do not influence it powerfully any longer, is centered in what he terms the "hearts and minds" model. This model is built on the simple idea that values determine choices.

I don't know any Christian scholar who holds this model in a pure form. Some of them are conspiracy theorists who trace everything that happens to a single elite. Others believe the economists: self-interest has determined choices for most people. Yes, most Christian social analysts admit, ideas have consequences . . . at some price. To this, add the quest for power and the quest for sexual license. Money, sex, and power are the unholy trinity of decision-making in most theories of social change. Jesus warned against all three.

The question remains: What determines the progress of culture? Most of those who believe that ideas have consequences -- from Plato to Chuck Colson -- argue that, in the final analysis, ideas have more consequences than anything else.

Let us put it a different way. A society's covenantal oaths are primary, not money, sex, or power. This was Rushdoony's view. It was Kuyper's view, too. It was also Elijah's on Mt. Carmel.

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. (1 Kings 18:21).

The people were hedging their bets, as most people do most of the time.

Hunter, according to Armstrong, says that this hearts and minds view of culture doesn't work.

He suggests the missing component is this -- culture is made up of institutions and of elite interests. These institutions embody ideas and don't decide what to do based upon numbers of adherents or pressure. In Hunter's model these elite culture shapers "count status" more than anything else. They believe status is the real "cultural capital."

Hunter illustrates this point quite well. Hollywood has known for years that G-rated movies will make money. There is no debate about this fact. But the industry still makes far more R-rated movies, and willingly loses a bundle of money in the process. Why? Because, Hunter suggests, there is "cultural status" in the elite promoting violence and pornography. The worldview of the public means nothing to these gatekeepers!

This was a point made well over a decade ago by Michael Medved in "Hollywood vs. America." It is true that Hollywood thinks this way. It is also true that Hollywood has been unable to increase the number of theater visits per person per year since 1965 -- and 1965 was a faint shadow of 1945. Hollywood is steadily losing influence.

As technology has allowed greater diversification of culture, alternatives have steadily replaced Hollywood, the TV networks, and all other mass-market forms of entertainment. What used to be called broadcasting is now becoming narrowcasting. The common secular culture is losing market share. It is fragmenting, as humanist culture invariably does.

The fact is, the creativity of every God-hating culture is limited. A humanist culture can become creative briefly, as it did in Greece in 400 B.C. and in Rome for two centuries, and during the Renaissance. But then it fades. It develops in terms of its presuppositions, and its presuppositions are rotten.

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death (Prov. 8:36).

This is why the elitist model is wrong. It is the model favored by Satan: a top-down model. If you claim omnipotence but you are a creature, you need the division of labor. You must decentralize. But your subordinates are as rebellious as you are. You attempt to control things by the exercise of power, but loose ends get away from you.

The people are responsible for culture, for they make the market for culture. Money talks. In Leviticus 4, we see this principle laid out judicially. The people were required to bring sacrifices for the sins of princes and priests. Responsibility is both top-down and bottom-up, because there is a hierarchy in every covenant. But the primary responsibility lodges at the bottom, where corporate confession is made. "I was just following orders" does not hold up in a biblical court.

Jonah went to the people of Nineveh before he went to the king.

Jesus went to the people of Israel before He went to Herod and Pilate. Even then, He was dragged into the presence of these rulers. He said nothing to Herod and not much to Pilate.

Armstrong says:

You could take the ostrich approach and say, "Let them produce what they will. We will boycott and urge people to stay home." But that doesn't work long term at all. It tends to make inquiring young people want to know "why some say no."

The ostrich approach is that of fundamentalism. The tradition of Western Christianity in the broadest sense was always to produce a better culture. It rested on this basic principle, which I guess is my defining slogan: "You can't beat something with nothing."

MACHEN'S CULTURAL AGENDA

J. Gresham Machen spelled out the three positions in his 1912 address to the incoming students at Princeton Seminary. He labeled them the subordinationist view (liberalism), the desctructivist view (pietism-fundamentalism), and the consecration view (Reformed Christianity). He ended his speech with this call to cultural commitment.

You can avoid the debate if you choose. You need only drift with the current. Preach every Sunday during your Seminary course, devote the far ends of your time to study and to thought, study about as you studied in college--and these questions will probably never trouble you. The great questions may easily be avoided. Many preachers are avoiding them. And many preachers are preaching to the air. The Church is waiting for men of another type. Men to fight her battles and solve her problems. The hope of finding them is the one great inspiration of a Seminary's life. They need not all be men of conspicuous attainments. But they must all be men of thought. They must fight hard against spiritual and intellectual indolence. Their thinking may be confined to narrow limits. But it must be their own. To them theology must be something more than a task. It must be a matter of inquiry. It must lead not to successful memorizing, but to genuine convictions.

The Church is puzzled by the world's indifference. She is trying to overcome it by adapting her message to the fashions of the day. But if, instead, before the conflict, she would descend into the secret place of meditation, if by the clear light of the gospel she would seek an answer not merely to the question of the hour but, first of all, to the eternal problems of the spiritual world, then perhaps, by God's grace, through His good Spirit, in His good time, she might issue forth once more with power, and an age of doubt might be followed by the dawn of an era of faith.

http://shurl.org/machenculture

I can think of no better document to hand to a seminarian in his first class. Frankly, I would require every candidate to write a 15-page paper on it as part of his application requirements.

In contrast, is Hunter's prescription, according to Armstrong.

James Davison Hunter suggests that to change the world you finally have "to take power seriously." This, ultimately requires you to "take seriously raising leaders, building networks and taking over institutions." Hunter suggests that we who want to change culture should seek to become the elite, without succumbing to unbiblical elitism.

Rushdoony dismissed this strategy with a terse phrase: "Let the dead bury the dead."

Humanism is dead, but the triune God lives and rules, sovereign over all. There must be reconstruction, godly reconstruction. Let the dead bury the dead. The living have work to do. All things shall be made new; new schools, new social orders, new institutions, renewed family life, in every area the principle of godly reconstruction must be applied. ("Chalcedon Report" #56, April, 1970).

In short, he proposed the creation of alternative institutions, governed by a rival confession of faith.

From the day that the he wrote "Intellectual Schizophrenia," he made his position clear. Do not try to re-capture the public schools; abandon them. Create alternative schools. This applies to every institution. He recognized that all that the Christians have to do is to cut off tax funding and eliminate government regulation of the economy. The entire humanist system would then come tumbling down, like the walls of Jericho. It rests on stolen money.

The problem is, Christians believe in tax-funding. This was Kuyper's blind spot. He was elected Prime Minister of the Netherlands by promising Christians that their schools would get in on the tax booty. The Netherlands went downhill from the day he fulfilled his promise.

We can't beat something with nothing. Technology today is on our side: decentralizing. Free market technology is lowering the cost of individual creativity. Meanwhile, let the dead bury the dead.


Sincerely,

Gary North


___________

This newsletter is available by double request only, i.e., double opt-in. Send an e-mail to ice@kbot.com. You will immediately be sent a letter: "Subscription Confirmation -- Take Action!" Click the embedded confirmation link to confirm your subscription. Only then are you added to this mailing list. There is no other way to subscribe.

Second, to change your e-mail address, click the UNSUBSCRIBE link. Then send in a new subscription request: ice@kbot.com. Out with the old; in with the new!

Third, visit http://www.freebooks.com, where you can download 90+ free books.

Fourth, Download my economic commentaries on the Bible. They are here: www.garynorth.com Department: "Capitalism and the Bible"

Fifth, send a donation to Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 991 Chicago Ave., Harrisonburg, VA. 22802

Pro-Abort Students Protest Pro-Life Church

Pro-Aborts Protest Church

Sunday, the protesters were protested. For three hours, a group organized by West High School students demonstrated outside Wichita's Spirit One Christian Center. The students were expressing their displeasure about the abortion protest the church supported earlier this week at the high school.

Church members responded Sunday with a counter-demonstration. In all, about 300 people were involved, though it was difficult to tell how many were on each side.

The demonstration was sparked by a graphic picture of an aborted fetus that appeared at the abortion protests at West High School and Wichita State University last week.

The West High students were joined by students from North, Northeast and Southeast high schools and Wichita State. There also were supporters from the Peace and Social Justice Center and others.

The event remained peaceful, though emotions ran high on both sides.

Many of the student protesters said they, too, were against abortion but were more against using graphic pictures at schools. During the demonstrations this week at area schools, a large poster of an aborted fetus, which Operation Save America has named Malachi, was on display.


http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/
12862028.htm?source=rss&channel=kansas_breaking_news

Supreme Court Politics - The conformation process of Harriet Miers

Harriet Unleashed a Storm

This Is What 'Advice and Consent' Means
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country. Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture.

The Winning Card
It appears that conservatives' long simmering distrust of moderate chief of staff Andrew Card has been confirmed with the nomination of Harriet Miers. Sources inside the White House say Card in several meetings literally shouted down opposition to Miers during the vetting process. "Harriet was his pick all the way up 'til the President jumped on board wholeheartedly," says a White House staffer. "This was not a Rove pick or Laura Bush pick. It was Card's pick."

Miers nomination garners limited GOP support
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers picked up some Republican support on Wednesday, as the Republican Party continued to fracture over whether President Bush's White House counsel will make a suitable addition to the nation's highest court. "President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench," said David N. O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, a non-profit front organization for the Republican Party. "We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."

How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right
Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how. The president's surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president's brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war. The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?

Harriet gave to Hillary in 2000
On Feb. 20, 1999, while Harriet Miers was managing the law firm of Locke Liddell from the firm's Dallas office, she contributed $415 to the law firm's political action committee. Federal Election Commission reports show that on May 19, 2000, Locke Liddell's PAC contributed $1,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate Campaign Committee. For an unexplained reason, Harriet Miers listed herself as a "self-employed attorney," according to the FEC Report on her 1999 contribution to the Locke Liddell PAC. FEC records also show a $500 contribution on Feb. 15, 2000 by the Locke Liddell PAC to Democrat Nicholas Lampson, who ran unsuccessfully against Tom DeLay. No Locke Liddell contributions to Congressman DeLay appear in the FEC records.

Bush takes on conservatives over Miers
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush, facing conservative criticism over his choice of top aide Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, defended her on Saturday, calling her a trailblazer with a record of accomplishments. Bush said that as White House counsel, Miers has grappled with complex constitutional issues and as a private lawyer she gained broad experience in commercial, criminal and civil law.

The National Stem Cell Bank Will Be Located In Wisconsin

The National Stem Cell Bank

Wisconsin will gain a more prominent role in stem cell research thanks to the arrival of the nation's first and only federally funded stem cell bank, Gov. Jim Doyle announced Monday.

While the federal government also sponsors stem cell research labs in Georgia and California, the new bank will be the first in the nation to consolidate embryonic stem cell lines from around the world, according to a WiCell Research Institute press release, which is in charge of establishing the stem cell bank.

While the University of Wisconsin-Madison will be involved in the project, along with other out-of-state colleges and universities, Marquette will not.

The National Stem Cell Bank, which was established by the National Institutes of Health, will catalog and distribute human embryotic cells that have been approved for federal funding. In addition, the ban will deal with the portions of the human embryo that are capable of developing human tissues, according to the institute.

The bank will also provide a uniform storing area for all stem cell lines, and it should provide researchers with a faster, cheaper resource for conducting stem cell studies, according to the institute.

The bank "serves a number of purposes," said Andy Cohn, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. The foundation oversees the WiCell Research Institute. "It reduces cost to scientists from $5,000 to $500 for stem cell lines and will ensure that all cells are quality control tested."

Recently, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill to ban human cloning in the state, but the governor is expected to veto the bill.

"Everyone is against human cloning, but the real purpose of this bill is to restrict stem cell research," Doyle said in a statement released in regards to the vote. "Allowing our scientists to search for the world's deadliest diseases isn't about being liberal or conservative, it's about being compassionate."

The stem cell bank will be managed primarily by the WiCell Research Institute, a non-profit division of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Of the 21 federally approved lines, WiCell currently operates five, according to the press release. In addition to the lines from the other states, WiCell will also be operating internationally.

Cohn attributed the federal government's decision to select WiCell to "the fact that we have the pre-eminent scientists in the world working at WiCell and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." According to WiCell's Web site, scientific studies performed at the stem cell bank will cover a four-year period. During that time, the organization will receive $16 million in funding from the NIH.

In addition to the National Bank, the NIH will be establishing two new Centers of Excellence in Stem Cell Research at Northwestern University and the University of California. The NIH will spend more than $9 million on these two new facilities, according to WiCell.

The involvement of WiCell means that the University of Wisconsin-Madison will be one of the driving forces behind the project. Marquette, on the other hand, was not at all part of the federal government's plans.

According to Cohn, there will not be any outside help from other universities in Wisconsin. Instead, the majority of the research effort will be carried out by the University of Wisconsin, WiCell and a select few private businesses.

According to Madeline Wake, university provost, "Marquette was never contacted by UW-Madison."

She cited the fact that none of the Marquette researchers employ human embryonic stem cells in research and the university's deep Catholic affiliation as reasons why the university may not have been considered for the project.


http://www.marquettetribun
e.org/306183589434965.bsp

Roman Catholic Church Denies Bible Literacy and Legitimacy

Catholics say The Holy Bible lies

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a
rticle/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Harriet Miers Backed Sodomite Rights

Miers Backed Sodomite Rights

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas city council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute — a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed — in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

The survey by the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas provides a hint of Miers' thinking on homosexual rights issues that could come before the court. Although she came to a coalition meeting to answer questions during the campaign, she said at the time that she was not seeking its endorsement.

The Supreme Court struck down the prohibition on consensual homosexual sex in 2003 on a 6-3 vote. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Miers is nominated to replace, voted with the majority.

Louise Young, a founding member of the coalition, which later merged with another group, remembered when Miers came to the organization's screening of council candidates.

"We weren't really pleased with her responses, although they weren't all bad," Young said. "I just wondered why she was here, because she didn't seem to be the typical officeholder who was supportive of our equal rights."

Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

She was noncommittal on several other questions, saying, for example, that she would be willing to discuss the need for a law prohibiting discrimination in housing or public accommodations against people who had AIDS or were HIV-positive.

Asked whether qualified candidates should be denied city employment because they are gay or lesbian, she said, "I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors."

She answered "No" without elaboration when asked whether she believed, both as a citizen and a legislator, that criminalization of the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gays should be taken out of the Texas criminal code.

She said Dallas had a responsibility in AIDS education and treatment and that she favored more money being spent in that area "assuming need and resources. I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious total community problem." She underlined "total."

"Usually, if you bothered to come, you wanted our endorsement," Young said. "She came to talk to us anyway. I thought that was very odd." Young added, "She didn't seem like a right-wing nut or anything like that."

Miers checked off a box on the survey saying she was not seeing the group's endorsement. Young said she did not recall Miers taking anti-gay or pro-gay positions during her 1989-91 term.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap
_on_re_us/miers_gay_rights_1&printer=1

A Fundraiser the Clintons Will Never Forget

A Night They'll Never Forget

The strange saga of the gala brings new meaning to one of the more memorable slogans from the Clinton administration: Don't ask, don't tell.

House Of Cards
What do Cher, a Hollywood con man, a political rising star and an audacious felon have in common? Together they gave Bill and Hillary Clinton a night they'll never forget -- no matter how hard they may try

The Washington Post

The caller lied easily. He'd had practice. It was Raymond Reggie, a New Orleans businessman and Democratic activist who happened to be Sen. Edward Kennedy's brother-in-law. He also happened to be in a lot of trouble.

Reggie was calling for David Rosen, a Chicago-based political fundraiser. When Rosen's receptionist asked his name, Reggie responded, "Tell him it's his only friend in the whole wide world from Mardi Gras Town, U.S.A."

Reggie wasn't David Rosen's friend. Rosen just didn't know that yet.

This was August 29, 2002. Reggie was telephoning at the request of the FBI, to which he was beholden because of a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt at bank fraud. The bureau had Reggie on a hook and was using him as bait to try to prompt Rosen, a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, to implicate himself in a violation of federal election law. Rosen had no idea the FBI was secretly recording the call when he came on the line and heard his purported pal joke about the piped-in radio programming he'd endured on hold.

"Have you contemplated possibly just putting some jazz on?" Reggie teased.

"Yeah," Rosen said. "But I won't do it. I'm a stubborn NPR guy."

Rosen, then 35, was stubborn in a sunny, likeable Midwestern way. He had a stubborn faith in his ability to succeed through hard work, stubborn loyalty to his friends and a stubborn certainty that electing Democrats was good for the country. The boyish-looking Rosen once sold books door to door, a tough line of work in which only the resilient thrive. The experience left Rosen a valuable political property: a man unembarrassed to smile and ask anyone anywhere to write a check. Rosen had been national finance director of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, at the time the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in history. In all, he'd helped raise roughly $100 million for Democratic candidates from the ward to the White House. He had every reason to expect fellow Democrats like Reggie might be grateful.

Instead, a deceptively jocular Reggie steered their phone conversation in a direction that his FBI handlers hoped would lead to damaging confessions: toward a mutual acquaintance named Aaron Tonken. An operatically manic Hollywood charity fundraiser, Tonken was so high-strung that Rosen liked to joke the guy was tri-polar. Tonken had facial tics as pronounced as his chutzpah. From nothing but gall and patter, Tonken had crafted an image of himself as the ultimate celebrity wrangler, able to deliver performers from Red Buttons to Natalie Cole to lend glitz to fundraising events. Tonken had been the force behind the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton -- a star-studded August 2000 benefit for Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign.

It was Tonken who had arranged for an Internet entrepreneur named Peter Paul to co-host the gala. But Paul turned out to be a convicted felon. Not long after the gala, the media company Paul co-founded collapsed amid allegations of securities fraud. Paul hopped a plane to Brazil without so much as a presidential pardon in his suitcase. Sore, he sued the Clintons -- and Rosen, too -- alleging he'd spent nearly $2 million producing the gala -- five times more than campaign officials told the Federal Election Commission that the gala cost in donated goods and services. The reason Paul gave in his lawsuit for his generosity was even more startling: He wanted to buy access and influence and to entice the president to work for his company after leaving office. The Clintons, through their lawyer, denied any wrongdoing and fought unsuccessfully to extricate themselves from Paul's civil suit.

The plot and characters surrounding the Hollywood gala sounded like a darkly comic movie, a send-up of greed and corruption. Except that Paul's allegations of failed influence peddling had inspired real, live G-men to start investigating who had paid for the gala, how much and why. Now those FBI agents had made Kennedy's brother-in-law a bit player in the unfolding drama.

Reggie's faux-friend performance on the phone didn't yield incriminating statements. Rosen told Reggie he had no idea that Tonken had run up gala costs by catering to stars' demands for expensive perks in exchange for "donating" their performances at the gala. "We would have had to report that" to the FEC as a campaign contribution, Rosen said as the FBI recorder spun.

"I mean, I knew he was doing shady [expletive], like saying to Cher, 'Cher, the president just called me and he needs you to perform "If You Could Turn Back Time" in between Diana Ross and before the . . . .' Then he'd call Diana Ross: 'The president just called me, and we need you to go before Cher's "If You Could Turn Back Time."' And he'd mention, like, specific songs that the president was requesting. That's how he got a lot of them . . . It turned out to be some shady [expletive]. But who knew?"

"Who knew?" turned out to be a $1.176 million question. Federal law enforcement officials eventually confirmed that the gala, night of a thousand egos -- when Cher sang "If I Could Turn Back Time," the president cried for the cameras and con artists hobnobbed with the most powerful couple in the world -- cost somebody at least $1.176 million to produce. Yet Hillary Clinton's joint fundraising committee eventually reported that the gala cost just $401,419 in donated goods and services.

Who knew? Did the Clintons know that all that love Hollywood-style had come with such a big price tag? In the end, the only person prosecutors charged with causing false federal election reports to be filed was down the organizational chart: Rosen. An L.A. jury recently found him not guilty.

Maybe the FBI targeted and taped the wrong guy. Or maybe the real culprit was a political fundraising system with one essential truth: In the scramble to fund a major campaign, politicians don't want to scrutinize each check-writing hand for dirty fingernails. The strange saga of the gala brings new meaning to one of the more memorable slogans from the Clinton administration: Don't ask, don't tell.

"It ought to give chills to the average American," Paul says.

Aaron Tonken, a doctor's son from Alpena, Mich., rode into Hollywood in 1992 in a battered Buick wagon. He was 26 and had been hawking Indian jewelry in Arizona. He was, by his own account, a high school dropout with $750 in his pocket, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and those tics, which made his eyes scrunch and his head jerk unpredictably. "I wanted to be famous," he recalled in an interview.

Tonken wasn't a looker, but he sure could talk. At 15, his fame obsession prompted him to lift Jackie O's private phone number from a friend and cold-call her just to chat with a celebrity. "She was surprised, but very gracious," Tonken recalled in his 2004 memoir, The King of Cons. "I did most of the talking."

Once in Hollywood, Tonken claims, he talked his way into a job picking up after Zsa Zsa Gabor and her two dogs. Tonken hated those messy pooches. He didn't like Zsa Zsa much more. Tonken says he sold unflattering stories about the aging star to a tabloid. When she went on vacation, his story goes, he cut a deal with a local tour company. For a total of $3,300, he let busloads of tourists into Gabor's Bel Air estate. "It was a sight: star-struck tourists wandering through the dilapidated mansion, expressions of awe mixed with pity, stepping over dog turds and swatting fleas," Tonken wrote. "They got their money's worth."

Fleeing the wrath of Zsa Zsa, Tonken needed a new home and job fast. He moved into a homeless shelter, where he received one meal a day and free therapy. He spent much of his time schmoozing poolside at the Four Seasons hotel, where networking prospects were much better than at the shelter, he said.

In 1993, a tabloid reporter introduced Tonken to Peter Paul, a former Miami lawyer who was managing celebrities and org-anizing fundraisers. Paul had what Tonken craved: a head full of celebrities' phone numbers. And Tonken had a relentless manipulativeness Paul found promising. "I gave him a telephone and a Rolodex, and the rest is history," Paul recalled in an interview.

Paul said he watched in amazement as his new protege curried favor with a family of New Mexican billionaires by lining up celebrities to appear at the daughter's wedding. Charlton Heston -- who didn't know the bride or her parents -- agreed to read Bible verses during the ceremony; the band Kiss played for the reception, Paul said. "When I saw that, I said, this kid has talent."

Soon, Tonken recalled, he was calling up celebrities and inviting them to be his guest at expensive restaurants he couldn't afford. Restaurant owners let him run a tab in exchange for his bringing in celebrities, which was good for business. Once one freeloading celebrity agreed to be his guest for dinner, Tonken simply dropped that name to rope in the next prospect, and his guest list grew.

"In a land of moral imbeciles, I knew I could be king," Tonken wrote in his memoir.

While still living in the homeless shelter, Tonken began organizing charity fundraising events. Tonken figured that a lot of wealthy people wrote checks to charity only if it enabled them to rub shoulders with stars; a lot of stars showed up to rub shoulders only if paid off with cash and gifts. Paying off stars meant less money went to the charities, but Tonken says nobody seemed to care, least of all Tonken. "I realized early on that stars are for sale," he wrote. "You could buy them with a watch. And I would . . . I call it taking from the needy to feed the greedy."

Soon Tonken was passing out so much bling to lure celebrities to his events that he ran up astronomical tabs at luxury retailers. He owed $1 million at Cartier alone, he claimed. "It was like I was on crack," Tonken said. "The spending was an addiction, just like any other, and I couldn't break the habit because the alternative was far more horrifying to me: losing my relationships with the stars."

By the late 1990s, Tonken was shifting money desperately from one charity account to another, and when he couldn't cover, borrowing from friends and loan sharks, he said. "I would take receipts from one event, pass them through a bogus account, and then use the money to meet obligations from a previous event," Tonken wrote. "That was not only illegal, it was crazy." Tonken described his life as one "very shaky house of cards." So, naturally, he decided to stack the cards higher. He got into politics.

While lunching with Natalie Cole in New York City in 1998, Tonken and the singer landed an invitation to a cocktail party at the Fifth Avenue penthouse of Denise Rich, a wealthy pal of the Clintons. Rich later figured prominently in the scandal over the last-minute pardon President Bill Clinton granted to her ex-husband, felonious financier Marc Rich. Soon Tonken was invited back to Rich's for an exclusive Democratic National Committee fundraising luncheon with the Clintons. To get in, Tonken said, he wrote a check for a $50,000 donation. Tonken didn't have the cash, so he stopped the check right after lunch, he said. A Democratic fundraiser phoned a few times to collect, then gave up, Tonken said.

Apparently, being a deadbeat didn't hurt Tonken's political prospects. Before long, Tonken was helping Rich and others throw Democratic fundraising events. He was on a first-name basis with then-DNC Chairman Ed Rendell, who once penned a note saying, "Aaron . . . You're the best!"

Turned out, Tonken decided, Washington worked a lot like Hollywood: Figure out what people want, and score it for them, and they won't ask too many questions.

Standing in the dining nook of his Chicago home, David Rosen tossed a pair of presidential cufflinks in the air and grinned.

"Chum," he said, using the fishermen's term for little pieces of bait thrown in the water to attract bigger fish. "In the fundraising world we call this chum. These presidential cufflinks cost a few dollars to make, and I've seen billionaires do back flips for them."

Even the most ideologically driven donors love chum, Rosen says -- presidential pens, commemorative paperweights, 8-by-10 glossies of them grinning next to a politician, any little souvenir of their proximity to power. And Rosen, a natural salesman who projects wholesomeness and cheerful intensity, likes to see his customers satisfied.

He grew up in Chicago's answer to the "Edelweiss"-singing Von Trapp family from "The Sound of Music." Rosen's mom, a former nun who married a Jewish pediatrician, led David and his three sisters in a singing group called the Rosebuds. The Rosebuds performed gratis at nursing homes, churches, synagogues and schools -- any place Mom thought the Rosebuds might brighten someone's day. Being a Rosebud didn't always brighten Rosen's day. Kids at school teased him, and neighborhood toughs beat him up for being Jewish.

But Rosen was resilient. At 16, he took a summer job as a counselor at a Wisconsin resort. He was so upbeat, so good at encouraging families to partake of resort activities, that the owner offered him a full-time job. Rosen dropped out of high school and began supporting himself. He got his GED and stayed at the resort a year and a half.

Rosen was an undergraduate at the University of South Florida -- paying his way by delivering pizzas -- when he spotted a posting that changed his life. Southwestern Co., a direct sales company in Tennessee, was looking for students to sell educational books door to door. The company has long been a training ground for politicians, including several governors and former independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Southwestern teaches disciplined personal habits -- rise early, dress neatly, work long hours, and never quit, no matter how much you feel like quitting -- along with practical sales techniques.

"We used to tape a $5 bill to the showerhead in our headquarters," Rosen recalls. "The alarm would go off. You leap out of bed. There would be three guys living together, and we would literally fight and tackle and run and cut each other off. You get to the shower, you are bleeding. But you get there first and get that $5 bill. It wasn't about the $5. It was about waking up in the morning getting ready to go."

In 1985, Rosen broke the company record for rookie sales. He left the university and stayed at Southwestern for a decade. By the time he left the company, Rosen said, he was making sales at one out of every 1.2 homes he visited.

He moved back to Chicago after his father suffered a heart attack -- and began to study political science at DePaul University. A professor arranged for him to volunteer with the Clinton-Gore campaign beginning in 1995. He turned out to be as good at asking for political donations as he was at selling books and quickly rose in Democratic fundraising circles. In 1999, Rosen, then 32, was tapped to be national fundraising director for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.

It was a job Rosen wouldn't have gotten, and couldn't have survived, if he hadn't spent a decade selling books, he said.

"Books for me are such a metaphor for the hard path, the romantic job, the adventure," Rosen said. Spending 13 hours a day knocking on strangers' doors, risking failure in order to succeed, is a "lonely place at first," Rosen said. "Then it becomes a place you are comfortable. It instills great confidence . . .

"Someone once told me that they test tires on automobiles by driving them around the track at different speeds," Rosen said. "At 30 miles per hour, some flaws pop out. At 50 miles an hour, more flaws pop out. And at 120 miles an hour, most of the flaws really pop out. Over my 10 summers selling books, I was going 120 miles an hour. I was able to work out a lot of my flaws. I learned about my strengths."

He would need them. Rosen was about to travel warp speed down an unfamiliar road in a borrowed Porsche.

Peter Paul's life had spooled out like a B-movie, complete with the usual cliches: double crosses and death threats. So he was a natural to land in Hollywood. How he came within a Tinseltown air kiss of the leader of the free world is a little harder to fathom.

Paul began his career relatively conventionally as an international lawyer. But conventionality bored him. Paul had big ideas -- he once spearheaded efforts to build a world trade center in Miami -- and an entrepreneur's drive to turn schemes into empires.

In the late 1970s, Paul was convicted both of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiring to defraud the Cuban government of $8.75 million in a bogus coffee sale, court records show. Paul and his co-conspirators tricked the Cuban government into buying 3,000 metric tons of coffee beans from them, even though the conspirators didn't have the beans. They bought a freighter, allegedly to ship the beans, all the while planning to sink it -- holds empty -- and claim that the beans were lost at sea.

In an article in the Miami Herald at the time, Paul suggested that he defrauded Fidel Castro to entertain himself with "a surrealistic experience, something a little grandiose, on an international scale, which would be a very large practical joke . . ."

Paul pleaded guilty, but tried to convince the judge in the case that he suffered from "hypomania," and couldn't get proper psychiatric care behind bars. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for the cocaine charge, and three concurrent years for the coffee scam. He served 40 months.

In 1983, Paul violated parole by traveling to Canada under a false identity and ended up pleading guilty in federal court to making false statements to customs inspectors. Paul went to prison in California. When paroled, he stayed in California. The resourceful Paul reinvented himself as a civic leader and charitable fundraiser, helping run California's celebration of the U.S. Constitution's bicentennial. He was also a Hollywood manager, counting among his clients romance-novel cover boy Fabio and actor Tony Curtis.

But prosecutors would later allege that for all his powers of self-reinvention, Paul hadn't changed much.

In 1998, Paul co-founded Stan Lee Media, a Hollywood-based Internet animation studio. The company was named for Paul's business partner, Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk.

Almost from the start, prosecutors alleged, Paul and a few co-conspirators manipulated the market for the stock of Stan Lee Media: They artificially inflated the stock to a peak value of $350 million, creating a false appearance of demand by making transactions through and between accounts that Paul controlled but maintained in the names of others. Paul and his co-conspirators misused the brokerage account to borrow more than $4 million from Merrill Lynch, money prosecutors say they used to buy real estate, travel and make political contributions. Stan Lee was never implicated in the scheme.

Meanwhile, Paul had teamed up with his old pal Tonken, the celebrity-besotted charity gala impresario, to help promote Stan Lee Media. The felon and the deadbeat set their political sights high -- to become pals with the president and first lady -- and they succeeded.

It was easy, they said. All it took was money.

Tonken was invited to attend a small dinner with President Bill Clinton and the first lady in February 2000 in Los Angeles, he wrote in his memoir. The price of admission: a donation of $30,000 to $55,000 if he wanted to sit next to the president, Tonken said.

Tonken had Paul write a check for $30,000. Tonken brought Olivia Newton-John along to sing at the dinner. From that moment on, "I was treated like gold . . . or maybe fresh meat," Tonken recalled.

In an interview, Paul also recalled that dinner as a turning point. He brought a video camera, hoping to memorialize a private chat with the president. Before Paul had his footage, Clinton tried to leave, escorted by Secret Service agents. But Tonken boldly blocked their exit, and cajoled the president to go back and talk to Paul, Paul recalled. Clinton did. "I was impressed," Paul said. "Aaron Tonken had done it again, but at the highest possible level. Here you have the commander in chief turning on his heels because Aaron says he has to talk to me on tape."

For Tonken, political connections quickly became his new "secret weapon," he recalled. The most inaccessible A-list stars would take his calls if he was inviting them to an event with the president.

Rosen said he met Tonken and Paul in June 2000, when Paul agreed to underwrite a lunch in L.A. for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. Days later, Tonken flew to Chicago to attend another fundraiser, and again brought Newton-John to sing. Afterward Tonken met with two of the president and first lady's close associates: Kelly Craighead, a White House employee who was the first lady's trip director, and James Levin, a Chicago businessman who socialized with the president. Levin later told FBI investigators and federal prosecutors that Craighead had asked him to help get a feel for whether Tonken was on the level.

Over drinks, Tonken said he wanted to produce a big Hollywood salute to the president on the eve of the upcoming Democratic National Convention. According to Tonken, Levin urged him to consider making the event a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. Levin did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.

Tonken returned to Los Angeles and tried to convince Paul that they could produce the gala for $500,000. Paul predicted it would cost more, but in the end, he agreed to help fund it -- if he got what he wanted out of it.

Levin flew to California to meet Paul, he later told federal investigators, then on to Washington to discuss the proposed fundraiser with the president.

"After discussing it with Levin, President Clinton agreed to be involved in the event," an FBI report on the agents' interview with Levin said.

Rosen worried that there wasn't enough time left to plan and execute a big Hollywood bash involving many celebrities, he said. Even a modest "parlor party" in a donor's home can take more than a month to plan and execute, and the convention was about five weeks away. But Rosen's instructions came down from on high, he said: Do the Hollywood event with Paul and Tonken.

Nobody warned Rosen that his new partners had such colorful pasts, he said. To avoid embarrassing liaisons, Rosen said, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign staff submitted a donor's name to a three-member vetting committee of high-ranking campaign officials. The campaign also forwarded the name to the Washington law firm of Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon to be further researched, he said. Donors preparing to host an event -- and emblazon their name on the invitations -- received the closest scrutiny, Rosen said.

Tonken and Paul were vetted and passed, Rosen said. The instructions he received regarding Paul, he said, were: "No remarkable information found. Proceed."

"The vetting process failed," Rosen said in an interview. "I was put in harm's way."

David Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, said in an interview that the campaign's law firm simply ran Paul's name through LexisNexis, the electronic database of news articles and public records, and found no mention of his convictions.

Paul is scornful. Even if vetters for the campaign erred, the Secret Service, charged with protecting the president, wouldn't have, he said. "How ridiculous would that be?" Paul asked. "They had my Social Security number in February of 2000." Kendall counters that the Secret Service didn't work for or report to the Senate campaign.

The vetting process had at least one built-in flaw. Levin, the presidential pal asked to watch out for the Clintons' interests, later entered an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to defrauding the Chicago Public Schools in a bribery, minority-contracting fraud and bid-rigging scheme, court records show. At the time he was assessing Tonken's character, Levin was cheating schoolchildren by overbilling the public school hundreds of thousands of dollars for snow removal. President Clinton so relied on Levin's judgment, Levin later testified, that he asked the businessman to fly to Los Angeles and be his eyes and ears as gala plans unfolded.

Paul alleged in his civil suit against the Clintons, which is still pending, that Levin came to L.A. to broker a deal in which Clinton would serve on Stan Lee Media's board after he left office in exchange for $16.5 million in cash and company stockLevin acknowledged in his FBI interview that Paul discussed wanting the president to work for Stan Lee Media. But Levin said he never brokered a deal between Paul and the president.

Paul, who delights in pointing out that he couldn't have cared less if Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate, insists he wouldn't have spent one penny on the gala unless there was something in it for him. "I could have bought a boat," Paul said in an interview. "I could have bought a plane. Instead, I tried to buy the services of an ex-president as legally as possible."

Rosen landed at Los Angeles airport on June 30, 2000, and took a cab to meet Tonken at Stan Lee Media's office. In the building garage, Tonken showed Rosen a Mercedes and a Porsche, Rosen said.

"I want you to drive one of my cars," Rosen recalled Tonken telling him. "Do you want the Mercedes or the Porsche? Take the Porsche."

"I took the Porsche," Rosen said.

"Follow me," Rosen recalled Tonken saying. Rosen did, all the way to the pink stucco Beverly Hills Hotel. During Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, Rosen had been living in New York in a 9-by-11-foot rented room with a bathroom down the hall. In L.A., he planned to crash with a relative.

"This is one of the finest hotels in Beverly Hills," Rosen recalled Tonken telling him as they sat on plush cushions in the lobby. "I want you to stay here . . . I want to do this for you. You are going to be working so hard on this event. Please let me do this for you."

Rosen was getting the full Tonken treatment. "He's an incredibly convincing guy," Rosen recalled. "He's kind of a pig. He's a guy who might have bare feet in the Beverly Hills Hotel and order a sundae in the lobby. He is slovenly. He is rude. But there is something endearing about this guy that's hard to put your finger on. He was so good at knowing what you were thinking. If somebody was lonely or needed something, he knew. He was incredible the way he would worm his way into people's lives in a very deep, personal way."

Prosecutors would later argue unsuccessfully that Rosen's use of the luxury hotel and car should have been reported to federal election officials as a contribution to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Rosen contended that he viewed them as personal gifts. "I thought he was my friend," Rosen said. "It was a con."

It was no con, Tonken said in an interview; it was politics as usual. "It's called buying access," Tonken said. "I was able to get Mrs. Clinton on the phone when I wanted. Mrs. Clinton was wonderful to me, engaging and warm. It all seemed sincere at the time. I'm sure she did it because everyone was whispering in her ear: 'Money! See him!'"

The Hollywood gala was shaping up as $1,000-a-ticket concert followed by a $25,000 per-couple dinner with the Clintons. Stan Lee Media was the official underwriter, although Paul would later claim in his lawsuit that he paid personally.

Under federal election law at that time, individuals were prohibited from donating more than $2,000 to a specific candidate. That was commonly known as "hard money" and could go directly toward paying campaign expenses, such as buying TV time to tout the candidate explicitly. Campaigns also benefited indirectly from "soft money." That was money donors gave to more general entities that promoted parties, platforms or get-out-the-vote drives; it was exempt from the $2,000 limit.

The Hollywood gala was being sponsored by New York Senate 2000 Committee, a joint fundraising venture authorized by the Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Committee. Gala ticket sales would benefit all three, with the "hard money" going to the Clinton campaign. Any goods or services donated to produce the gala -- from erecting a stage to hiring an orchestra -- were required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as a political contribution. Theoretically, running up expenses could result in less hard money being available to the Clinton campaign after all the divvying was done. But given the complex accounting that results from federal election law, it was almost impossible to know that in advance.

Anyone hoping to hold down gala expenses, just to be prudent, had to reckon with Tonken, the big spender, who was in charge of lining up celebrity guests and performers. To entice some stars to participate, Tonken, as usual, threw money at them: cash, trips, gifts, perks. "The money spout was fully open," Tonken wrote in his memoir.

As the gala neared, Tonken was spending so much money so fast that even he lost track of it, he said. Cher would come only if Tonken sent a sizable private jet, a Gulfstream III or IV, to ferry her, Tonken said. So he did, at a cost of at least $30,000.

The night of August 12, 2000, was balmy. A perfect moon and purple gel lights lit lemon trees and eucalyptus on the $30 million estate of Ken Roberts, an actor-turned radio magnate who offered his spectacular pad for the gala. "It was a magical night," Rosen recalled. The winding road up Mandeville Canyon was so jammed with Jaguars, BMWs and Mercedes that actress Shirley MacLaine joked that the gala should have been called Gridlock 2000. "I got here from the 14th century in less time then it took me to get up Mandeville Canyon," MacLaine, who famously believes in reincarnation, quipped.

On the lawn, the first family and paying admirers sat on souvenir directors' chairs emblazoned with the gala name and date. On stage, entertainers sang, joked and praised the president as reaction shots of the first family were projected on a giant screen.

A video of the event shows that the president chuckled when Cher admitted she didn't vote for him, and would sing "If I Could Turn Back Time" in apology. He sang along as Diana Ross belted out "Ain't No Mountain High Enough." He wiped away tears when Melissa Etheridge said that Clinton had brought such a spirit of openness to the land that she was inspired to announce during his inauguration festivities that she was gay.

Through it all, Paul sat beaming in the front row right next to the first family, photos of that night show. In one, Paul is at the president's right, with Clinton's hand resting familiarly on his shoulder. To Clinton's left, is Paul's wife, Andrea, a tall, striking blonde, a presidential arm wrapped tightly around her waist.

"It was the apogee of my career," Paul recalled.

Three days later, Rosen was at a party thrown by the Democratic National Convention chatting with a friend who worked for the DNC, when his companion received a message on his BlackBerry. The Washington Post's gossip columnist, then Lloyd Grove, had an item noting that one of the gala's producers, Paul, was a convicted felon. "Is Hillary Clinton soft on crime?" the columnist asked.

In a statement to Grove, Paul suggested that his conviction for defrauding the Cuban government in the coffee case was a covert U.S. government-sanctioned anti-communist action gone awry.

The next day, Grove published a new item: Federal Election Commission records showed Paul had personally donated $2,000, the maximum allowed, to the first lady's Senate campaign. A campaign spokesman quickly announced that, in light of revelations about Paul's criminal history, the campaign was sending Paul his $2,000 back.

Nobody mentioned returning the mega-bucks that the company Paul co-founded had supposedly just spent underwriting the gala.

Despite the embarrassing publicity, Paul did get nice thank-you notes from the president and the first lady. "Thank you so very much for hosting Saturday night's tribute to the President and for everything you did to make it the great occasion that it was," Hillary Clinton wrote. "We will remember it always."

Paul would make sure she didn't forget.

Over the next several weeks, Paul later claimed, he spoke to both Tonken and then-DNC Chairman Ed Rendell about getting a presidential pardon for his past felony convictions. Paul made the allegation in his original suit against the Clintons, but omitted it from an amended version. When Rendell telephoned to ask for a $200,000 contribution for the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia, Paul asked about the status of his pardon request, Paul said. According to Paul's original lawsuit, Rendell said he was working on it. Rendell, now governor of Pennsylvania, declined to comment for this article.

Paul had been invited to the White House to attend the last state dinner of Clinton's presidency, the black-tie India State Dinner. Given the publicity about his criminal history, Levin suggested it would be better if Paul didn't attend, Paul said. By contrast, Tonken was not only invited to the India State Dinner, he said, but the Clintons were effusive in their thanks, leaving him personal phone messages, sending him letters and gifts. "I have presidential cufflinks," Tonken said.

White House snubs were the least of Paul's problems. Stan Lee Media's stock price, which had peaked around the time of the gala, plummeted by the end of 2000. Stan Lee Media filed for bankruptcy. As securities investigators began asking questions, Paul flew off to Brazil -- for business reasons, he said.

In January 2001, the New York Senate 2000 Committee filed a report with the FEC stating that the Hollywood gala had been produced with in-kind contributions -- meaning goods and services, not cash -- of $401,419. The donor for $366,564 of that was listed as Stan Lee Media.

Sitting in Brazil fuming and scheming, Paul tried to trade what he knew about the financing of the Hollywood gala in exchange for federal prosecutors giving him immunity for securities fraud, court records and correspondence show.

In February 2001, Paul started contacting federal law enforcement officials to encourage them to look into the gala. They suggested he get a lawyer, Paul said. He wanted one who wouldn't shy from a fight with the Clintons. Surfing the Internet, Paul found Judicial Watch, the legal foundation that sued the Clinton administration several times and variously represented Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers.

In June 2001, a federal grand jury in New York indicted Paul on two felonies in connection with trading of Stan Lee Media stock. That same month, Paul -- represented by Judicial Watch -- sued the Clintons, Tonken and Rosen, alleging that he'd been induced to personally fund the gala with false promises of business dealings with the president. In his civil suit, Paul alleged that he'd personally spent nearly $2 million on the gala. Paul said that since his contribution hadn't been properly reported to the FEC, he wanted his money back.

In early August, a Justice Department official in Washington wrote Judicial Watch, saying that the department "cannot discuss any resolution of the indictment pending against your client, Peter Paul, while he remains a fugitive."

Soon afterward, Paul, who denies he was ever a fugitive, was shopping in downtown Sao Paulo when Interpol agents arrested him. Paul would spend more than two years in Brazilian prisons pending extradition to the United States. "I was in a dungeon," Paul said. "There was one bathroom for 112 people. I didn't have any hot water for 2 1/2 years."

Tonken's luck was running out, too. The California attorney general's office had begun investigating whether he'd stolen from several high-profile charity fundraising events in the state. Like Paul, Tonken was trying to make a deal. He talked his way into the middle of multiple investigations concerning everything from financing for the Clinton gala to the many gifts he had given over the years to celebrities who may, or may not, have reported them on their taxes.

Tonken contended that he'd once given Kelly Craighead, one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, a gold-and-diamond watch from Beverly Hills Watch Co. At the time, Craighead was a White House employee and legally prohibited from accepting such gifts. Craighead did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment for this article.

A year later, when FBI agents knocked on Tonken's door to ask about the gala, "one of their first questions concerned personal gifts," Tonken claimed in his memoir. "I told Kelly that over the phone, and the next day, without a word, she FedEx'd back my watch. It still looked new, so I gave it to some other celeb."

In August 2002, Raymond Reggie, Sen. Kennedy's brother-in-law, made his FBI-recorded call to David Rosen at his Chicago-based fundraising company.

Judicial Watch had shown federal prosecutors invoices and canceled checks from Paul documenting one of his central claims: that the Hollywood gala costs several times more to produce than had been reported to federal election officials.

So FBI agents were trying to answer the $1.176 million question: Who knew?

Paul and Tonken each had much the same answer: Everyone closely involved in the gala, including the Clintons, had to have known. Tonken even claimed that he'd once buttonholed Hillary Clinton at the back of a van on the campaign trail and, in an effort to impress her, bragged about all that had been spent on her behalf.

Kendell, the Clintons' lawyer, responded, "In so far as Peter Paul is making allegations, we've denied them and will continue to deny them . . . there is absolutely no wrongdoing."

On December 4, 2003 -- more than three years after the gala -- Rosen was secretly indicted on four felony charges stemming from the underreporting of gala costs to federal election officials. Rosen hadn't compiled or signed any reports to the FEC, but prosecutors contended that he caused false reports to be filed by feeding mis-information to campaign officials.

It wasn't until January of this year that Rosen's indictment was unsealed. The fundraiser lay in bed at night with his wife listening to TV news reports about the alleged misdeeds of "Hillary Clinton's top money man."

Rosen started a new fundraising venture: his legal defense fund. As his legal bills mounted, Rosen signed promissory notes to old friends for more than $1 million.

Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Kendall, issued a statement saying that they trusted that Rosen would be cleared. But Rosen kept getting bad news.

This spring, three weeks before Rosen's trial was to begin in Los Angeles, one of Rosen's lawyers called to say that Jim Levin, the Chicago businessman, would be testifying against him. Levin, embroiled in his own legal problems, made a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to defrauding Chicago's school system and cooperate in other investigations to try to avoid prison, court records and testimony show. According to FBI interview notes, Levin said that he knew gala costs had skyrocketed -- and so did Rosen.

On the eve of the trial, Rosen's lawyers urged him to take a deal, Rosen recalled. If Rosen pleaded guilty to one felony, he could avoid serving any time in prison. Rosen refused.

"I was willing to be convicted of a felony -- after I'd fought the battle," Rosen said. "I was willing to fail. But if I pleaded guilty without being able to defend myself, I knew I would regret that decision for the rest of my life."

"You're David Rosen?" Rosen recalled Stan Lee asking him when he met him in Los Angeles just before his trial.

"I thought you'd look more like John Dillinger."

Judicial Watch representatives sitting in the courtroom had much the same reaction, they said. The boyish-looking Rosen seemed like a disappointingly small fish for prosecutors to be netting in the case that Judicial Watch officials once hoped would bring down Hillary Clinton.

Prosecutors told the jury that Rosen feared reporting the high cost of the gala accurately might mean Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign would net less money.

"This case is about the public's right to know who is paying how much to their elected officials," Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Schwager told the jury. "The case is about the public's right to know how much Peter Paul is paying to a national campaign . . . This case is about the public's right to know the truth, and the defendant David Rosen's continued and intentional obstruction of that public right."

The defense argued that Rosen had no idea about the gala's true costs because Paul and Tonken were crooks and con men who hid expenses for their own nefarious reasons -- and Rosen was just one more of their innocent victims.

Neither the defense nor prosecution called Paul or Tonken to testify.

For all the glitz of the gala, trial testimony was often dull recitation of federal election law and the calculations that fundraisers make to determine how much an event nets in hard money versus soft. Even the judge was occasionally confused and cracked that it would be more interesting to read the complete IRS code. Witnesses for the defense and prosecution agreed, ironically, that Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't, in the end, benefit financially from underreporting of gala costs. Her campaign netted a paltry $57,000 out of $1.1 million raised.

Levin testified that, while in Los Angeles to oversee gala preparations at the request of President Clinton, he heard Paul complain loudly about spiraling costs. Levin also testified that he heard Rosen, frustrated and appalled by wild gala expenditures, vow to hide them. According to Levin, Rosen said, "The cost of this event will never be the cost of this event."

Under cross-examination, however, Levin conceded that he'd never mentioned the comments he claimed to have heard to his "dear friend" President Clinton, who'd asked him to be his eyes and ears in L.A.

Rosen took the stand to refute accusers and testify that he wasn't required to verify individual gala expenses, such as how much Tonken paid for gift bags stuffed with CDs for guests. Rosen merely accepted figures given to him by Tonken's event planner, or asked campaign officials to get the figures from the event planner directly.

Jurors deliberated five hours before finding Rosen not guilty. "We didn't think he was a dove," one juror told the New York Sun at the time. "I think everyone lied."

Hillary Clinton called to congratulate Rosen. It was the first time he'd spoken to her in more than two years, he said. Given the various legal cases swirling around the gala, it hadn't been wise for them to talk, Rosen said. "They wanted my blood to spill on her shoes."

Rosen's trial is not the final act in the saga of the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton.

Paul vows to spend the rest of his life trying to expose what he bombastically calls one of the greatest campaign frauds in U.S. history.

He pleaded guilty in March to one felony in connection with his Stan Lee Media stock transactions. While awaiting sentencing, Paul is living in North Carolina on welfare, he said. His family receives food stamps. He suffers from chronic bronchitis and arthritis, the legacy of his time in rough Brazilian prisons, he said.

Paul is pursuing his civil suit against the Clintons and expects oral arguments to be heard in the case later this year. He's also feuding with his former friends at Judicial Watch. Paul accuses the group of letting his criminal case languish while they used his civil suit to raise more than $15 million in donations for their coffers from people who dislike the Clintons.

Judicial Watch, which refutes Paul's allegations, recently asked the Senate ethics committee to sanction Hillary Clinton for low-balling gala costs in FEC reports. The Senate panel has not responded.

The campaign, as of late last month, had not filed new reports to reflect the evidence the FBI offered in the Rosen case indicating that the gala cost more than $1 million to produce.

The campaign is reviewing the matter, Kendall, the Clinton attorney, said. "If there is a need . . . amendments will be made. The evidence at the Rosen trial demonstrates how complicated the FEC reporting requirements for in-kind contributions are. It shows that even experts have disagreements about the booking of those contributions."

Aaron Tonken, now almost famous, pleaded guilty to stealing from several charities and is serving more than five years in a California prison. "I'm very happy," Tonken said in an interview from Taft Correctional Institution. Prison is blissfully stress-free compared with ducking loan sharks, catering to spoiled stars and trying to please all those insistent government investigators, he said. Tonken's weight has dropped from nearly 300 pounds to 165 since he went to prison. He said he runs four miles daily. A prison psychiatrist and psychologist are even helping him try to get rid of his facial tics, he said. Tonken is still a celebrity buff, though. "I met Anthony Pellicano," the famed Hollywood private eye turned felon, Tonken said breathlessly. "The guy they wrote 'Blow' about is here, too."

Rosen, now 38, is left with $1.4 million in legal bills. His defense cost even more than prosecutors say the gala did. Rosen's company, which had 11 employees before he was indicted, now has just two. He has two clients. The gala, one night of a thousand egos, took five years from his life. Some people say Rosen has been ruined. Those people never sold books door to door.

Rosen lives these days in a simply furnished space above his Chicago headquarters. Upstairs, his guitar rests alongside sheet music for the folk songs he and his bride sing together: Rosebud duets. Downstairs, the "money pit," the nerve center for frenetic fundraising calls, is silent for now.

People ask Rosen if he's quitting the fundraising business. He's proud to tell them that he just opened a second office, this one in Washington. In some ways, Rosen said in a recent interview in his home, it seems as if he is in a familiar place. He feels as if he's way out on a country road. It's 4 p.m., and he hasn't sold a book all day. His bags are heavy, but he knows his strength. And he knows that there's nothing wrong with a fellow wanting to quit -- just as long as he doesn't quit.

Rosen knows what he's got to do, he said, sitting at the wooden table in his dining nook. He's got to work harder to succeed. He's got to knock on some doors.

Suddenly, Hillary Clinton's top money man began to sing. No, not sing to the FBI. Not sing to the FEC. The only boy Rosebud tapped his foot and slapped out the rhythm to a ditty he learned long ago selling books.

"Seven-fifty-nine is knockin' time," Rosen sang, "but you can't quit knockin' til half-past nine."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401150.html

Former Jesuit student files suit, saying a teacher molested him

Jesuit High School Student Files $4 Million Lawsuit

The $4 million lawsuit alleges that Rev. John Schwartz abused "J.T." in the '80s

A former Jesuit High School student has filed a $4 million lawsuit against the school, saying that a teacher molested him in the late 1980s.

The former student, identified by the initials "J.T." in the lawsuit, claims that the Rev. John Schwartz engaged in various sex acts with him in 1986 and 1987.

John Kaempf, an attorney for Jesuit High School, issued the following statement:

"First and foremost, the Jesuit High School community condemns sexual abuse. In its nearly 50 years of educating students, Jesuit has never before had a priest accused of sexual abuse of a student. Jesuit's most important priority is the safety of its students.

"Unfortunately, this is the first notice to Jesuit of these claims, which involve alleged events nearly 20 years ago and an anonymous plaintiff. Father John Schwartz was never accused of any wrongdoing when he worked for Jesuit from 1981 to 1987.

"Jesuit will promptly investigate this matter so this case can be fairly resolved," wrote Kaempf, a shareholder in the law firm of Bullivant Houser Bailey.

Schwartz is no longer a member of the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits. He is now a parish priest in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Kaempf said.

A spokesman for the San Francisco Archdiocese did not return a call seeking comment Thursday.

The lawsuit against Jesuit High was filed Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

Jesuit is an Oregon nonprofit and is independent of the Portland Archdiocese, which sought bankruptcy protection last year in the face of millions of dollars in sexual abuse claims.


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/ind
ex.ssf?/base/news/1128682762303210.xml&coll=7

Supreme Court Politics - The conformation process of Harriet Miers

Withdraw This Nominee
When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

White House working to shore up conservative support
In a sharp departure from what occurred during the debate over Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination, the White House and its allies will spend the next few weeks trying to build support among wary conservative interest groups for its new nominee, Harriet Miers. During the Roberts nomination process, the administration focused on moderate senators and their constituents. But though most conservatives were convinced from the start that Roberts agreed with them ideologically, many have expressed doubts this week about Miers because she's never been a judge and they know relatively little about her. She is the White House counsel and has been a longtime legal adviser to President Bush.

Public Comments Suggest Centrist View
WASHINGTON -- In what appear to be some of her few public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting-rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Latino members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure. Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment.

Miers Could Face Recusal Problem
President George W. Bush’s second Supreme Court nominee — White House Counsel Harriet Miers, selected Monday to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — may not be able to rule on some of the most controversial church-state cases likely to come before the court in the next few years, according to a legal scholar. Because of her role as White House counsel, and before that as White House staff secretary, “every piece of paper that came across the president’s desk, she signed off on,” said Akiba Covitz, a University of Richmond political scientist and a legal scholar who has written extensively on lawyer-client privilege.

Miers' nomination stirs Law School profs
Yale Law School professors have expressed concerns about White House counsel Harriet Miers' recent Supreme Court nomination, following a week of contention among conservatives and liberals across the country who have voiced skepticism about Miers' judicial inexperience. Some professors said Miers -- a longtime friend of President George W. Bush '68 who is little-known outside of the president's inner circle -- has yet to prove her merits as a judge, as she has never served on the bench or in any other public office, while other professors questioned Miers' beliefs and the likelihood that she will be confirmed.

Miers Faces Conservative Senators
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and her White House backers worked Thursday to quell a revolt over her high court nomination among conservatives, who say President Bush promised them a justice who would help swing the court to the right. Sam Brownback of Kansas said he has not received any White House assurances regarding Miers' judicial views, and that she refused to take a position when he asked her about the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that established the right of privacy in the sale and use of contraceptives. "She did not take a position on it, nor did she say she would take a position on it, nor did she think it appropriate to have a position on it," Brownback said.

Some Republicans not convinced about Miers
WASHINGTON -- Republicans on Wednesday continued to question President Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, causing a rare fracture in the GOP's attempts to move the federal judiciary to the right. "There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., formerly the Senate Majority leader. Lott said it's not enough for the president to say "trust me," when it comes to the Supreme Court. "I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up," Lott told MSNBC. "I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know." Other Republicans offered Miers their support. "President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench," said David N. O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee a non-profit front organization for the Republican Party. "We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."

Rare Public Comments Suggest Centrist View

Public Comments Suggest Centrist View

Miers Backed Diversity For Dallas City Council In 1990

WASHINGTON -- In what appear to be some of her few public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting-rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Latino members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure.

In the same testimony, Miers, then a member of the council, said she believed that the city should divest its South African financial holdings and work to boost economic development in poor and minority areas. She also said she ``wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society'' or other ``politically charged'' groups because they ``seem to color your view.''

Chief Justice John Roberts caused a flap earlier this year by insisting he was not a Federalist Society member, even though records listed him in the group's leadership directory in the late 1990s.

Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment. Some constitutional scholars say that if Miers were to embrace the same views as a justice on the high court, she would fall more in line with the court's pragmatic, moderate wing than with its doctrinaire constructionists.

Diversity issue

``There's an acknowledgment in her comments that race matters and is relevant, and from a fairness standpoint, we should acknowledge the impact of a particular political structure on voters of color,'' said George Washington University law Professor Spencer Overton, a voting-rights expert. ``It's not unlike something you could see Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying. A rigid quota system may be bad, but diversity is a compelling interest, and we want institutions to reflect society as a whole.''

That notion may not be helpful to Miers' support among conservatives, who have expressed disappointment or even outrage that President Bush did not choose a solidly conservative nominee to replace O'Connor, a swing vote on many issues.

That disappointment continued to resonate Thursday on Capitol Hill, where one leading Senate abortion opponent who met with Miers described her as an enigma.

``There's still a lot to learn about this nominee,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., after meeting with Miers for about an hour in his office. ``The president has had the advantage of working with her for a decade. I must do my own due diligence. I can't say all these issues were overcome in a one-hour meeting.''

After ticking off a list of core conservative issues, including abortion and marriage, Brownback said: ``We've worked a long time and very hard to elect a president and win the Senate in order to be able to have these issues addressed by the court. A number of us would like to have somebody who had a clear track record on these key issues.''

Brownback is planning to run for president in 2008 and has been positioning himself to be the candidate of the party's religious conservative wing.

He said he and Miers discussed Roe vs. Wade, which granted women the right to an abortion, but in the context of the Griswold vs. Connecticut case. That was an earlier ruling in which the court said the Constitution essentially contains a right to privacy. Conservatives disagree.

``She did not take a position on it,'' Brownback said, referring to the Griswold case, ``nor did she say she would take a position on it, nor did she think it appropriate to have a position on it.''

Work experience

Miers, the White House counsel, has never been a judge. In addition to her tenure on the Dallas City Council, she was the first female managing partner in a blue-chip Dallas law firm and led the Texas and Dallas bar associations.

In the 1990 federal lawsuit, Miers was called to the stand by a lawyer representing black and Latino citizens who felt the council's structure illegally impeded their ability to win seats by drawing district lines that minimized the impact of minority votes. Blacks and Latinos made up more than 40 percent of the city's population.

Miers agreed that there were too few minorities on the council, and that increasing the number of single-member districts -- thus redrawing district lines -- would be one way to ``encourage additional African-American, Mexican-American representation on the council.''

Miers was careful not to endorse the idea that race should be the sole or even primary focus on redistricting efforts, saying at one point that ``while race is an issue, you have economic diversity, which is really the crux'' of the problem.

But her comments were strong enough for the judge in the case, a Democratic appointee, to quote her among council members who agreed the system challenged in the lawsuit was unfair.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/nati
on/12841160.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_nation

Missionaries to the Preborn escorted off campus

Missionaries to the Preborn escorted off campus

Missionaries to the Preborn, an anti-abortion group, were escorted off campus Wednesday after students and faculty called Central Michigan University Police complaining about a disturbing protest.

“There were a number of protesters at various areas,” CMU Police Chief Stan Dinius said. “Some of the complaints were from Anspach, outside Anspach and inside the library.”

Dinius said the department received 20 to 30 calls from 12 to 1 p.m. from people complaining about the protests.

CMU Police received complaints of the protesters blocking traffic on the sidewalk and passing out pamphlets inside university buildings, which is prohibited by the university, he said.

There also were complaints that the protesters were holding up their signs in front of classroom windows.

Dinius said the university’s guidelines are present so they don’t disrupt the educational process.

“We are all for free speech but would like to give them those guidelines before they demonstrate,” he said.

Rachel Prevatt, Midland senior and president of VOX — a student organization supporting Planned Parenthood — said she did not see the protesters verbally harassing anyone, but only saw them from her car and again for a few moments in front of the library.

“That said, I think that showing grotesque photographs of dismembered fetuses is going way too far and that I know that many students felt harassed by their tactics,” she said. “They make me angry, of course, it would seem they made most students angry.”

English professor Catherine Hicks, among other faculty, had to cancel classes because “students were so upset,” Prevatt said.

Jim Soderna, spokesperson for Missionaries of the Preborn, said the organization educates students about the “reality” of abortion.

“A photo can’t lie,” he said. “When you see fingers, arms and toes, you know it’s a human being.”

Sodema, who was protesting outside Charles V. Park Library, said it’s good when people get upset.

“You should get upset when you see an atrocity happening to a little child,” he said. “It’s better than apathy.”

Soderna said he only entered the library facility to use the restroom, but did not try passing out pamphlets inside of the building.

CMU Police went to speak with the protesters around 1 p.m. to ask them to stop.

“They said you have to be 50 feet away from the building. He made it clear that he was asking,” Soderna said. “We were leaving anyway, so it was time to go.”

Missionaries to the Preborn hosted a strategic protest, said Michael Covarrubias, Mount Pleasant Police Department Public Information Officer.

“They are here because there’s a Planned Parenthood,” Covarrubias said. “They travel all over, even though our Planned Parenthood does not do abortions, they say they do referrals, so that’s why they protest them.”

Covarrubias said the best thing to do is keep citizens away from the protesters and not draw any attention to it.

“I don’t question what they do, I’m just not too keen on their methods,” he said. “The best thing we can do is keep people away from them and keep them out of trouble.”

Covarrubias said the protesters not only picket, but also have cars that drive around with signs protesting. They also have unmarked cars whose drivers carry video cameras to record any violence that occurs toward the protesters, he said.


http://www.cm-life.com/vnews/disp
lay.v/ART/2005/10/07/4345fbb498ab3

U.S. House passes $30.8 bln Homeland Security Bill

House Passes National ID

Legislation provides $40 million to implement the National ID drivers license program

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives passed a $30.8 billion bill on Thursday to fund domestic security amid criticism from some lawmakers that the Department of Homeland Security was failing to fulfill its post-September 11 mission.

The fiscal 2006 spending bill now goes to the Senate for final passage before being sent to President George W. Bush for his signature. It cleared the House 347-70.

"The overall commitment to homeland security is very adequately addressed," said House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, a California Republican.

Congress ignored Bush‘s request for an increase in fees paid by air travelers that would have collected up to $1.7 billion this fiscal year.

The bill would attempt to tighten border security by paying for hiring 1,000 new border patrol agents and the construction of more border detention facilities.

It also would increase overall funding by $1.1 billion from last year.

Despite those increases, some Republicans and Democrats complained that the Department of Homeland Security was fallen short on several fronts, from its lagging response to Hurricane Katrina in late August to inadequate security at chemical plants and ports that could be targets of terrorist attacks.

Big-city lawmakers have argued the spending bill shortchanges mass-transit security in the wake of bus and subway bombings in London last summer. New York officials said on Thursday they had been informed of a "specific threat" against the city‘s subway system.

"Katrina was, to say the least, a wake-up call that we are not ready," said Rep. Harold Rogers, the Kentucky Republican who steered the legislation through the House.

"I am not at all happy with progress of the homeland security department," Rogers said when House and Senate negotiators signed off on the final version of the legislation.

To try to get better of Wisconsin requiring the disclosure of contract details.

Obey said that added funding for border security meant other programs had to be cut, including aviation security screening and some federal grants to states and localities. "Funding is insufficient" in the bill, he said.

The legislation also provides $40 million to implement a controversial "Real ID" program to take drivers‘ licenses away from people who cannot prove they are in the United States legally.

Drivers‘ licenses are widely used as a form of identification to board airplanes and gain access to government buildings. Some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers are thought to have used the state-issued licenses to board the aircraft that they used to slam into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.


http://www.alertnet.org/the
news/newsdesk/N06206649.htm

Network feud leads to Net blackout

Internet Blackouts

CNET Networks

Two major Internet backbone companies are feuding, potentially cutting off significant swaths of the Internet for some of each other's customers.

On Wednesday, network company Level 3 Communications cut off its direct "peering" connections to another big network company called Cogent Communications. That technical action means that some customers on each company's network now will find it impossible, or slower, to get to Web sites on the other company's network.

William Steele, a senior network engineer for Syncro Services, said his company noticed the problem Wednesday morning.

"There are some people I can't send an e-mail to," Steele said. "At home, I have Road Runner as an ISP, and wasn't even able to remotely connect in order to manage our servers."

"Peering" arrangements are maintained by network companies that agree to connect their networks directly together to exchange traffic more efficiently. When the companies are of roughly equal size, money rarely exchanges hands.

Level 3 contends that its arrangement with Cogent is no longer financially viable, since it is larger than the other company. It has asked Cogent to seek other arrangements, possibly including paying for the traffic exchange, a Level 3 representative said.

Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer contested that claim, saying that its network is at least as big as Level 3's, and that it makes no sense to pay for the connection. Cogent is offering any Level 3 user who can't get to Cogent sites free Internet service for a year, in an attempt to attract its rival's customers.

Previous Next "Our goal is to have this problem go away, whether through Level 3 reconsidering or their customers coming to us," Schaeffer said.

The Level 3 representative said the company was unlikely to reconsider its position, however.

The problem is likely to affect only a small number of each company's customers. Many network company customers have several connections to the Internet and can use an alternate connection to reach a site that might otherwise be blocked.

A similar Net blackout happened in 2001, when Cable & Wireless and PSINet were embroiled in a billing dispute.

http://news.com.com/Network+feud+leads+to+Net+
blackout/2100-1038_3-5889592.html?tag=nefd.top

Related: Blackout shows Net's fragility

Blackouts Show Net's Weakness

CNET Networks

Since early Wednesday, Phil Bradham, the network engineer at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, has been cut off from the parts of the Internet he needs the most.

He can't reach his Web hosting company to update his site. Critical e-mails aren't going through, and some aren't reaching him. He can't get to some important sites on the Net, such as the popular Wikipedia encyclopedia.

The source of Bradham's difficulties is a feud between two big backbone Internet companies--the long-haul networks that most consumers and even most businesses ordinarily have little to do with. One of these companies, Level 3 Communications, has cut off direct communications with rival Cogent Communications, causing many of each company's customers to lose access to potentially significant swatches of the Net.

What's new:

Many customers of two major Internet companies recently lost access to parts of the Net when the companies began feuding and cut off communications with each other. One of the companies estimates that between 5 percent and 10 percent of its customers were affected by a partial Net blackout.

Bottom line:

In theory, the Internet network is vast and complex enough to offer alternate routes when a connection between two networks is severed. But in fact connections between networks often are direct, with no redundancy or backup system in place. Net users served by only one Internet service provider can lose access to parts of the Net if that ISP's connections are cut off.

More stories on this topic

"We've been working with both (companies), but neither one will do anything until the other one budges," said Bradham. "It's very frustrating that two top companies would try to resolve this with a standoff like this."

In theory, this kind of blackout is precisely the kind of problem the Internet was designed to withstand. The complicated, interlocking nature of networks means that data traffic is supposed to be able to find an alternate route to its destination, even if a critical link is broken.

In practice, obscure contract disputes between the big network companies can make all these redundancies moot.

At issue is a type of network connection called "peering." Most of the biggest network companies, such as AT&T, Sprint and MCI, as well as companies including Cogent and Level 3, strike "peering agreements" in which they agree to establish direct connections between their networks.

That means that when a Cogent customer wants to visit a Web site hosted by Level 3, the data can take a short, fast path, instead of winding its way around the broader Internet.

Typically, peering agreements are made without any money changing hands, since each company expects to hand off a roughly comparable amount of traffic. Smaller network companies buy what are called "transit" agreements with larger companies, in order to hand off their customers' traffic to the big networks.

Peering gone wrong

These collegial peering relationships among big companies allow traffic to flow efficiently across the Net without most customers knowing anything about the under-the-hood relationships. But when these relationships go sour, the feuding parties' lack of flexibility can result in blackouts like the one that occurred this week.

In this case, Level 3 says that it believes it is substantially larger than its rival, and told Cogent as long as 90 days ago that it was planning to sever the direct connection between the two networks. The connection could be re-established if Cogent were to pay Level 3 access fees for use of its network, the company says.

For its part, Cogent contends that it is similar in size to Level 3, and that it makes no sense to pay for the kind of peering relationship that it maintains with many other companies. Cogent is offering any Level 3 user who can't get to Cogent sites free Internet service for a year, in an attempt to attract its rival's customers.

"Our goal is to have this problem go away, whether through Level 3 reconsidering, or their customers coming to us," said Dave Schaeffer, chief executive officer of Cogent.

As of mid-Tuesday, both sides said they were committed to their position, showing no willingness to budge, despite complaints from customers on both sides around the Net that they can't reach Web sites or can't send e-mail to some addresses or receive it from others. This means that there is no immediate fix ahead, unless customers (or their ISPs) find an alternative or auxiliary network provider.

The scale of the problem

It's impossible to say precisely how many people are affected. Many customers of the two companies, and customers of the ISPs that use one of the networks, buy connections from several providers simultaneously to avoid outages of this kind.

However, many businesses, individuals and even some ISPs have so-called single-homed network connections, which means they depend on a single provider to reach the Internet. (Think of this as a town with a single road leading in and out, instead of several different highways.)

These single-connection customers are the ones hardest hit by Level 3's decision. Because Level 3 and Cogent each uses direct connections to other networks to exchange traffic--rather than paying a third party to provide redundant or backup transmission service--there is no alternate route for data from one network to reach the other.

The result: blackouts such as those Bradham and other customers are seeing.

According to Cogent, between 5 percent and 10 percent of its customers were affected. Level 3 did not provide an estimate. Because some of those customers could be ISPs with thousands or hundreds of thousands of their own customers, the number of people affected could range into the millions.

CNET News.com readers have reported problems with businesses and home connections, however.

William Steele, a senior network engineer for Syncro Services, said his company noticed one such problem Wednesday morning.

"There are some people I can't send an e-mail to," Steele said. "At home I have Road Runner as an ISP, and wasn't even able to remotely connect in order to manage our servers."

A spokesman for Time Warner Cable confirmed that many of the company's Road Runner cable modem customers would be affected.

"That means some sites they might normally visit are not available to them right now," the company said in a statement. "We are working to find alternate pathways so our customers can be reconnected with these Web sites as soon as possible."

In the past, network outages stemming from this kind of private contract dispute have prompted some to call for regulatory oversight, or at least legal action.

In 2001, a similar contract dispute led Cable & Wireless to cut off its connection to PSINet, one of the oldest Net backbone companies. After outcries by customers, the connection was restored several days later, however.

Previous Next Even Cogent says it prefers to handle this kind of problem without government getting involved.

"We don't think there should be any involvement in terms of regulatory oversight," Cogent spokesman Jeff Henriksen said. "These are individual contracts based on specific needs of individual providers."

As the outage stretches on, however, it highlights fragility in what seems like a deeply interconnected Net. Many people remain unaware of the problem, and it can be expensive for users to address it.

"I have been pushing for years to have a redundant ISP for our traffic," Bradham said. "But we're a nonprofit. We don't have the money available to do that."


http://news.com.com/Blackout+shows+Ne
ts+fragility/2100-1038_3-5890424

Machete hacking blood sucking vampire trial opens

Gay Blood Sucking Vampires

Defendant testifies that he acted in self-defense

OCALA -- Kyle Parsly, 26, and Mike Schiavone, 24, slit each other's arms with a small silver knife and began to suck each others blood in an occult ritual, Joshua Reeves testified Tuesday in his attempted murder trial. Moments later, he would hack each man with a machete in self-defense, he said.

The trio was hanging out at Parsly and Schiavone's mobile home in Shady on July 8, 2002, having a few shots of vodka and listening to what Reeves described as "real-dark punk rock, heavy metal" music.

"We were just sitting around talking. Just hanging out," Reeves testified. "All I did was ask if we could change the music." Seconds later, Reeves said Schiavone threatened him with the knife.

Parsly and Schiavone then cut themselves on the arm and began sucking each other's blood and kissing each other. They allegedly tried to force Reeves to participate and referred to themselves as "vampires" and part of the "underworld."

"He said 'you have two choices - either you share or you can die.' I didn't know what he met by sharing but I said OK because I didn't want to die," Reeves said, referring to Schiavone.

Reeves testified that the men he struck with the machete cut his left arm and sucked on it. He showed jurors the scar.

"Actually, I just started pleading with him. I was yelling, 'Please don't kill me. I'll be part of the brotherhood. . . . It freaked me out big time . . . My intentions were not to kill anyone. I was trying to get out of there alive," he said.

In a 2002 interview with the Star-Banner, Parsly admitted that he and his roommate were involved in cutting their arms.

Although he and his buddy cut their arms on occasion, he said they are not a part of any occult group.

"We're not goths or vampires," said Parsly, denying a sheriff's report stating he and Schiavone cut their arms and then sucked the other's blood. "I'm adopted, and I adopt people into my family. We do this by cutting our arms to show brotherhood."

Reeves, who is charged with second-degree attempted murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, said he was trying to get away when he struck Parsly in the back of the head and Schiavone in the throat.

"Mr. Reeves was attacked by Mr. Parsly and Mr. Schiavone. He acted in self-defense," said his lawyer Robert Buonauro.

There is little, if any, corroboration of the events that led to the hacking. Both Parsly and Schiavone testified that they don't remember what happened the evening of July 8, other than they were hanging out with Reeves.

The defense filed a motion for acquittal based on the fact the allegations are based on circumstantial evidence. Circuit Judge David B. Eddy will rule on that motion today.

Reeves, who currently lives in Anaheim, Calif., was living in Marion County during the summer of 2002, collecting signatures for petitions when he met Parsly at a local shopping center. They began hanging out and formed a friendship. On July 8, Reeves went to the mobile home to pick up a hip-hop compact disc.

Marion County Sheriff's Office detectives arrested Reeves outside of Royal Inn Motel on South Pine Avenue. They found a bloody machete in the floorboard of his truck.

Assistant State Attorney Bill Hodges declined to comment on the case.


http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art
icle?AID=/20050928/NEWS/209280357/1025

Abortion activist is given a beating

Pro-Life Activist Beaten

BEIJING, China -- A blind Chinese activist trying to call attention to forced abortion and other abuses of China's one-child policy was beaten and left bleeding on the street, a lawyer and a Washington-based radio station said yesterday.

Chen Guangcheng, whose whistleblowing in the eastern province of Shandong earlier this year prompted the government to sack and and detain several officials, was found bleeding on a street in his home village of Dongshigu.

Chen was beaten on Tuesday after three lawyers arrived in town to meet the activist and negotiate with local officials for lifting the virtual house arrest under which he has been living.


http://www.etaiwannews.com/Wo
rld/2005/10/06/1128567506.htm

Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform

Empowering the UN

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty - a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.

I have been concerned for some time about the establishment of a UN Peacebuilding Commission, an idea I first found so troubling when the International Relations Committee marked-up the UN Reform Act containing this provision earlier this year.

According to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council members, major donor states, major troop contributing countries, United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key coordinating body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core of a future UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere.

The misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United States? What if the US is determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?

Most disturbing, however, is the UN adoption of the “Responsibility to Protect,” a report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp). Whenever the UN names a commission to study intervention and state sovereignty you can bet that it is to promote the former and undermine the latter. This “Responsibility to Protect” report adopted by the UN commits member states to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign states if the state in question does not protect its population from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity,” or does not protect its population from the “incitement” to such crimes. Who determines the criteria for this policy of global pre-emption? The UN, of course.

While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly conceivable that at some future date a weakened US may face a financially and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within US borders after determining that the US has not lived up to its “responsibility to protect.” This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a “reform” process that is actually strengthening the United Nations. What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this turns out to be our own?


http://www.house.gov/paul/
tst/tst2005/tst100305.htm

Truth Brings Out Worst at Denver’s “Race for the Cure”

Pro-Lifers Spit Upon, Attacked

Denver police made no attempt to stop attackers or make arrests

Operation Rescue West

Denver, CO -- Every year, the city of Denver hosts a Race for the Cure The Race is sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and proceeds are designated to fund breast cancer research. Many of the race participants do not realize that the Susan G. Komen Foundation gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood, America’s number one abortion provider. In 2003, 21 SGK Foundation affiliate grants totaling over $475,000 were given to Planned Parenthood (Kristen Kelly, Susan G. Komen Public Relations).

Not only is the SGK Foundation a financial supporter of Planned Parenthood, they have continually hidden the link between abortion and breast cancer. The SGK Foundation denies such a link, ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary. For this reason, while thousands raced for the cure in Denver, a dozen or so stood on the sidelines to show the truth of abortion.

On October 2, 2005, the Race for the Cure in Denver began with a loud horn and dozens of pink balloons released into the Denver skyline. As the first wave of 60,000 runners hit the first mile of their run, their eyes were drawn to the Truth Truck, parked just across a grassy divide from the Speer Street route. As the runners continued, the truck’s presence was explained by bright pink signs with black letters proclaiming “Abortion Causes Breast Cancer” and “abortionbreastcancer.com”. By the time the second wave of racers were approaching the truck, the protesters were nearly deafened by boos and threats.

A seemingly non-stop contingent of rabid pro-choice women threw full water bottles and verbally assaulted the protesters behind the police tape. Several times, bold individuals crossed the tape and attacked the pro-life crowd, incensed at the images on the truth truck and word “abortion.” One protester was punched in the face by an irate woman. Two men exposed themselves to the women and children in the protest area. The pro-life picketers filed several complaints with the Denver Police Department, but the police did not attempt to arrest any of the violent and perverted perpetrators.

As the barrage continued, it became overwhelmingly evident that the racers were angered by the word “ABORTION” and the images on the truck. Phrases such as “My body, my choice!” were continually screamed at the picketers, accompanied by thousands of middle fingers. Few participants cared to address the link between abortion and breast cancer. The vulgar and obscene men and women did not seem to care that their crude language was heard and repeated by their children. Instead, they were determined to ignore the truth and deny any scientific research presented to them. Picketer Jo Scott commented, “This must be the wide road to hell.” Only half a dozen women gave the protesters a discreet “thumbs up.”

The Race for the Cure in Denver made it clear that the pro-choice movement is completely irrational. Not one piece of evidence was given to refute the link between abortion and breast cancer. Not all breast cancers can be avoided, but abortion is avoidable. The racers, as a whole, did not care that they were being lied to. The violence and vulgarity attested to a movement based on emotions and selfishness instead of scientific fact. The Truth Truck’s presence at this event put the multitudes face to face with the evil that they promote, and made it abundantly clear that the images need to be present at every Race for the Cure to show the truth.


http://www.operatio
nrescue.org/?p=274

Bennett Quits K12 Board After Remarks

Bennett Quits After Remarks

Former education secretary William J. Bennett over the weekend resigned as chairman of the board of education company K12 Inc., which he co-founded in 1999, following the controversial remarks he recently made associating black Americans with crime, the company said yesterday.

"The opinions expressed by Dr. Bennett on his radio program are his and his alone," the McLean-based company said yesterday in a news release. K12 sells curriculum and distance-learning products to schools and home schoolers and serves 50,000 students in 13 states, said spokesman Bryan Flood.

In an interview, Bennett said he resigned because he does not "want to distract the company from the work it is doing," especially as K12 is making efforts to sell its material in inner-city markets.

Bennett also resigned from his job as a part-time employee of the company, responsible for making about a dozen promotional appearances a year, Flood said.

The former Cabinet official came under fire following a Sept. 28 broadcast of his call-in radio show, "Morning in America," in which he said aborting black babies would result in a lower crime rate. Though he also said that was a "morally reprehensible" idea, his remarks were condemned by civil rights groups and rebuffed by the White House.

Bennett, the author of "The Book of Virtues," said his remarks were taken out of context and misinterpreted. He called his comments "a thought experiment about public policy" that "should not have received the condemnation it has. Anyone paying attention should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me," he said in a statement posted last Friday on the "Morning in America" Web site.

Citing continuing fallout from his remarks, Bennett yesterday postponed an upcoming appearance at the University of Cincinnati.

Bennett continues to own shares in K12, which is privately held. He declined to say how large his stake was, but Flood described it as "minor equity stake." Bennett said he continues to sit on one other corporate board, but he declined to identify the company. A search of filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission did not turn up directorships for Bennett at any public companies. He had previously served on the board of cyber retailer Value America Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

So far, none of the companies and organizations that sponsor the "Morning in America" Web site have withdrawn their support, said Bennett, despite what he said were efforts by "the left" to "flood the phone lines of our sponsors and scare them."

One advertiser, the Camarillo, Calif., franchise of Carlson Wagonlit Travel, had to reschedule an ocean cruise with Bennett that it was promoting on Bennett's Web site, but owner Larry Tatelman said it had nothing to do with the controversy over Bennett's radio remarks.

Bennett said he had previously offered to resign from K12 two years ago, after news reports that he was a regular at the gambling tables at several Atlantic City casinos. But the company declined his offer, he said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conten
t/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301560_pf.html

Six Year Anniversary! 2005

Six Year Anniversary!

Dear Covenant News readers,

I was so covered up with Supreme Court abortion related news during the John Roberts confirmation process that our sixth year anniversary came and went, and I didn't send a notice.

September marked six years that Covenant News has provided Christians with timely news and information concerning the tough controversial issues the Church faces in the world today. In that time, we have reported more pro-life, abortion related news stories than any news source on the Internet.

Many of you have been loyal readers since the beginning.

To provide this constant flow of news and information takes hard work, time, and money. Some of you may be surprised to know that during important news events like the Supreme Court nomination process, it's not unusual for me to put in 80 to 90 hours a week -- reading over 1800 headlines a day -- so Covenant News readers can have quick, pertinent information at hand. With over one million hits a month, we are reaching more readers than ever before.

Here's an opportunity to bless Covenant News and keep it a free "Reader Supported News Service" by sending your financial support.

You can go to this page to make a secure online contribution: http://www.covenantnews.com/donate.htm

Or you can mail a check or money order with your financial blessing to:

The Covenant News
P.O. Box 2093
Toccoa GA 30577

Thank you for your support, and may The Lord richly bless you!

In the service of our Lord and King, Jesus Christ!

Jim Rudd, Editor of The Covenant News
editor@covenantnews.com


The Covenant News
P.O. Box 2093
Toccoa GA 30577

I would like to support the work of Covenant News with a $__________ donation.

Name: ______________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________ State: _____ Zip: _______________

Email Address: _____________________________________________________

(The Covenant News is a privately owned and operated Internet News Service. We are NOT a tax deductible organization because we refuse to bow the knee to 501(c)3 federal regulations and therefore remain free to publish whatever we want. We also do not sell or rent our list to any outside business or organization.)

******************************

Grand Jury Re-Indicts DeLay on New Charge

Grand Jury Re-Indicts DeLay

A Texas grand jury on Monday re-indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering after the former majority leader attacked last week's indictment on technical grounds.

The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contained two counts. The money laundering charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison. The charge of conspiracy to launder money is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Last week, DeLay was charged with conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws, forcing him to leave his leadership position.

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that did not take effect until 2003 — a year after the alleged acts.

The new indictment from District Attorney Ronnie Earle, coming just hours after the new grand jurors were sworn in, outraged DeLay.

"Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse," DeLay said in a statement. "He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate. This is an abomination of justice."

Earle's office did not return repeated phone calls from The Associated Press.

In a written statement, the office outlined the new charges and possible punishments, but did not address criticism from DeLay's attorneys.

Delay, 58, is the highest-ranking member of Congress to face criminal prosecution. House Republican rules forced him to temporarily step aside as majority leader while he fights the charges.

DeLay and two political associates are accused of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said the money spent on Texas candidates was "lawfully collected from individuals who knew what they were contributing to."

The indictment alleges that DeLay knowingly aided the transfer of the corporate money to help the GOP win a majority in the Texas Legislature.

Once the Republicans had secured control of the Legislature, state lawmakers adopted a DeLay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that gave the GOP a stronger grasp on Congress as well.

Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor, said details of the indictments were still emerging, but the new charge offers an opening for DeLay's defense team. He said prosecutors may be trying to correct weaknesses in the first indictment and build a more credible case.

The new indictment "gives the defendant an opportunity to discredit it and to influence the political interpretation of it," Buchanan said. "It's an opportunity to claim these guys don't have a case, and it allows the defense to allege that it's purely political."

It was unclear when Delay would appear in court to face the new charges. No arraignment date had been set.

DeLay's associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, were each previously indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws and money laundering.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case was out of the country on vacation and could not rule on the defense motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place.

Two other members of Congress have been indicted since 1996.

Former Rep. William Janklow, R-S.D., was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to 100 days in prison after his car struck and killed a motorcyclist in 2003. Former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted on charges from a 2001 indictment accusing him of racketeering and accepting bribes.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a
p/20051004/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment_10

Exclusive Interview - Justice Tom Parker; Re-Visit War in Iraq

'The American View' Radio Program

“The American View,” co-hosted by Michael Anthony and “recovering Republican” John Lofton, interviews Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker in which they discuss, among other things, his new organization “Vote For Justice”. They also discuss the continuing un-Biblical and un-Constitutional war in Iraq.

On this topic, we play excerpts from a recent debate about this war between Bill O’Reilly and Phil Donahue, a debate in which Donahue mopped the floor with O’Reilly and attacked the Iraq war for being (are you seated?) UNCONSTITUTIONAL!


http://www.theamericanv
iew.com/index.php?id=405

Mr. Chief Justice Roy Moore to run for Governor of Alabama

Moore to run for Governor

GADSDEN, Ala. -- Roy Moore, who became a hero to the Christian right after being ousted as Alabama's chief justice for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, announced Monday that he is running for governor in 2006.

Moore's candidacy could set up a showdown with Gov. Bob Riley, a fellow Republican, and turn the Ten Commandments dispute into a central campaign issue in this Bible Belt state.

Two Democrats, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and former Gov. Don Siegelman, are already running. The Republican and Democratic primaries are June 6.

Moore, 58, said that if elected, he has no plans to relocate the Ten Commandments monument from its new home at a church in Gadsden.

"But I'll tell you what I will do. I will defend the right of every citizen of this state — including judges, coaches, teachers, city, county and state officials — to acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government," he said.

In 2000, Alabama voters elected Moore as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, and the next summer he had a 5,300-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building. A federal judge ordered Moore to remove it as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, but Moore refused.

His fellow justices had the monument moved to a storage site out of public view. And in November 2003, a state judicial court kicked Moore out of office for defying the federal court.

Moore took appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost at every level.

Since then, he has traveled the country, speaking to church and conservative groups and promoting his book about the controversy, So Help Me God.

To those who have criticized him as a one-issue candidate, Moore said Monday that his main issue is summed up by his campaign theme: "Return Alabama to the people."

Moore signed a giant copy of his campaign platform that called for limiting legislators to three terms, barring lawmakers from holding two state jobs, ending annual tax reappraisals of property and imposing new penalties on businesses that employ illegal immigrants.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2
005-10-03-moore-governor_x.htm?csp=34

Miers Gave to Democrats Candidates

Miers Supports Democrats

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988 — and 12 years later contributed to the effort to end Gore's chance of winning the White House.

In 1988, Miers, then a lawyer in private practice, donated $1,000 to Gore, the Tennessee Democrat then seeking the party's presidential nomination, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Gore eventually bowed out and Michael Dukakis secured the nomination.

In 2000, Miers contributed to the campaign of Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who was running against Gore that year. When the votes were still being counted in Florida and the outcome was in doubt, she gave $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inc. Recount Fund, according to the non-partisan Political MoneyLine.

Through the years, Miers has contributed more than $10,000 to political candidates, focusing mainly on Texas Republicans such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record), Rep. Pete Sessions (news, bio, voting record) and former Sen. Phil Gramm.

Miers also gave $1,000 to another prominent Democrat — Lloyd Bentsen, the longtime Texas senator who in 1988 ran for re-election and also was Dukakis' vice presidential choice on the Democratic ticket that year.

Bentsen won another term in the Senate, but the Republican ticket of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle defeated Dukakis and Bentsen.

Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. in 1988.

Miers gave some $5,000 to Bush's 2000 campaign and his 2004 re-election bid. She contributed $1,650 to the presidential inaugural committee that paid for some of the festivities surrounding Bush's swearing in to a second term.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/200
51003/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_campaign_donations_2

Conservative Group Opposes 'Bush Packing' Appointment of Miers

Conservatives Opposes Bush Pick

FALLS CHURCH, Va. -- Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio has issued the following statement following the appointment of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court.

"The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

National Life Chain 2005

National Life Chain 2005

Nation's largest pro-life event receives no national media coverage

More than 1,000 cities across the United States and Canada participated in the National Life Chain on Sunday. Here is a list of news headlines from some local newspapers.

Abortion Foes Hold Rally In Plantation As Part Of National Event
Sun-Sentinel.com
Fifteen-year-old Rowen Divine held his sign for all to see, undeterred by the threat of rain and disagreeable drivers: "Abortion is Murder." Rowen's message, written carefully in black marker, elicited toots of approval as well as angry gestures from drivers on University Drive. "I believe strongly that abortion is wrong," Rowen said Sunday, joining dozens of anti-abortion advocates in front of St. Gregory's Catholic Church in Plantation for an hourlong "Life Chain" rally to protest abortion. The rally was part of a national event conducted every year in October. For one hour, Rowen's message and others like it were on display from Miramar Parkway to Sample Road on University Drive as an estimated 500 supporters gathered at intersections, some braving a drenching downpour. Each sign had a message for those passing by: "Adoption: The Loving Option," "Abortion Hurts Women," "Jesus Forgives and Heals." The back of each sign also carried a message of prayer or scripture, reminding those joining the Life Chain to pray and reflect on the importance of their task. The first Life Chain event was in California in 1987 to raise awareness of "the unborn" and soon caught on nationwide, said Tewannah Aman, executive director of Broward County Right to Life.

Thousands form anti-abortion chain
Indianapolis Star
In any language, Hector Perez says, abortion kills babies. It was a pointed message he conveyed Sunday in Spanish on one of the signs raised by more than 2,000 people who lined Meridian Street as part of the Central Indiana Life Chain. Perez, who stood about midway in the stretch of anti-abortion sentiment that ran north from Monument Circle to 40th Street, said the issue is close to his heart: "It should be important to every American, I think." Central Indiana Life Chain President Tom Hosty oversees the annual Indianapolis event that links abortion opponents. During the same hour, 2:30-3:30 p.m., human chains are formed on other streets nationwide.

Annual Life Chain held in downtown Gainesville
Access North Georgia
GAINESVILLE -- An estimated 250 people took part in the annual "Life Chain" in downtown Gainesville Sunday afternoon. Ann Gainey,Executive Director of the Gainesville Care Center, says the event is held each year on the first Sunday in October. Gainey says Life Chains are held all across the country on the first Sunday in October as participants line an intersection which, when viewed from above, forms a cross. In Gainesville, the chain was set up at the intersection of Jesse Jewell and E.E. Butler Parkways.

Thousands join in 'Life Chain' to decry abortion
Ocala.com, FL
OCALA -- Using one of the area's busiest roads Sunday, thousands of people lined portions of U.S. 441 between McIntosh and Lady Lake to take a stand against abortion. The one-hour event was part of the nationwide silent prayer vigil, Life Chain. About 20 local churches participated in the area event, which was coordinated by Marion County Right to Life. Protestors, estimated by organizers to exceed 3,000, lined both sides of U.S. 441. There were also gatherings in Dunnellon, Silvers Springs Shores and Ocklawaha. The protesters held up signs opposing abortions. Most were concentrated in front of Pine Plaza in Ocala.

Midlanders form 'life chain' against abortion
MyWestTexas.com
Pastors and priests, mothers and fathers, women, men and children lined a busy Midland intersection Sunday, holding signs and forming a human cross to demonstrate against human pregnancy termination. Others lining the intersection of Midkiff Road and Andrews Highway held signs reading, "Lord forgive us and our nation," "Abortion kills children," "Adoption, the loving option," " Abortion hurts women" and "Pray to end abortion."

Abortion foes show views at Life Chain on Sunday
Texarkana Gazette, TX
Area pro-life residents will share their stance through a peaceful and prayerful witness with the local observance of Life Chain 2005 this Sunday. It will be held from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Son the grounds of First Church of the Nazarene, 3700 N. Robison Road, across from Central Mall. Life Chain was formed to be a visual statement of solidarity that abortion kills children and the church supports the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, said Suzanne Finley, a spokeswoman for the prayer event.

Abortion Protesters Take A Stand
News Journal, TX
Silently and peacefully, 38-year-old Melissa Spraggins stood on the side of Marshall Avenue showing her support for the unborn. Spraggins, joined by her eight children between the ages of 2 and 17, was one of about 400 people who participated in the 15th Annual Life Chain, a peaceful demonstration to discourage abortion. The demonstration was sponsored by Right to Life of East Texas, and Tom Mittler, president of the organization, said more than 25 churches and groups took part in "Let's Life Chain Longview." "We just want to spread the word about the horrors of abortion," Mittler said. "Abortion kills children. It couldn't get any simpler than that. This is not a complicated issue."

Anti-abortion messages line Kettering street near clinic
Dayton Daily News
The Miami Valley Life Chain has been held every year since about 1990, according to event coordinator Karl Hart, a member of Emmanuel Catholic Church in Dayton. The local gathering was held Sunday at the same time as similar events in about 975 other communities across the United States and Canada. The chain spread out east and west from Women's Med Center at 1401 E. Stroop Road, a medical center operated by Dr. Martin Haskell, who helped develop a late-term abortion technique. About a half dozen people prayed on the sidewalk in front of the doors to the clinic, but there was no indication it was open.

Abortion foes form Life Chain
The Journal News.com, NY
Hundreds lined the intersection of Route 59 and Middletown Road for the 13th annual Life Chain, an event organized by abortion opponents. Couples with children, nuns, teenagers and senior citizens attended the event, stretching out across both roads of the intersection to form a human cross. According to Life Chain organizers, Life Chains were formed at intersections across the United States and Canada yesterday. Participants stand in the shape of a cross because "there was no one more innocent than Jesus," said local organizer Eileen Peterson, drawing on abortion opponents' assertion that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

Anti-Abortion Event Gets Word Out Despite Weather
Salem Statesman Journal
Terra Blechman stood on Lancaster Drive NE in an olive green coat Sunday, holding a black sign with a picture of a baby that read, "Face It, Abortion Kills." Blechman, 29, was one of more than 150 people gathered in coats and rain jackets for the annual "Life Chain," a peaceful demonstration to let passers-by in their vehicles know that they think abortions are wrong.

'Life Chain' Abortion Protest
Greeley Tribune
For 15 years, Christine Kuhn has been a part of the Life Chain event, which drew about 200 people to the sidewalks along 23rd Avenue from 29th Street past 32nd Street. She said her experience with Jaylee has made her understand the importance of the event more than ever. Life Chain began 18 years ago in Yuba City, Calif., with 2,500 protesters and has spread across the country and into Canada. Protesters hold signs, pray and stand quietly to express their anti-abortion message.

Demonstrators Put Abortion Views On Display
Penn State Digital Collegian
About 75 abortion rights opponents and 40 abortion rights advocates gathered at a State College medical center yesterday to support their respective positions on the right to choose. The demonstrators held signs and stood peacefully on National Life Chain Sunday near the State College Medical Services Center, 900 W. College Ave. According to the Life Chain Web site, people in North America stand on designated sidewalks for one hour each year, holding signs with anti-abortion messages.

Bush Chooses Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

Bush Picks a Feminist to sit on Supreme Court

President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Miers, who Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.

Democratic and Republican special interests groups were braced for a political brawl over the pick, Bush's second. But the lack of a judicial record may make it difficult for Democrats to find ground upon which to fight her nomination.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them.

Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.

Miers' pick came shortly before Chief Justice John Roberts was set to take his seat on the court for the first time Monday after breezing to nomination. Miers helped push his nomination through the Senate.

"She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. Conservatives apparently agreed.

"There's every indication that she's very similar to Judge Roberts — judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.

The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus_28

Profile: Harriet Miers
Before her nomination, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told the Associated Press news agency that Democratic and Republican senators had recommended Miss Miers as a possible nominee. Friends and colleagues describe the single woman as assertive and ambitious, whilst being discreet and selfless.