Cindy Sheehan arrested in House gallery
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman, adding that Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail, Schneider said. (full story)
________________________________
NOTE: Sheehan was in the gallery as a guest of California Representative Lynn Woolsey. The Washington NBC station reported that Sheehan's T-shirt read "2245 Dead - How Many More?" This is just another example of a president unwilling to acknowledge the truth.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bush to Country: "I'm ready for my close up..."
o
The State of the Union is FINALLY over. As too be expected, it was classic Bush -- lies, lies, and more lies.
The State of the Union is FINALLY over. As too be expected, it was classic Bush -- lies, lies, and more lies.
The Bush Addiction to September 11
Listening to the State of the Union address I'm reminded just how dependent George W. Bush is on September 11. Without it, he would not have been able to use terrorism as justification for a war he wanted this country involved in BEFORE the Twin Towers were destroyed.
Fear, terrorism, more fear and fight 'em there, so we don't have to fight 'em here.
Enough already!
Fear, terrorism, more fear and fight 'em there, so we don't have to fight 'em here.
Enough already!
Coretta Scott King Remembered
Coretta Scott King, born in Heiberger, Alabama, was exposed at an early age to the injustices of life in a segregated society. She walked five miles a day to attend the one-room Crossroad School in Marion, Alabama, while the white students rode buses to an all-white school closer by. She graduated in 1945 and received a scholarship to Antioch College in Ohio, where she took an active interest in the civil rights movement joining the Antioch chapter of the NAACP, and the college's Race Relations and Civil Liberties Committees.
While studying music in Boston she met a young theology student, Martin Luther King, Jr., and her life was changed forever. They were married on June 18, 1953, in a ceremony conducted by the groom's father, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr.
They were soon caught up in the dramatic events that triggered the modern civil rights movement. When Rosa Parks refused to yield her seat on a Montgomery city bus to a white passenger, she was arrested for violating the city's ordinances giving white passengers preferential treatment in public conveyances. The black citizens of Montgomery organized immediately in defense of Mrs. Parks, and under Martin Luther King's leadership organized a boycott of the city's buses. The Montgomery bus boycott drew the attention of the world to the continued injustice of segregation in the United States, and led to court decisions striking down all local ordinances separating the races in public transit. Dr. King's eloquent advocacy of nonviolent civil disobedience soon made him the most recognizable face of the civil rights movement, and he was called on to lead marches in city after city, with Mrs. King at his side, inspiring the citizens, black and white, to defy the segregation laws.
Mrs. King became the first woman to deliver the Class Day address at Harvard, and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. She served as a Women's Strike for Peace delegate to the 17-nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva, Switzerland in 1962. Mrs. King became a liaison to international peace and justice organizations even before Dr. King took a public stand in 1967 against United States intervention in the Vietnam War.
On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Channeling her grief, Mrs. King concentrated her energies on fulfilling her husband's work by building The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. Mrs. King maintained her husband's commitment to the cause of economic justice. In 1974 she formed the Full Employment Action Council, a broad coalition of over 100 religious, labor, business, civil and women's rights organizations dedicated to a national policy of full employment and equal economic opportunity; Mrs. King served as Co-Chair of the Council.
Mrs. King led the successful campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday, January 15, as a national holiday in the United States. By an Act of Congress, the first national observance of the holiday took place in 1986. Dr. King's birthday is now marked by annual celebrations in over 100 countries. Mrs. King was invited by President Clinton to witness the historic handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Yassir Arafat at the signing of the Middle East Peace Accords in 1993. In 1985 Mrs. King and three of her children were arrested at the South African embassy in Washington, D.C., for protesting against that country's apartheid system of racial segregation and disenfranchisement. Ten years later, she stood with Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg when he was sworn in as President of South Africa.
After 27 years at the helm of The King Center, Mrs. King turned over leadership of the Center to her son, Dexter Scott King, in 1995. She has remained active in the causes of racial and economic justice, and in recent years has devoted much of her energy to AIDS education and curbing gun violence.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Democratic Senators we must Defeat!
The Alito Betrayal
by Bob Fertik
January 30, 2006 - 5:18pm
Democrats.com
We, the voters who elect Democrats in every election, were utterly and completely betrayed today by 18 Democratic Senators that we elected, all of whom can be reached at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641:
by Bob Fertik
January 30, 2006 - 5:18pm
Democrats.com
We, the voters who elect Democrats in every election, were utterly and completely betrayed today by 18 Democratic Senators that we elected, all of whom can be reached at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641:
Daniel Akaka (HI) 2007**
Max Baucus (MT) 2009
Jeff Bingaman (NM) 2007
Robert Byrd (WV) 2007
Maria Cantwell (WA) 2007
Tom Carper (DE) 2007
Byron Dorgan (ND) 2011
Daniel Inouye (HI) 2011
Tim Johnson (SD) 2009
Herb Kohl (WI) 2007
Mary Landrieu (LA) 2009
Joe Lieberman (CT) 2007
Blanche Lincoln (AR) 2011
Bill Nelson (FL) 2007
Ben Nelson (NE) 2007
Mark Pryor (AR) 2009
Jay Rockefeller (WV) 2009
Ken Salazar (CO) 2011
There was no reason for this betrayal. We only needed 40 of the 45 Democrats to sustain a filibuster. We could have won even if 5 Democrats who were flat-out stupid enough to believe Alito's lies (like Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad) had voted against the filibuster.
15 minutes can be a very long time
If someone with Sam Alito's judicial temperament ends up on the Supreme Court I fear for our country. I fear that anyone not part of the 'majority' will be left behind. I fear that individual rights and freedoms that people have literally died to secure will be lost. I fear that the very aspect that sets our nation apart from others will be gone. It's going to be a long 15 minutes until the vote.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
FILIBUSTER ALITO -- KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR SENATORS NOW!
Senator John Kerry called for a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and some courageous Democrats have signed on. It's time to keep the pressure on ALL Dems, and moderate Republicans, to filibuster Alito!
_____________________________________________
TAKE ACTION
Call or email your Senators and urge them to Filibuster Alito!
http://www.senate.gov/
Senator John Kerry called for a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and some courageous Democrats have signed on. It's time to keep the pressure on ALL Dems, and moderate Republicans, to filibuster Alito!
_____________________________________________
TAKE ACTION
Call or email your Senators and urge them to Filibuster Alito!
http://www.senate.gov/
Friday, January 27, 2006
An Up or Down Vote - Defined
A Filibuster IS an Up or Down Vote
The Administration and Senate Republicans are aggressively seeking an "up or down vote" on Samuel Alito. What they fail to acknowledge is that a filibuster IS an up or down vote. It's simply an up or down vote that requires 60 votes, instead of a simple 51 majority.
Alito is seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. A position of this importance deserves more than a simply majority support.
Samuel Alito holds extreme views and if confirmed will set the Court back decades.
The Administration and Senate Republicans are aggressively seeking an "up or down vote" on Samuel Alito. What they fail to acknowledge is that a filibuster IS an up or down vote. It's simply an up or down vote that requires 60 votes, instead of a simple 51 majority.
Alito is seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. A position of this importance deserves more than a simply majority support.
Samuel Alito holds extreme views and if confirmed will set the Court back decades.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
FILIBUSTER ALITO - CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW!
BREAKING NEWS: John Kerry Calls for Filibuster of Alito
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml
Senator John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday. Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.
_____________________________________________
TAKE ACTION
Call or email your Senators and urge them to Filibuster Alito!
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml
Senator John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday. Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.
_____________________________________________
TAKE ACTION
Call or email your Senators and urge them to Filibuster Alito!
http://www.senate.gov/
MUST READ: 'Senators in Need of a Spine'
Senators in Need of a Spine
January 26, 2006
NY Times Editorial
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.
At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.
The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/opinion/26thur1.html?_r=1
January 26, 2006
NY Times Editorial
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.
At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.
The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/opinion/26thur1.html?_r=1
Monday, January 23, 2006
It's not too late to F** Alito!
Anti-abortion activists were optimistic at this year's annual Roe v Wade march, and why shouldn't they be. The Senate is considering a replacement for a key swing seat on the US Supreme Court that is even more conservative than Scalia. But take heart ... it's not a done deal just yet! There is still time to call your Senator and urge them to vote NO on Alito! If one or both of your Senators is a Democrat, urge them to filibuster.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Happy Anniversary
January 22: celebrating Roe v Wade,
the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the USA
Legalization of abortion has dramatically improved women's health. Abortion moved from the back alleys to safe professional clinics. As more doctors began to openly provide it, share their expertise, and work to develop better procedures, abortion became even safer.
In the early 1900's, an estimated 800,000 illegal abortions occurred annually, resulting in 8,000-17,000 women's deaths each year. Today, abortion is the most commonly requested outpatient surgical procedure and it is 8 to 10 times safer than giving birth... 43% of American will have at least one abortion by age 45.
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is imperative that pro-choice Americans send the message to Congress and the White House that we will not go back to the days of illegal abortion. We will never again allow women's lives to be sacrificed in the name of politics. We strive to ensure that all women are granted equal access to safe abortion care, regardless of their socioeconomic, cultural or religious backgrounds.
For websites with detailed information about the U.S. Supreme Court and efforts to preserve Roe v Wade click here.
the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the USA
Legalization of abortion has dramatically improved women's health. Abortion moved from the back alleys to safe professional clinics. As more doctors began to openly provide it, share their expertise, and work to develop better procedures, abortion became even safer.
In the early 1900's, an estimated 800,000 illegal abortions occurred annually, resulting in 8,000-17,000 women's deaths each year. Today, abortion is the most commonly requested outpatient surgical procedure and it is 8 to 10 times safer than giving birth... 43% of American will have at least one abortion by age 45.
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is imperative that pro-choice Americans send the message to Congress and the White House that we will not go back to the days of illegal abortion. We will never again allow women's lives to be sacrificed in the name of politics. We strive to ensure that all women are granted equal access to safe abortion care, regardless of their socioeconomic, cultural or religious backgrounds.
For websites with detailed information about the U.S. Supreme Court and efforts to preserve Roe v Wade click here.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Dennis Miller is a big fat idiot
Dennis Miller is on the Tonight Show making fun of fat people. Meanwhile, he's growing a beard to cover his double chin, and can hardly button his jacket! Someone needs to remind him about the 'glass house'.
Now he's raging about secret wire tapping and how anyone who doesn't support it is an idiot. I guess he's never read a little thing called the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
The guy's an idiot.
Now he's raging about secret wire tapping and how anyone who doesn't support it is an idiot. I guess he's never read a little thing called the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
The guy's an idiot.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Lieberman freaking out about Lamont
Daily Kos is reporting that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is "freaking out" about primary challenger Ned Lamont. It appears Lamont has promised to spend 7-figures of his own money on the primary race, and will possibly receive support from MoveOn.org. All this could spell trouble for Lieberman -- who would find himself in the 'Democrat-lite' category.
Connecticut Local Politics blog has a short Q&A with Ned Lamont, where he says:
"I believe that we as the Democratic party should and I as a senator would push back against some terrible policies, starting with the wrong headed invasion of Iraq and ill-advised tax cuts, and stand up forcefully for a Democratic agenda, which includes healthcare reform, education reform, and energy conservation. The Senator can speak for himself; I would oppose the nomination of Judge Alito since he jeopardizes a woman's right to choose, I would oppose education vouchers since they undermine our commitment to our public school system, I would have strongly opposed federal intervention in the Terri Shiavo case, I would have pushed for energy conservation and bio fuels as a better alternative than the liquefied natural gas plant in LI Sound; I would oppose diverting social security taxes into private accounts, and I would replace American troops on the front lines in Iraq with Iraqi troops as the first step towards bringing our troops home."
Go to DailyKos.com for the full story.
Connecticut Local Politics blog has a short Q&A with Ned Lamont, where he says:
"I believe that we as the Democratic party should and I as a senator would push back against some terrible policies, starting with the wrong headed invasion of Iraq and ill-advised tax cuts, and stand up forcefully for a Democratic agenda, which includes healthcare reform, education reform, and energy conservation. The Senator can speak for himself; I would oppose the nomination of Judge Alito since he jeopardizes a woman's right to choose, I would oppose education vouchers since they undermine our commitment to our public school system, I would have strongly opposed federal intervention in the Terri Shiavo case, I would have pushed for energy conservation and bio fuels as a better alternative than the liquefied natural gas plant in LI Sound; I would oppose diverting social security taxes into private accounts, and I would replace American troops on the front lines in Iraq with Iraqi troops as the first step towards bringing our troops home."
Go to DailyKos.com for the full story.
Monday, January 16, 2006
What does the Bush/Rove/Alito machine have on the Democrats?
The only logical explanation for the Democrats lack of spine is that Bush and Rove must have something on them. But what?
The presidents approval rating has hovered around 40% for months now. The Republican leadership in Congress is steeped in scandal. This should be the best of times for Democrats, so why are they being so cautious?
There is absolutely no reason why the Democrats shouldn't filibuster the Alito nomination. It's not like the public has shown overwhelming support for the man, in fact they have serious concerns about his nomination. The only group to embrace Alito is the Religious Right, which should sound the alarm for the Democrats.
Why should Democrats care what Religious Right voters think? The last time a Democrat tried to appease them he was impeached!
Republicans and conservative talk show hosts insist that Alito receive an up or down vote. Well what do they think a filibuster is? It's an up or down vote that requires 60 votes instead of a mere 51 votes. Is it too much to expect that a person seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land receive a clear majority of votes?
If you are liberal, progressive, or a registered Democrat call your nearest Democratic Senator today and urge them to OPPOSE Alito. The swing vote should not go to an individual we know will swing the Court to the far right.
The presidents approval rating has hovered around 40% for months now. The Republican leadership in Congress is steeped in scandal. This should be the best of times for Democrats, so why are they being so cautious?
There is absolutely no reason why the Democrats shouldn't filibuster the Alito nomination. It's not like the public has shown overwhelming support for the man, in fact they have serious concerns about his nomination. The only group to embrace Alito is the Religious Right, which should sound the alarm for the Democrats.
Why should Democrats care what Religious Right voters think? The last time a Democrat tried to appease them he was impeached!
Republicans and conservative talk show hosts insist that Alito receive an up or down vote. Well what do they think a filibuster is? It's an up or down vote that requires 60 votes instead of a mere 51 votes. Is it too much to expect that a person seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land receive a clear majority of votes?
If you are liberal, progressive, or a registered Democrat call your nearest Democratic Senator today and urge them to OPPOSE Alito. The swing vote should not go to an individual we know will swing the Court to the far right.
Friday, January 13, 2006
How many No. 2 leaders does al-Qaida have?
o
U.S. Airstrike Targeted al-Qaida Hideout
By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
January 13, 2006
DAMADOLA, Pakistan - An airstrike in a remote Pakistani tribal area killed at least 17 people on Friday, and a senior Pakistani official said the target was a suspected al-Qaida hideout that may have been frequented by high-level operatives, possibly the No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri. (full story)
U.S. Airstrike Targeted al-Qaida HideoutBy RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
January 13, 2006
DAMADOLA, Pakistan - An airstrike in a remote Pakistani tribal area killed at least 17 people on Friday, and a senior Pakistani official said the target was a suspected al-Qaida hideout that may have been frequented by high-level operatives, possibly the No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri. (full story)
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Good Choice!
Cecile Richards to lead Planned Parenthood
Cecile Richards, president of the political activist group America Votes and daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, was hired to lead Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Richards will become the group's president in mid-February. Planned Parenthood advocates for reproductive issues such as birth control and sex education. There are more than 850 Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.
"Planned Parenthood has recruited an experienced, proven leader who has the vision and skill to lead Planned Parenthood during a period of both opportunity and challenge," said PPFA Chair Esperanza Garcia Walters.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Alito ... Religious Freedom ... Depart, Don't DeLay
If you are not on their list, I encourage you to sign up to receive alerts from TomPaine.com!
Evasive Alito
The Supreme Court nominee is giving no comfort to those of us who fear a return to back-alley abortions. http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#7193
Religious Freedom For All
by Melissa Rogers, TomPaine.com
Why the Supreme Court is right and the Family Research Council is wrong about religious freedom. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060111/religious_freedom_for_all.php
Pass It On: Depart, Don't DeLay
by Campaign For America's Future
Watch this new television ad calling for Tom DeLay to resign from his congressional seat. http://tompaine.com/#passiton
Evasive Alito
The Supreme Court nominee is giving no comfort to those of us who fear a return to back-alley abortions. http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#7193
Religious Freedom For All
by Melissa Rogers, TomPaine.com
Why the Supreme Court is right and the Family Research Council is wrong about religious freedom. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060111/religious_freedom_for_all.php
Pass It On: Depart, Don't DeLay
by Campaign For America's Future
Watch this new television ad calling for Tom DeLay to resign from his congressional seat. http://tompaine.com/#passiton
More on Alito
POLLS SHOW PUBLIC NEEDS MORE INFORMATION ON ALITO WANT TO KNOW HIS LEGAL VIEWS ABOUT KEY PRIVACY RIGHTS
- A CBS News poll conducted January 5-8 reported that 70 percent of Americans have not yet formed an opinion on whether Samuel Alito should be confirmed by the Senate, reaffirming the importance of the confirmation hearings to give Americans information about what kind of justice Samuel Alito would be if he were confirmed. CBS reported that 77 percent think it important for the Senate to ascertain his positions on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, with 46 calling it "very important." Asked whether the Senate should consider a nominee's views on issues that might come before the court, as well as legal experience, Americans by a 61-32 margin want those views taken into consideration. (Americans believe by 69-25 that a justice’s personal views should not enter into their decisions.)
- A Harris poll conducted in December found that Americans were nearly evenly divided between support, opposition, and uncertainty (34-31-34). But, according to the poll, a 69 to 31 percent majority would oppose his confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal.
- An NBC News/WSJ poll conducted in December asked whether people would like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade or not; people opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade by 66 to 30 percent. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in December said that 57 percent of adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
- A January 6 - 8 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found the plurality of Americans supporting Alito's confirmation (49 to 30) evaporated, and turned into a 22 point margin of opposition when people were asked if the Senate should confirm him if he would overturn Roe v Wade (34 to 56).
- CBS also asked questions about presidential power and wiretapping. On the general question of expanding executive authority in wartime, 57 percent say it is a bad idea to give a President power to make changes to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, only 36 percent calling it a good idea. (This is a big change from December 2001, when the numbers were reversed, 29-64. BUT when asked whether they approve of President Bush's authorized monitoring of U.S. phone calls without warrants, people are evenly divided, 49-48. The poll reports that Americans say it is unacceptable to monitor ordinary Americans (28 yes, 68 no) but ok to monitor those whom the government deems suspicious (69 yes, 26 no), with Americans have some, but not a lot, of confidence the government can correctly tell whose calls should be monitored (10 percent great deal of confidence, 45 percent fair amount, 43 percent not much). Americans by 53 to 42 view the Patriot Act as a necessary tool to catch terrorists rather than a threat to civil liberties. Asked whether they are concerned about losing civil liberties because of the Bush administration's anti-terror measures, 29 percent said they were very concerned, 33 percent somewhat concerned, and 38 percent not at all concerned. But asked whether they are more concerned that the government will not make anti-terror laws strong enough or are more concerned that the government will restrict civil liberties, Americans are more concerned about restricting liberties, by 46 to 38).
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Supreme Decision
Day two of the Alito hearings has ended, and with each passing hour it becomes abundantly clear that he should not be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, with a Republican controlled Senate the only way to prevent it from happening is to urge the Democrats to filibuster.
The presidents polling numbers seem locked around 40%, the Republican leadership is steeped in scandal, so this should be a cake walk for the Dems. So why do I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach?
If you have not contacted your Senator to urge them to oppose Alito, please do so as soon as possible! Dems must know they have cover for this important vote, as we head into mid-term elections.
The presidents polling numbers seem locked around 40%, the Republican leadership is steeped in scandal, so this should be a cake walk for the Dems. So why do I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach?
If you have not contacted your Senator to urge them to oppose Alito, please do so as soon as possible! Dems must know they have cover for this important vote, as we head into mid-term elections.
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Alito Senate Hearings Begin on Monday
TAKE ACTION
President Bush’s nominee, Samuel Alito, is unsuited for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate should refuse to confirm him. Judge Alito’s record indicates that he views the First Amendment as placing few limitations on the ability of the far religious right to use the government to advance its narrow religious views, even at the expense of the religious freedom of minorities. Replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Judge Alito would fundamentally alter First Amendment law and immediately put at risk many of the crucial protections for religious minorities that the Supreme Court has recognized and consistently enforced during the past sixty years.
__________________________________
Alito's Credibility Problem
By Edward M. Kennedy
Saturday, January 7, 2006
Every Supreme Court nominee bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that he or she is committed to the constitutional principles that have been vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society. As Judge Samuel Alito approaches his confirmation hearings next week, the more we learn about him, the more questions we have about the credibility of his assurances to us. (full story)
President Bush’s nominee, Samuel Alito, is unsuited for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate should refuse to confirm him. Judge Alito’s record indicates that he views the First Amendment as placing few limitations on the ability of the far religious right to use the government to advance its narrow religious views, even at the expense of the religious freedom of minorities. Replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Judge Alito would fundamentally alter First Amendment law and immediately put at risk many of the crucial protections for religious minorities that the Supreme Court has recognized and consistently enforced during the past sixty years.
__________________________________
Alito's Credibility Problem
By Edward M. Kennedy
Saturday, January 7, 2006
Every Supreme Court nominee bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that he or she is committed to the constitutional principles that have been vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society. As Judge Samuel Alito approaches his confirmation hearings next week, the more we learn about him, the more questions we have about the credibility of his assurances to us. (full story)
Saturday, January 7, 2006
DeLay Down, Bush Next?
Tom DeLay Steps Down As House Leader
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
January 7, 2006
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay, the defiant face of a conservative revolution in Congress, stepped down as House majority leader on Saturday under pressure from Republicans staggered by an election-year corruption scandal. (full story)
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
January 7, 2006
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay, the defiant face of a conservative revolution in Congress, stepped down as House majority leader on Saturday under pressure from Republicans staggered by an election-year corruption scandal. (full story)
Bush in Trouble?
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; A01
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.
The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it. (full story)
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; A01
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.
The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it. (full story)
Thursday, January 5, 2006
Good Grief . . .
4-year-old turns up on government ‘no-fly’ list
Confusion over boy's name trips up family’s journey home for the holidays
The Associated Press
Jan. 5, 2006
HOUSTON - Edward Allen’s reaction to being on the government’s “no-fly” list should have been the tip-off that he is no terrorist.
“I don’t want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma,” the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother.
Sijollie Allen and her son had trouble boarding planes last month because someone with the same name as Edward is on a government terrorist watch list.
“Is this a joke?” Allen recalled telling Continental Airlines agents Dec. 21 at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. “You can tell he’s not a terrorist.”
She said it took several minutes of pleading and a phone call by the ticket agent to get on the plane to New York. (full story)
Confusion over boy's name trips up family’s journey home for the holidays
The Associated Press
Jan. 5, 2006
HOUSTON - Edward Allen’s reaction to being on the government’s “no-fly” list should have been the tip-off that he is no terrorist.
“I don’t want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma,” the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother.
Sijollie Allen and her son had trouble boarding planes last month because someone with the same name as Edward is on a government terrorist watch list.
“Is this a joke?” Allen recalled telling Continental Airlines agents Dec. 21 at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. “You can tell he’s not a terrorist.”
She said it took several minutes of pleading and a phone call by the ticket agent to get on the plane to New York. (full story)
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Capitol Hill Quakes After Plea Deal
Abramoff Makes Plea Deal, Will Cooperate
Washington Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges
By MARK SHERMAN and CURT ANDERSON, AP
January 3, 2006
WASHINGTON (Jan. 3) - Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.
In a heavily scripted court appearance, Abramoff agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle when she said he had engaged in a conspiracy involving "corruption of public officials." The lobbyist also agreed when she said he and others had engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items "in exchange for certain official acts."
"Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said, addressing the judge. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer."
To each of the three charges, Abramoff said, "I plead guilty, your honor." Huvelle and lawyers in the case referred to restitution possibly reaching $25 million in the case. As is typically the case in such pleadings, what happened in the courtroom Tuesday was arranged in advance between lawyers for the defendant and the prosecutors.
According to the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, providing he cooperates with federal prosecutors in a wide-ranging corruption investigation that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides. (full story)
Washington Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges
By MARK SHERMAN and CURT ANDERSON, AP
January 3, 2006
WASHINGTON (Jan. 3) - Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.
In a heavily scripted court appearance, Abramoff agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle when she said he had engaged in a conspiracy involving "corruption of public officials." The lobbyist also agreed when she said he and others had engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items "in exchange for certain official acts."
"Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said, addressing the judge. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer."
To each of the three charges, Abramoff said, "I plead guilty, your honor." Huvelle and lawyers in the case referred to restitution possibly reaching $25 million in the case. As is typically the case in such pleadings, what happened in the courtroom Tuesday was arranged in advance between lawyers for the defendant and the prosecutors.
According to the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, providing he cooperates with federal prosecutors in a wide-ranging corruption investigation that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides. (full story)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)