National Poverty Crisis?

With the 2006 Census Bureau “Income, Poverty, and Heath Insurance” report coming out this month many people are up in arms about the number of people living in this country that are considered to be at or under the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold is listed at $10,210 for a single person and $13,690 for a two-person household. In 2006, 36.5 million people lived under the poverty threshold. Sounds like alarming numbers.

Of that 36.5 million people in poverty, 12.8 million were children under the age of 18. Children represent 35.2 percent of people living in poverty and 24.9 percent of the total population. If you take a look at the total population of children it is also notable that 42.1 percent of children living in single parent homes are living in poverty while only 8.1 percent of children who’s parents are married live in poverty. Those numbers vary significantly when you look at children under the age of 6 in which 52.7 percent of children under 6 living in poverty are born to single mothers, that is over 5 times the rate of married couple families who have children under the age of 6 living in poverty. With fewer people getting married each year the number of children born out of wedlock is rising drastically. Last year 37 percent of children born were born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children 75 percent of children would be lifted out of poverty.

The report also breaks down the poverty and income levels based on race and nativity. The median income for a native born citizen in 2006 was $49,074. Surprisingly, the median income for naturalized citizens, foreign born but took the proper steps to become a citizen, is above that of native-born citizens. The average naturalized citizen makes approximately $51,440 a year. This should be good motivation for all the illegal immigrants to take the steps and become citizens. The number of Whites, Blacks and Asians, living in poverty remained the same from 2005 to 2006 while the number of Hispanics living in poverty decreased from 21.6 percent to 20.6 percent. The number of non-Hispanic Whites living in poverty in 2006 was 8.2 percent, accounting for 43.9 percent of the total population in poverty. The poverty rate for Blacks in 2006 was 24.3 percent and the rate of Asians living in poverty was 10.3 percent. It is notable that Blacks see the fewest number of marriages with in their race and the highest number of out-of-wedlock childbirths, which significantly increases their own poverty rate.

Based on this report it seems that many people living in this country must be suffering intolerable conditions. When most people think of persons in poverty they relate it to individuals who are homeless and do not have enough to eat. But are our poor really that bad off. The answer is a resounding “No.” The Census Bureau also found while conducting the report that 43 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by a person under the poverty threshold has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a garage. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning, 75 percent own a car, 31 percent own 2 cars, 97 percent own a color television, 50 percent own 2 or more color televisions, 78 percent have a DVD player, 89 percent own a microwave, 50 percent own a stereo and 33 percent own an automatic dishwasher. The average poor person in American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna and Athens. Not so bad off after all.

Of all poor persons the average number of hours worked each year averages 800, about 16 hours a week. If individuals raised their amount of work to 2,000 hours a year, or 40 hours a week, nearly 75 percent would be lifted out of official poverty.
Instead of encouraging these individuals to work more and get married, the government creates programs such as welfare to give aid to those individuals who do not meet the poverty threshold. Many people in this country could raise themselves out of poverty if they got married and worked full time. Welfare, public housing and food stamp programs both penalize marriage but the report shows that if poor individuals with children would marry they could lift themselves out of poverty. Programs such as these should reward those who work to get themselves out of poverty, otherwise why not live on government aid for the rest of their lives.

These standards of living for our country’s poor are good news. Things are not as dire as the media will make it out to be. Even better news is the fact that the country can substantially reduce the number of children living in poverty by encouraging parents to work more and get married. 75 percent of children in poverty could be lifted above the poverty threshold if their parents married. Additionally, 75 percent of children in poverty could be raised out of poverty if their parents worked full time. Government aid is not the answer, hard work has and always will be the answer to reducing the poverty levels.

Global Warming in 1922!

Check this story out..

A journalist was digging through some archived newpapers and found a headline news story that said "Artic Ocean Getting Warm, Seals Vanish and Ice Bergs Melt." This headline ran in 1922. Yes you read that right, 1922. Must have been all the green house gases causing that too right? What about in the 70's when the media warned that we were heading into another Ice Age, was that from green house gases too??? Turns out the hottest year on record was 1934. What don't people understand about climate change??? The earth goes through cycles. We're not causing it. It's normal! If the same thing was happening in 1922 that is happening now you'd think some people were smart enough to see it's a cycle. Anyway theres even more in the story (transcript) below...

Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: From yesterday's Global Warming Stack, from the Washington Times, John McCaslin, Inside the Beltway, reports that a "D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: 'Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.' The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention 'great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,' and 'at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.' 'This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s,' says Mr. Lockwood. 'I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all.'"

Now, this is an interesting thing. We've talked about this, but you may not remember it, and I wish I could remember who did this. Two guys, their names escape me, but what they did was an analysis of media. I know Koko will find this and we can put it up on the website this afternoon when we update it for today's content, but what they did was research the media treatment of climate change going all the way back to the 1800s. What they found was fascinating, that the whole notion of climate change could not be in the public domain were it not for a willing accomplice media, and every 25 years the cycle changes, from warming, to warning about cooling. It was a fascinating piece. This 1922 Washington Post story illustrates that that's exactly what's happened. So you can have a bunch of scientists at any time in history say, "Hey, we just did some research here and the glaciers are expanding, the world is getting colder." Remember 1979, TIME and Newsweek, "The coming ice age"? It's about a little more than 25 years ago, but the cycle is starting to repeat itself, isn't it?

So it was global cooling back then; now we're into global warming. This has been the cycle; every 25 to 30 years, the media changes its tune. It's all part of the narrative. It's all about having something catastrophic on the horizon to report, just like they're going nuts with these two storms. We have Tropical Storm Erin Burnett out there, Tropical Storm Street Sweetie, which is about to hit Corpus Christi. We have Tropical Storm Dean, hasn't become a hurricane yet. It's down there in the southern Atlantic, and the track on that one keeps changing. But the Drive-Bys are excited now, folks, we have catastrophe on the horizon, and this is something that excites them. I know people are starting to pound me out there for saying this whole global warming thing is a hoax. Let me clarify. We may be warming up. What is a hoax is that only rich industrialized nations are causing it, that it is manmade. I don't think we have the ability, and I think it's outrageous for people to claim with such vanity that we have such power on the one hand, and on the other hand we're no more important than field mice. In fact, some people would say that for the earth to survive, we'd have to get off of it, or die. It's a religion.

The whole thing is a political process and a political agenda, hiding behind the saving of the planet and so forth. I don't know if it's warming up or not, but I think it's always warming or cooling. How do we know what the ideal temperature on the planet is? Who the hell are we? None of us have been around more than 85, a hundred years. And look at our vanity: "Why, it's perfect right now. This is what the world was meant to be, and it's changing, and it's our fault." It's just cockeyed. Hotter in the past, colder in the past, who's to say what's normal, natural, and ideal? We have to adapt to whatever happens, which is what we've done. We're doing great things and the right things and keeping the climate clean or the environment clean. Every species has to adapt in order to thrive because it's a constantly changing climate, a constantly changing environment. But we have all the vanity now suggesting that it's just as it was supposed to be right here, and we, because we are here right now, are destroying it. I think, folks, that is sophistry.

Here, another interesting story: "Trees Won't Fix Global Warming." Now, of course, trees are the linchpin to another hoax, and that's carbon offsets. You don't want to reduce your carbon footprint, i.e., your pollution? Fine and dandy, go out and buy some carbon offsets. There are a bunch of companies that will scam you into doing this, and you'll pay them to go plant a bunch of trees, and then you can rest easy, you can keep polluting all you want, knowing full well that your carbon footprint is going to be absorbed because somebody's out there planting trees for you. Well, guess what? "The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates. Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming." Only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming. "The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels," and it made no difference. It didn't make a hoot's worth of difference. This is why I say all of this is a hoax.

Look at this from Live Science: "Irrigation Counteracts Global Warming." No! Irrigation is destroying the planet, I thought. "Irrigation isn't natural; it's manmade; God never intended it, nature never intended it. We're destroying what was pristine and wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh." "Irrigation can counteract global warming on a local scale, a new study shows, but increasing demand for water is likely to curb that influence in the future, scientists predict. Scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California showed that there was an irrigation-induced cooling in agricultural areas, based on observations of temperature and irrigation trends throughout California." Weeell, how about that? I got an idea, folks, let's start irrigating Laurie David's backyard. Let's irrigate Brentwood. Let's irrigate Bel Air and Beverly Hills. They care about global warming out there. They got the solution right in their backyards. Dig a ditch and put some water in it.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, one more global warming story here. This is from Reuters. Get this: "Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's oceans and helps govern global climate." They just found this? Would somebody tell me how in the name of Sam Hill -- and there was such a guy -- how in the name of Sam Hill can they been predicting all this global warming when there's been such a huge missing link that they just now found? "New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia's southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system's engine-room." They just found it. What else don't they know? See, I thought this was settled science. I thought it was settled and the consensus was there.


END TRANSCRIPT

Bush admin to crack down on Illegal Immigration.

Bush is finally starting to crack down on illegal immigration. Since our joke of a congress wasn't able to pass any kind of reform President Bush is making some changes in our current plan that will fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. Personally I think this is a good start but so much more needs to be done. For starters, why don't we try enforcing the laws we already have in place! We also need to crack down on Apartment homes who are renting to illegal immigrants. If they can't work here and can't live here they'll be no need for them to come here illegally. Just a thought. (hey if you can't beat them, fine the heck out of them) ...Anyways, check out the latest.... read below.

Government to Step Up Immigration Law Enforcement
Friday , August 10, 2007
WASHINGTON —

The Bush administration on Friday unveiled a host of changes aimed at stepping up enforcement on illegal immigration, which officials said was necessary because Congress failed to act on comprehenesive reform legislation earlier this year.

"Our hope is that the key elements of the Senate bill will see the light of day at some point, but until Congress chooses to act, we'll be taking some energetic steps of our own," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday.

The new measures are aimed at strengthening border security, further preventing illegal immigrants from taking jobs, finding immigrants who have already entered the United States, and revising temporary worker programs.

The measures would include fines for employers by as much as 25 percent, and a stepped up process to punish employers who knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants, Chertoff said. The administration also would speed deployment of border agents and increase processing facilities.

Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez announce the changes in a news conference Friday.

The administration also wants to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks, and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.

In addition, employers will face possible criminal sanctions if they don't fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers.

The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses, according to the summary, which was provided by a congressional aide.

Some of the initiatives are similar to proposals contained in the recent immigration measure which failed to pass in the Senate, though they are not nearly as sweeping.

The legislation was opposed by many conservatives who complained that people don't trust their government to start new immigration programs since existing immigration laws are not enforced.

The Senate bill would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status and eventually apply for legal residency. It also would have created a guest worker program and stepped up border security.

Some lawmakers have kept up efforts to tighten the border. Last month, the Senate added $3 billion to a homeland security bill and devoted the money to U.S.-Mexico border security.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Expoitation of our Heroes.

On July 21 the city of San Diego hosted a "gay pride" parade in which they forced the city firefighters to participate in. Imagine if the company you worked for forced you to take part in a "gay day." They were not even given the choice to opt out of this parade. Forcing these men and women to participate in something like this is nothing short of sexual harassment and exploitation. The firefighter's that were subjected to this are suing the city for sexual harassment charges, are rightly so.

If this were a Christian parade the ACLU would be claiming that religion was forced upon these fire fighters and they'd be suing the city, just like they did with a public school that had a "Christmas" play.

If the company I worked for hosted any kind of homosexual event and forced me to go you'd bet I'd sue too. No one should be forced by their employer, especially under threat of losing their jobs, to attend any kind of event that compromises their beliefs and values, especially a sexually explicit one. This is definitely sexual harassment and is unacceptable.



San Diego Firefighters Claim Harassment
Tuesday, August 07, 2007

By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO —

Four firefighters are pressing sexual harassment claims against the city's fire department after they were taunted while driving a fire engine in a gay pride parade last month, an attorney said Monday.

The men claim their battalion chief ordered them to ride in the July 21 parade through San Diego's Hillcrest neighborhood, according to their attorney, Stephen Stirling. The firefighters followed the order out of concern they would otherwise be suspended or punished.

During the parade, the firefighters said, bystanders taunted them with sexually explicit comments and colleagues called to tease them for participating in the event.

"I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in," engineer Jason Hewitt said in a statement.

The four contend the department failed to protect them from sexual harassment and didn't immediately act to correct the situation, Stirling said.

Their lawyers sent a letter Wednesday to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing seeking right-to-sue notices, a first step toward a lawsuit. The Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian legal organization based in Michigan, is helping represent the plaintiffs.

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the four men, who were assigned to a fire station in the parade route area, were called in after another crew that had volunteered to participate canceled at the last minute because one firefighter had a family emergency.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Iraqi Al Qaeda Leader Arrested

A top Al Queda leader was caught in Iraq earlier this month. His name is Abu Shahid and he apparently was in communication with Osama Bin Laden and he had significant influence in Iraq. But really now, theres no reason for our military to be in Iraq right.... I mean it's not like there are any real terrorists there....

U.S.: Top Iraqi Al Qaeda Leader Arrested
Wednesday, July 18, 2007


The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.

"Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the Al Qaeda in Iraq network," Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"In fact, communication between the senior Al Qaeda leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said. He added: "There is a clear connection between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda senior leadership outside Iraq."

The degree of control and supervision between bin Laden's inner circle and the Iraq branch has been the subject of debate, with some private analysts believing the foreign-based leadership plays a minor role in day to day operations.

Some have suggested that linking Al Qaeda in Iraq to bin Laden is simply an attempt to justify the Iraq war as an extension of the global conflict that began with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

But the U.S. military has insisted that there are links between the local Al Qaeda group and the bin Laden clique and has released captured letters from time to time, suggesting the foreign-based leaders provide at least broad direction.

Pointing to the foreign influence in Al Qaeda also undermines support for the organization among nationalistically minded Iraqis, including some in insurgent groups that have broken with Al Qaeda.

Bergner said that al-Mashhadani and al-Masri "co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006."

"The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by Al Qaeda to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people," Bergner said.

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.

"In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within Al Qaeda in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq," Bergner said.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that Al Qaeda leaders outside the country "continue to provide directions, they continue to provide a focus for operations, they continue to flow foreign fighters into Iraq."

He said al-Mashhadani was a leader of the militant Ansar al-Sunnah group before joining Al Qaeda in Iraq 2 1/2 years ago. Al-Mashhadani served as the Al Qaeda media chief for Baghdad and then was appointed the media chief for the whole country.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was proclaimed in 2004 by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led a group called Tawhid and Jihad, responsible for the beheading of several foreign hostages, whose final moments were captured on videotapes provided to Arab television stations.

Al-Zarqawi posted Web statements declaring his allegiance to bin Laden and began using the name of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Diyala province in June 2006 and was replaced by al-Masri

All Nighter pizza party in the Senate.

Last night our senate pulled an all nighter to try and pass the newest surrender bill and it seems that thier lastest stunt has failed once again. You would think they learned the first time that a surrender bill is not going to pass because even if it gets enough votes, the president will veto it, as he should. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different result, so it seems that our politicians are insane. And we're paying them for this! All nighter pizza party stunts.



After All-Night Debate, Senate Rejects Measure to Bring Troops Home From Iraq
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The Senate rejected a plan Wednesday to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq by early next year after spending an all-night session debating whether to demand President Bush change the mission.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and move toward passage. Four Republicans voted with the Democrats, but only one new backer emerged after the 24-hour Democrat-orchestrated talkathon: Susan Collins of Maine who is seeking re-election next year. She joined three previously known Republicans supporting a troop withdrawal plan: Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman voted against the troop withdrawal plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who strongly supports the withdrawal approach, voted no as a technical move that allows him, under Senate rules, to bring the troop withdrawal plan back to a vote at a later date.


After the vote, Reid temporarily pulled the defense authorization bill that also includes pay raises for service members, missile defense programming, rules on habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees, equipment development plans and other policies that help shape the military spending bill for the coming fiscal year.

Reid blamed Republicans for stalling forward motion.

"We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to pass the defense authorization bill. Why? Because we must," Reid said.

But Republicans argued that pulling the bill proves Democrats are only interested in Iraq, not the military overall. As Reid tried to move on to other issues, including homeland security and education authorization, GOP lawmakers objected, saying that the Senate should stay on defense authorization.

Calling it a "colossal waste of time," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the previous 24-hours of debate had been an "indignity" for the Senate, but the defense authorization package is still necessary.

The amendment to the defense authorization bill offered by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., called for combat troops to be out of Iraq by April 8, 2008, Thousands of troops would have been left behind for other missions, such as fighting Al Qaeda terrorists in that country.

"Just about everybody agrees there's no military solution to Iraq," Levin said during the debate. If Republicans get their way and block this change in mission, "We will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue that just about every American has strong feelings on."

Senate Democrats had staged an all-night debate, complete with cots for lawmakers to sleep off the Senate floor, in a dramatic attempt to wear down Republicans who refuse to vote to begin to bring troops home by fall.

Republicans responded with a yawn — agreeing to stay around and respond to any votes that might be scheduled around-the-clock but remaining steadfast in their opposition to the Democrats' anti-war legislation.

Labeled a publicity stunt by Republicans, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the debate ended up "substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship."

"This is nonsense," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Added Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., of his Democratic colleagues: "I bet I can stay up longer than they can."

During debate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Levin's bill was unclear and wouldn't accomplish what Levin said it would do, and he said the president's security plan should be given until September to see if it works.

"Yesterday, I characterized the Democratic leadership's decision to hold us here through the night as a theatrical display more worthy of Hollywood than Washington. Indeed, anyone who watched it unfold might have thought they were tuning into an episode of 'The Twilight Zone,' " McConnell said.

As the Senate prepared to vote, nearly all the members were seated quietly, and none of the usual ruckus was going on during the vote. A few lawmakers could be seen whispering in conversations of twos and threes.

Throughout the night, the audience for the speeches was sparse despite Reid pushing through a motion on a 41-37 roll-call vote that instructed the Senate sergeant-at-arms to "request the attendance of absent senators" in an effort to keep them near the chamber. Having made his point, Reid than announced there would be no further votes before 5 a.m. EDT.

Thus, most senators got a chance for a few hours of shuteye even while a handful of their colleagues took turns droning on through the night with floor speeches. There was no indication how aggressively the sergeant-at-arms had been in carrying out his official instructions to keep members near the chamber — or whether he was insisting that they be awake.

As the vote was being taken, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked over to the Senate side of Capitol Hill where she was to lobby lawmakers on Bush's Iraq policy.

Rice's plans included spending up to five hours in the morning and early afternoon in group and private meetings in both the Senate and House. The focus would be Iraq and other foreign policy issues, including the Middle East, the official said.

While the issue was momentous — a war more than four years in duration, costing more than 3,600 U.S. troops their lives — the proceedings were thick with politics.

MoveOn.org, the anti-war group, announced plans for more than 130 events around the country to coincide with the Senate debate, part of an effort to pressure Republicans into allowing a final vote on the legislation. A candlelight vigil and rally across the street from the Capitol was prominent among them, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., among those attending.

Shuttle lands in South land.

Did you hear the sonic boom today? I did! It actually made our windows shake a little! Welcome home astronauts!


Space Shuttle Atlantis Lands Safely in California
Friday , June 22, 2007

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. —

Space shuttle Atlantis and its seven astronauts returned to Earth safely Friday, ending a two-week mission to deliver an addition to the international space station and bring a crew member home from the outpost.

Atlantis crossed the Pacific and glided to a stop at 12:49 p.m. on a runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California. NASA managers had hoped to land the shuttle in Florida, but bad weather forced them to abandon that plan.

"Welcome back," Mission Control told Atlantis. "Congratulations on a great mission." Controllers praised the crew for providing a "stepping stone to the rest of NASA's exploration plan."

Atlantis' return from NASA's first manned flight of the year was marked by its trademark twin sonic booms, which were heard from San Diego to Los Angeles. After deploying its parachute, the shuttle came to rest on the concrete runway under mostly sunny skies.

Astronaut Sunita "Suni" Williams returned to Earth on Atlantis after spending more than six months at the space station.

She set an endurance record for the longest single spaceflight by a woman at 195 days. During her stay, she also set the record for most time spacewalking by a woman.

She told reporters two days before landing that she looked forward to a slice of pizza and walking on the beach with her husband and dog, Gorby. But she was going to miss the space station.

"When you've been somewhere for six months, it becomes your home and it's hard to leave," Williams said.

Returning with Williams were Atlantis commander Rick Sturckow, pilot Lee Archambault and mission specialists Patrick Forrester, James Reilly, Steven Swanson and Danny Olivas.

Atlantis delivered a 35,000-pound addition to the space station and Clay Anderson, who replaced Williams as the U.S. representative at the station. He will live with cosmonauts Fyodor Yurchikhin and Oleg Kotov for the next four months.

The last time a shuttle landed at Edwards Air Force Base was in 2005, the first flight after the Columbia disaster in 2003. Atlantis' landing was the 51st time a shuttle has touched down in the Mojave Desert.

NASA prefers to land at Kennedy because it is easier and far cheaper to get Atlantis to its nearby hangar to be prepared for its next mission in December.

It will cost $1.7 million and take up to 10 days to return the shuttle to Florida from California by piggybacking atop a specially fitted Boeing 747 jumbo jet.

While at the space station, the astronauts installed a new truss segment, unfurled a new pair of power-generating solar arrays and activated a rotating joint that allows the new solar arrays to track the sun.

The shuttle originally had been scheduled to launch in mid-March, but a hail storm a few weeks beforehand forced NASA to scrub that date. The shuttle was moved back to its hangar so that technicians could make repairs to thousands of dings on its external fuel tank.

Atlantis lifted off on June 8. NASA hopes to have three more launches this year.

Two days were added to the 11-day mission so that Olivas could staple up a thermal blanket that had peeled back during launch. An extra spacewalk — the fourth of the mission — was added to get the task done.

The mission was extended to 14 days after weather prevented Atlantis from landing on Thursday.

Computers that control orientation and oxygen production on the Russian side of the space station crashed while Atlantis was at the outpost, forcing NASA officials to talk publicly about the remote possibility that the station would have to be abandoned because of the problem.

Engineers in Houston and Moscow worked around the clock to come up with a fix.

Atlantis' thrusters helped maintain the station's orientation until the computers resumed operating last weekend.

Some lights, computers and cameras were turned off Atlantis to extend the power supply in case an extra day was needed at the station to give engineers on the ground more time to figure out what went wrong.

The station's computers were restored when Yurchikhin and Kotov used a cable to bypass a circuit board. The shuttle wasn't cleared to undock from the station until the computers had passed a test to control thrusters on the station's Russian side.

The political incorrectness of being American.

Since when is being an American such a bad thing. Check out this article I found on Michelle Malkin's blog from Mary Katharine Ham


The Politically Incorrect Americanism of Alba, Pacino, and Arnold

Hablas Espanol?

Jessica Alba doesn’t. Is there anything wrong with that? Apparently so.

"Alba is my last name and I'm proud of that. But that's it. My grandparents were born in California, the same as my parents, and though I may be proud of my last name, I'm American. Throughout my whole life, I've never felt connected to one particular race or heritage, nor did I feel accepted by any. If you break it down, I'm less Latina than Cameron Diaz, whose father is Cuban. But people don't call her Latina because she's blonde…

My grandfather was the only Mexican at his college, the only Hispanic person at work and the only one at the all-white country club. He tried to forget his Mexican roots, because he never wanted his kids to be made to feel different in America. He and my grandmother didn't speak Spanish to their children. Now, as a third-generation American, I feel as if I have finally cut loose.

My whole life, when I was growing up, not one race has ever accepted me, ... So I never felt connected or attached to any race specifically. I had a very American upbringing, I feel American, and I don't speak Spanish. So, to say that I'm a Latin actress, OK, but it's not fitting; it would be insincere."


She never felt connected to any race, specifically, but she always felt American. That doesn’t sounds like a bad thing, does it? And yet, it is, in the eyes of many activists.

One blog post on the comments remarks, “Guess sell-outs come in all races and sizes.” Another calls it a “disturbing hoard of quotes.” Another claims she “hates Mexicans.”

Comments about Alba’s comments include, “F**K YOU THEN, JESSICA…VIVA LA RAZA!!!,” “She should just change her last name to White, then,” and “I thought she could be a good role model for Latinas, but she is a fake, tryin’ to be white.”

Alba wasn’t trying to make a political statement. Instead, she sounds like she was trying to avoid speaking for an entire ethnicity and many recent immigrants when she barely speaks Spanish, and identifies as an American first. But because she didn’t reflexively take upon herself her ethnic mantle and collective responsibility, she’s bashed as a traitor to her race.

Elsewhere, a phenomenally successful first-generation immigrant was sharing his secret to success in America, which was much the same as the approach Alba’s college-educated grandfather took. When addressing the national Association of Hispanic Journalists, and responding to question about how Hispanics can improve academically, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said:


"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night…

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.


The response from those in attendance?


"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that," said Alex Nogales, president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Naïve, out-of-it, hateful, traitorous. There is a large segment of the country that believes it’s somehow disrespectful to emphasize assimilation among new immigrants to the country.

And, it’s not just among leftist activists and left-coast gossip bloggers that this idea prevails. Just last year, Sen. Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language of America “racist,” despite the fact that a large majority of Americans support such a measure.

More recently, Barack Obama called the very discussion of English as an official language, “divisive” during a Democratic debate:


I have to say that this is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. You know, you’re right: everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is, how can we come up with both a legal and sensible immigration policy? And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.


But is everyone going to learn English, Sen. Obama? It seems that Schwarzenegger’s encouragement of English-language immersion for immigrants and Alba’s family’s decision to speak English only are put down in pretty harsh terms by folks on your own side of the aisle.

The movement to make English the official language of America is, in part, a response to the Left’s active discouragement of assimilation. Even the idea of the “melting pot” went out of style when I was in grade school, replaced in text books by the less offensive “mosaic.” You see, now we don’t do anything so gauche as melt into one, cohesive society. Instead, we are all obligated to hold onto our various ethnic and cultural identities and languages, building little barriers between communities, lest we be accused of “selling out” or trying to be too “white.”

There is certainly a way to assimilate without losing all touch with one’s culture. Being American does not mean being “white.” “American” is, by definition, many colors and characteristics. But the strength of America has always been in creating Americans of all colors and characteristics, not all colors and characters who happen to live in America.

The English language and cultural assimilation are unifying forces, economic passports, essential parts of preserving the American dream and all its blessings for everyone who comes to our shores.

When talking about comprehensive immigration reform, some have compared today’s illegal immigrants—the challenges and the prejudices they face—to legal immigration of Italians and Irishmen and others who came through Ellis Island just a few generations ago. But those same people conveniently overlook that anti-assimilation forces in America weren’t nearly so strong at that time.

Al Pacino is a second-generation American whose grandparents emigrated from Sicily, but despite living in his grandparents’ home, he speaks no Italian. Would anyone accuse that iconic Baby Boomer of being a traitor to his ethnicity? Well, he better watch out, if he keeps talking like this:

"Explain to me what Italian-American culture is. We've been here 100 years. Isn't Italian-American culture American culture? That's because we're so diverse, in terms of intermarriage. Most everybody who's Italian is half Italian. Except me. I'm all Italian. I'm mostly Sicilian, and I have a little bit of Neapolitan in me. You get your full dose with me.


Alba, Schwarzenegger and Pacino have got it right. Their concern is with becoming successful, individual Americans, not with specious collective responsibilities imparted to them by their skin colors, accents, or surnames. As a result, they have all done both America and their ancestors proud. They are all walking, talking, acting illustrations of the American dream in action.

When considering legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants, Congress should consider seriously the fact that the walking, talking American dream is now politically incorrect. That doesn’t bode well for its survival.

This is how you solve the immigration problem. period.

This is why I read Bill's books and watch his show. No non-sense. Check out his immigration plan. Our congress needs to read this and stop pussy-footing around the issue.

source
Fixing Immigration
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Here in the New York City area, where I am writing this, there could be as many as a million illegal aliens living in the region. Nobody really knows the exact number because the local authorities don't ask--they don't want to know.

What the authorities do know is that the city's economy would collapse if all the illegals were rounded up and taken away.

And, certainly, the powers-that-be in New York, in California, and everywhere else illegal labor is embedded don't want disruption. I mean, who's gonna drive the cabs and clean the dishes?

It is important to understand that mentality in deciding what to think about the illegal immigration mess. Business in America is solidly behind the chaos, and so are many politicians, although they'd never admit it. That's why nothing has been done to solve the illegal immigration problem for more than 20 years.

But many regular folks are angry about the immigration crisis. Neighborhoods are different, crimes are committed by foreign nationals who shouldn't be here, press one for English on your telephone, and so on. We are all impacted by this colossal mess, but divided as to how to deal with it.

The hard line anti-immigration people want the illegals out. They broke the law, they must go.

Many liberal Americans want compassion. The illegals are poor, let them stay.

And the great middle watches the ping-pong game of charges and counter-charges. The result: nothing is getting done.

So here is my no spin immigration plan which, I believe, is fair and would be acceptable to most Americans.

First, the southern border must be protected by at least 700 miles of barrier, backed up by a doubling of the Border Patrol. To assist those federal agents, ten thousand National Guardsmen would be stationed near the border.

That would effectively close the border to smugglers of humans and drugs. If you oppose that strategy, you do not want a secure border. Period.

Second, all illegal aliens currently in the USA must register with Homeland Security at their local post office. If they do not register, they would be subject to immediate deportation. After processing by the feds, the aliens would then receive a tamper-proof identification card, allowing them to temporarily work here.

Third, any business hiring aliens who do not have the government-issued ID would be criminally charged.

Fourth, all registered illegal aliens would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Those deemed by federal authorities to be self-sufficient, law-abiding people would receive the so called "Z-visas," giving them resident status, but not automatic citizenship. That would have to be earned over a number of years by complying with a set of obligations including paying fines, back taxes, learning English, and staying employed.

Any alien with a criminal record or who is unemployed would not be eligible for the Z-Visa.

That takes the blanket amnesty issue off the table and shifts responsibility to those who entered the USA illegally. They must prove they are responsible enough for citizenship.

Unfortunately, some on the left object to strenuous regulations for illegal aliens, but that point-of-view has no future. Most Americans, according the polls, will accept new compatriots provided the southern pipeline is shut down, and a fair penalty for illegal behavior is imposed.

My plan is just one page long, not 800 pages like the Senate madness. It can be done.

The 10 commandments of Driving.

This week the Vatican released a set of commandments for drivers. They want to help decrease the number of deaths caused by car accidents. Around the world 1.2 million people die in car accidents each year! That's a huge number that could easily be reduced if people started paying attention to the road. The vatican said the commandments are also needed because people use thier cars to show off and driving can reduce people to primitive behavior.
These are the commandements release from the vatican;

The "Drivers' Ten Commandments,"are:

1. You shall not kill.

2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.

6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

7. Support the families of accident victims.

8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

10. Feel responsible toward others.

and let me add a few of my own here;

11. Get off your cell phone and drive.

12. A green light is not the start of a race, there is no need to speed off to the next red light. All your doing anyway by racing off the green light is costing your self more in gas and you'll also have to replace your brakes and tires more frequently.

13. Drive the freaking speed limit.

14. Do not tailgate.

15. Keep the hand signals to your self, try using your turn signal instead.

16. There is no excuse for drunk driving.

17. A stop sign means stop, and so does a red light.

18. Don't try and beat the train you idiot.

19. Don't stop traffic just becuase you want to see what that accident was all about. Enough rubber necking already.

20. You are not above the law. Don't fool yourself into thinking you only have to follow the law when the cops are around.


There are some real idiots on the road. They used to make me so frustrated, now I just laugh at them. I'm saving my gas because I don't feel the need to be the fastest off the green light, and I get to my destination just fine by driving the speed limit, and hey I don't have to be on a paraniod look out for cops because I don't give them a reason to pull me over. Why is it people feel they don't have to go the speed limit. What really makes me laugh is when I drive the speed limit in the fast lane (which isn't actually the fast lane - there's no such thing in Ca) and they get mad becuase they have to go around me... They actually think they are above the law and have some right to get mad because I'm not breaking the law too. I'll drive the speed limit in any lane I'd like thank you. Oh man and I got really mad at a lady this weekend.. I had to get out of the car pool lane so I could get off at my exit, So when the lane opened up I signaled, and there was a car just behind me that was going faster than I was so I was letting her pass but once she got next to me she slowed down and I couldn't get around her, and of course she's on her stupid cell phone not paying attention to anything except the person on the other line. So of course thanks to that idiot, I passed my exit and had to get off somewhere else and find my way back (thank God for my navigation system). People need to start paying attention. I mean you wouldn't cut someone off walking down a sidewalk, get right next to them and give them the bird becuase they weren't walking fast enough so why do that on the road. Have some respect people.

Anyways, the document that the vatican release is supposed to be talked about at some bishop gatherings and then hopefully at Mass too... Maybe they can help get the message out there that people need to start acting like people while on the road, not like animals fighting to make it to thier destination first.

And P.S. It really drives me crazy when you see a car zoom by weaving in and out of traffic and it has a "Jesus loves me" sticker on it. Oh the irony.


Read the full news story here

Its a big day in Nascar history....

Dale Jr is joing the Hendricks team! As anyone who knows anything about nascar knows, Jr and his step mom have been at odds about reaching a deal for Jr to remain on the DEI team and he announced a couple months back that he's in the market for a new team! Today he announced that he will be joining Jeff Gordon and Jimmy Johnson to race for Rick Hendrick! I'm super excited about this becuase I'm a Hendricks fan and I think Jr will be a great addition to the team!!!

Check out the story here

What is wrong with Georgia?!

About 4 years ago a 17 year old kid, Genarlow Wilson, was sentenced to 10 years in prision for having oral sex with his 15 year old girl friend. This whole situation is driving me crazy. Why was this kid ever put in jail in the first place?! He was only 2 years older than his Girlfriend, he wasn't 18 he was still a minor, the oral sex was consensual, he never forced anything and yet he is sentenced to 10 years in prision for child molestation! But get this, had he and his girlfriend actually had sex he would have been protected by the law and never would have had to do time. Does this make any sense to you because it sure doesn't make sense to me!

Shortly after his imprisionment a new law was passed that would have protected him from prosecution but the state won't allow the law to become retroactive to allow Wilson's release from prison. So basically this now 21 year old young man has been sitting in jail for 28 month for something that now listed as a misdemeanor!

Yesterday a judge ordered his release from prison siting that the punishment is to harsh for the crime and 90 minutes after the release was ordered the state's attorney general appealed the ruling. Attorney General Thurbert Baker doesn't feel that this 21 year old has served enough time, he wants Wilson to serve his entire 10 year sentence! What an ass. Read the story for more info....

Man Who Received Consensual Oral Sex as Teen Has July 5 Bond Hearing
Tuesday , June 12, 2007
Genarlow Wilson's joy was short-lived.

One minute, a judge ordered him released from prison, saying the young man's 10-year sentence for consensual sex between teens was a "grave miscarriage of justice." Ninety minutes later, Georgia's attorney general said Wilson wasn't going anywhere — the state had appealed.

On Tuesday, Wilson's attorney was fighting to at least get him released on bond during the appeal process. He is now 21 and has been behind bars for more than 28 months.

"Yesterday, they did not consent to a bond," attorney B.J. Bernstein said Tuesday in a cable news interview. "We are hopeful to hurry up and get in front of a judge — one, to get him out pending an appeal, but even more importantly, to get this madness over with."

Bernstein sought a hearing Tuesday in Douglas County court, where Wilson was convicted, even though the district attorney there opposes his release. Douglas County Superior Court Judge David Emerson set the bond hearing for July 5, another three weeks away.

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

If he had instead had sexual intercourse with the teen, he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex for teens still constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence, plus listing on the sex offender registry.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

"As far as I'm concerned, this case is a throwback to Southern justice," said state Sen. Vincent Fort, an Atlanta Democrat and one of several prominent supporters who have rallied to Wilson's cause.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

In his ruling Monday, Judge Thomas H. Wilson, no relation to Genarlow Wilson, amended that sentence to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served. The habeas corpus hearing was held in his Monroe County court because Genarlow Wilson is imprisoned in Monroe County.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

In his notice of appeal, Attorney General Thurbert Baker argued that Georgia law does not give a judge authority to reduce or modify the sentence imposed by the trial court.

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

That isn't good enough, Bernstein says.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

A jury in 2005 found Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl during a 2003 New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. Although the sex act was consensual, it was illegal under Georgia law.

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"I think he's certainly going to be changed," Bernstein said of her client Tuesday. "But fortunately, Genarlow has been taking this time in prison and reading like crazy.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

A real life pirate story.....

...I'm sure they've got nothing on Captian Jack Sparrow....


U.S. Warship Fires Warning Shots Over Vessel Boarded by Pirates Off Somali Coast
Tuesday , June 05, 2007

The U.S. Navy has fired warning shots across the bow of a Dutch ship that has been boarded by armed pirates off the coast of Somalia, FOX News has learned.

The USS Carter Hall also fired on three small boats that surrounded the commercial ship, the "Danica White," after her crew messaged for assistance after being boarded by pirates, the Navy said.

The incident began Saturday and as of Monday the Dutch ship's crew was still believed to be held at gunpoint by an unknown number of pirates who forced the vessel into Somalia's territorial waters. There have been no reports of casualties.

The USS Carter Hall remains nearby in international waters, monitoring the situation. The Dutch ship, which the Associated Press reported was owned by H. Folmer & Co. of Copenhagen, has not requested further assistance.

On Saturday, Jorgen Folmer, a spokesman for the Danish shipping company, said a French naval vessel in the area had confirmed the ship and its crew of five was hijacked but was unable to intervene because it could not enter Somali waters.

A maritime official said Monday that Somali pirates who have been holding a Taiwan-flagged fishing vessel since mid-May killed one of the 16 crew members because the ship's owners have not paid a ransom.

The pirates threatened to kill other crew members if their demands are not met, said Andrew Mwangura, head of the Kenyan chapter of the Seafarers Assistance Program.

He cited a relative of one of the captives, who was allowed to call his family.

"The gunmen have established contact with the owner of the ship but it appears that he was giving them empty promises," Mwangura said.

The ship — Ching Fong Hwa 168 — had two Taiwanese and 12 Chinese crew members on board when it was hijacked 137 miles northeast of the Somali capital, Mogadishu. Mwangura did not know the nationality of the victim.

Somalia does not have a coast guard or navy after more than a decade of anarchy. The current government was formed in 2004 but has struggled to assert any real control throughout the country.

Somali pirates are trained fighters, often dressed in military fatigues, using speedboats equipped with satellite phones and Global Positioning System equipment. They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers and various types of grenades, according to the U.N. Monitoring Group on Somalia.

Although piracy is rampant off Somalia's lawless coast, killing crew members is relatively rare, Mwangura said. He said pirates have killed four crew members in the past 10 years.

"Normally they don't kill crew members if they cooperate," he said.

Since February, pirates have hijacked 10 ships — five have been released and five are still being held, according to the Seafarers Assistance Program.

FOX News' Nick Simeone and Jennifer Griffin, FOXNews.com's Sara Bonisteel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
source

Killing in the Name of Religion.

We've all heard the claims that more people are killed in the name of religion than from any other froce or cause, and with the current conflict in the middle east it's all too easy to believe. But looking at history we find that in fact more people have been killed in the name of athiesm than in the name of any religion. Why then do we always hear that religion kills so many? The far left in this country want to do away with religion because religion interfears with their secular progressive agenda so they use propaganda like this to try and convince people that religion is bad.... If you want to know more about Secular Progresivism left me know and I'll start working on another blog... But in the mean time Check out this article from New York Times best selling author, Dinesh D'Souza, Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history


Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF.

In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."

In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

• Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Check out hinew book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."

Continuing our Education....

is going to be priority #1 for me and brandon. We're going to take some classes at the community college... He's going to be taking vocational classes to get specific certifications he needs to do certain jobs...like operating the CNC machine... I'm not sure what kind of classes I'm going to be taking...I really want to learn how to play the piano...lol. I don't want to go back to Cal State fullerton any time soon, but taking some classes at Fullerton College will be a productive way to spend my time. I've thought about taking some construction classes and blue print classes to help me better understand some of the stuff I do here... But either way.. this is going to be our #1 priority (right next to brandon's crown for his root canal) which means that the wedding goes on the back burner. That's just hows it's got to be for right now. I was looking forward to having a wedding but planning for our future family is more important right now. I think if we wern't already married the wedding would be a higher priority but we're already married and ready to start planning our future. Pray for us that this all works out! I'm excited!

Love you guys!!!
Heather

A few quick stories to satisfy the hunger.

A few news stories have caught my attention today...

First off we have SB 105. This bill allows homosexual partners to file state taxes as domestic partners. Our senator's passed this bill yesterday with an overwhelming majority with all 24 democrats and 13 of the 15 republicans voting in favor for the bill. The only website reporting on this passage is SaveCalifornia.com. They are a Christian based organization and are adamantly opposed to this bill, or any bill that grants homosexual couples any kind of rights. I'm actually ok with the passage of this bill, it doesn't change the marriage laws, it only adds "domestic partners" to the list of who can file jointly.

For the full text of the bill read here

For the report from SaveCalifornia.com read here

The next piece of news that caught my attention is about the war-funding bill. Democrats are finally getting the point that the President will not pass a bill that requires a timetable. They are also realizing that they have a responsibility to fund the troops so they can properly fight this war. There is much speculation that the next bill, which should be voted on today, will not include a time table and will properly fund the troops. For more about the war funding bill read here.

The next piece of news is about the immigration bill. The debate on the bill has been postponed, most likely so the senators can have a chance to read the 1,000 page bill. At first this bill appeared to have the support of both the republicans and the democrats in Washington, now it appears the opposition is coming from both directions as well. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are overwhelmingly happy with this bill becuase it forces both sides to compromise. I think a bill that makes both sides a little uneasy is better than a bill that makes both sides happy. I don't want the democrats to have everything they want in this bill and likewise many people do not want the republicans to have everything they want. We'll see if this bill passes next month and unless they tighten boarder security, immigration reform will be a waste of money. For more information about this story read here.

Hope you are all having a great week!

P.s. Hero's was great last night and I'm really looking forward to the American Idol finale tonight!!! I like both Blake and Jordin so picking who's going to win is really hard for me! Either way they're both great!

Heather Barbee

This is a nice change of pace for a friday! I wish I could have found this ship! :-)
Source

Deep-Sea Explorers Discover Possible Richest Shipwreck Treasure in History
Friday, May 18, 2007
AP



Odyssey co-founder Greg Stemm, left, examines coins recovered from the "Black Swan" shipwreck with an unidentified member of the conservation team.

TAMPA, Fla. — Deep-sea explorers said Friday they have mined what could be the richest shipwreck treasure in history, bringing home 17 tons of colonial-era silver and gold coins from an undisclosed site in the Atlantic Ocean. Estimated value: $500 million.

A jet chartered by Tampa-based Odyssey Marine Exploration landed in the United States recently with hundreds of plastic containers brimming with coins raised from the ocean floor, Odyssey co-chairman Greg Stemm said. The more than 500,000 pieces are expected to fetch an average of $1,000 each from collectors and investors.

"For this colonial era, I think (the find) is unprecedented," said rare coin expert Nick Bruyer, who examined a batch of coins from the wreck. "I don't know of anything equal or comparable to it."

Citing security concerns, the company declined to release any details about the ship or the wreck site Friday. Stemm said a formal announcement will come later, but court records indicate the coins might come from a 400-year-old ship found off England.

Because the shipwreck was found in a lane where many colonial-era vessels went down, there is still some uncertainty about its nationality, size and age, Stemm said, although evidence points to a specific known shipwreck. The site is beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country, he said.

"Rather than a shout of glee, it's more being able to exhale for the first time in a long time," Stemm said of the haul, by far the biggest in Odyssey's 13-year history.

He wouldn't say if the loot was taken from the same wreck site near the English Channel that Odyssey recently petitioned a federal court for permission to salvage.

In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge signed an order granting those rights last month.

In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed "Black Swan," Odyssey also isn't talking yet about the types, denominations and country of origin of the coins.

Bruyer said he observed a wide range of varieties and dates of likely uncirculated currency in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age.

The Black Swan coins — mostly silver pieces — likely will fetch several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said. Value is determined by rarity, condition and the story behind them.

Controlled release of the coins into the market along with their expected high value to collectors likely will keep prices at a premium, he said.

The richest ever shipwreck haul was yielded by the Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha, which sank in a hurricane off the Florida Keys in 1622. Treasure-hunting pioneer Mel Fisher found it in 1985, retrieving a reported $400 million in coins and other loot.

Odyssey likely will return to the same spot for more coins and artifacts.

"We have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed," Odyssey CEO John Morris said. "We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance."

The news is timely for Odyssey, the only publicly traded company of its kind.

The company salvaged more than 50,000 coins and other artifacts from the wreck of the SS Republic off Savannah, Ga., in 2003, making millions. But Odyssey posted losses in 2005 and 2006 while using its expensive, state-of-the-art ships and deep-water robotic equipment to hunt for the next mother lode.

"The outside world now understands that what we do is a real business and is repeatable and not just a lucky one shot deal," Stemm said. "I don't know of anybody else who has hit more than one economically significant shipwreck."

In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.

Historians believe the 157-foot warship was carrying nine tons of gold coins to buy the loyalty of the Duke of Savoy, a potential ally in southeastern France. Odyssey believes those coins could also fetch more than $500 million.

But under the terms of a historic agreement Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 percent of the first $45 million and about 50 percent of the proceeds thereafter.

Senators, White House Reach Agreement on Immigration

Republicans in Washington have really let this country down now. They can call this an immigration reform bill all they want, what it really is is AMNESTY. Hey you broke our laws now were going to give you a free pass!
Senators, White House Reach Agreement on Immigration


Read what Michelle Malkin has to say .

Fox news reports

Thursday, May 17, 2007

May 17: Sen. Edward Kennedy, and from left, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Johnny Isakson announce immigration deal.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Senate lawmakers and the White House struck an immigration reform deal Thursday that would grant legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States and increase border and interior enforcement initiatives.

The plan would establish a temporary worker program for new arrivals to the United States with a separate program for agricultural workers. The bill also would include provisions for new technology to ensure against immigration document fraud.

Supporters of the arrangement urged their congressional colleagues and the American public to support the bill as a whole even though strong objection may be felt toward its individual parts.

"All of you know that in the legislative process, no one gets 100 percent of what they want, if you're going to get something done," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. said, speaking to reporters shortly after the deal was announced.

"From my perspective, it's not perfect, but it represents the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem. And if we had not gotten together as Republicans and Democrats to develop this bipartisan consensus, we can be assured that there would not be a bill passed this year, and probably not next year," Kyl said.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who is credited with being the driving force behind the negotiations, said differences aside, "I believe we owe it to the American people to stop talking about immigration and start acting."

The dealmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 White House hopeful, stressed that their bill would offer strong border enforcement and interior enforcement and send a signal to U.S. employers "that the practice of hiring illegal workers will no longer be tolerated."

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officials to produce a highly complex measure that could carry heavy political consequences.

The White House was clearly on board with the plan.

"I congratulate members of the Senate, both political parties, who decided it was time to work together to come up with a comprehensive immigration bill that addresses a major problem facing our country," President Bush said Thursday afternoon from the South Lawn of the White House.

"Immigration is a tough issue for a lot of Americans. The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity," Bush said.

Bush said he hoped the Senate and House would both fall in line and agree on a bill reflecting the plan, adding, "I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can. Today we took a good step toward that direction."

And speaking earlier, alongside senator on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "This is a bill that is strong on the border, tough on enforcement of the interior, fair with respect to those to those who are here, and realistic. It is an honest solution to a problem that has bedeviled this country for decades."

But as the senators alluded to harsh criticism facing the bill, even before it was presented in its entirety, other lawmakers began expressed their dismay with the plan.

"This plan rewards the lawbreakers and punishes those who have patiently waited their turn to become an American citizen. I will work tirelessly to make sure that this proposal does not pass the House of Representatives," Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement.

The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She said opponents should not let "the perfect be the enemy of the good."

The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week. The proposed agreement is several-hundred pages and contains a wide array of provisions to satisfy partisan concerns.

The plan would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

Heads of household could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., declared that the bill "is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."

"When the objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned, what more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure that we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? And we are still open for suggestions. But the consequences of not moving to a solution on this issue is we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders," Specter said.

Workers would have to return home after job stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated turn, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward a "point system" that prioritizes preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I choose Life not Death

I first became interested in politics at a young age, probably around 7th or 8th grade. I was very interested in American history, political policies and debating culture issues, a quality I inherited from my dad. My dad is very much a republican and I was raised very much a republican. Up until recently I always sided with the Republican Party on every issue. Now that my mind is not so influential I have the opportunity to look at what I really believe and make determinations myself about if I think something is right or wrong. I still side with most of the republican policies, but not all.

I used to be very much for the death penalty, always feeling that those bastards don't deserve to live for what they did. But in the case of the death penalty, my opinion has very much changed. There are several reasons why I am against the death penalty now but this and this and this and this are the biggest reasons why.

We can never know 100% for sure if someone is guilty of a crime or not. Even if a jury finds someone guilty there is ALWAYS a possibility that they didn't actually commit the crime. Evidence may surface years and years later that could finally prove their innocence. Imagine if your family member was found guilty of a murder you know he/she didn't commit but they was found guilty of it anyway and put to death only to have information surface after the death that shows their innocence.

Now I must tell you that there has been a time recently that I supported the death penalty 100% and that was the death of Suddam Hussein. Perhaps my supporting the death of him is a little hypocritical but it’s mostly an emotional feeling of relief knowing he's dead and can no longer kill thousands upon thousands of people.

I wish there were some way we could know with out any doubt and with 100% certainty when someone is guilty, but we can't and therefore I cannot support the death penalty.

Read the story below. The lawyer prosecuting this guy wanted him sentenced to the death penalty. The crowds following the trial were all upset when he did not receive it. Now, nearly 20 years later evidence surfaces that shows he's innocent. He never deserved to be in jail in the first place.


DNA Clears Man of Two Child Murders
By JEFFREY GOLD
AP
ELIZABETH, N.J. (May 16 2007) -- A man who served more than two decades in prison for the rape and murder of two children had his convictions thrown out Tuesday after an advanced DNA test showed that a neighbor may have been responsible for the crimes.

Superior Court Judge Stuart L. Peim vacated the verdict and granted a new trial because the new evidence "would probably change the verdict" against Byron Halsey.

Union County prosecutors and lawyers for Halsey together requested that the convictions be overturned. Peim scheduled a July 9 hearing for prosecutors to announce whether they would pursue a new trial or drop the charges.

A spokeswoman for the Union County prosecutor's office, Eileen Walsh, said the office would not comment before then on how it would proceed.

During a five-minute hearing, Peim set bail at $55,000 and required Halsey to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet when he is released. Attorneys for Halsey said he could leave jail within a few hours depending on how long it takes to process paperwork.

Wearing a white shirt, dark pants, and handcuffs as tears streamed down his face, Halsey did not speak during his court appearance.

Nearly four hours after the ruling, the paperwork for bail and electronic monitoring was completed, and Halsey stepped outside the Union County jail.

After a quick embrace with one of his lawyers, Halsey joined his mother and brother for long hug.

Minutes later, he was in front of television cameras at the steps of a nearby courthouse. "I wasn't going to let anybody take my life," Halsey said. "I wasn't going to give up."

Halsey , 46, was convicted in 1988 of murdering and sexually assaulting Tyrone and Tina Urquhart, the children of his girlfriend, with whom he lived at a Plainfield rooming house.

The bodies of Tyrone, 8, and Tina, 7, were found in the home's basement in November 1985.

"The DNA shows that a neighbor in the rooming house is the source of the semen," said Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the Innocence Project, which is representing Halsey.

That neighbor, Clifton Hall, 49, is now in prison for three sex crimes in early 1990s, Ferrero said. Hall testified against Halsey at trial.

"Today, we can say with scientific certainty that Byron Halsey is innocent. Every piece of physical evidence connects Cliff Hall, not Byron Halsey , to these murders," said Vanessa Potkin, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. "It has taken more than two decades, but DNA has finally revealed the truth in this case."

Potkin said Halsey can apply for compensation of $25,000 for each year he was in custody.

Innocence Project got involved 2004 after Halsey wrote them.

"They tried DNA testing at the time of the trial on one piece of evidence, on the girl's underwear that was found stuffed in her mouth," Ferrero said. But it was inconclusive, since more sophisticated testing was several years away. So they tested the semen for blood type, which matched Halsey - but also matched Hall, Ferrero said.

The new DNA test matches Hall, whose DNA was on record since he is an offender, Ferrero said.

Margaret Urquhart, the mother of the victims, said in a statement issued through the Innocence Project that she always doubted that Halsey committed the crime.

"I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina," Urquhart said. "It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I'm thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case."

At trial, Halsey faced the death penalty, but the jury opted for life in prison, prompting jeering in the courtroom, Ferrero said. Halsey was sentenced to two life terms, plus 20 years. He is being held at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.

Hall is at a prison for sex offenders in Avenel.

Halsey had made a confession before trial, but Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck said the statement followed 30 hours of interrogation over a 40-hour period.

"It would be a stretch to say that Byron Halsey even confessed to this crime given the state of mind he was in, the length of the interrogation, the tactics police used, and the words he actually said," Scheck said.

Scheck said that Halsey, who has been in prison since 1985, would be getting therapy and job training.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-05-15 23:21:19

Immigration deal could become reality.

It's possible that an immigration reform law could pass the senate as early as today. So far the plan sounds ok, allow guest worker programs but ensure that the workers return home after their permit expires, allow a path to citizenship that requires illegals to return home first, and limit the number of green cards given each year to 10,000. If this bill gets passed it will still be unenforceable until we strengthen our boarders.

Bipartisan Deal On Immigration Is Near, Would Strictly Limit Future Arrivals

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2007 - Republicans and Democrats were nearing a deal Tuesday on a sweeping immigration overhaul that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status but strictly limit future arrivals from staying in the U.S.

Senators and White House officials negotiating through the afternoon and into the evening said an elusive compromise was in sight. With details changing rapidly, it was unclear whether the talks would result in a breakthrough or a meltdown.

"Eighty-twenty!" said an upbeat Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the key players in the talks, giving strong odds of a deal he said could be announced as early as Wednesday.

In a hopeful sign for a potential deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., postponed until Monday a vote that had been scheduled for Wednesday on bringing up an immigration measure that passed the Senate last year.

That bill had the support of most Democrats but was opposed by a majority of Republicans, who had promised to block it. The vote - designed to pressure negotiators into reaching a new deal - was shaping up as a highly partisan start to the already intense debate over immigration.

Delaying it gave the weeks-long set of closed-door bipartisan talks - slated to continue early Wednesday - more time.

Negotiators led by conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., were scrambling to piece together a compromise that could command broad support, melding the GOP's preference for get-tough enforcement measures and limits on future immigration with Democrats' desire for a more welcoming approach.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a probationary "Z visa" and - after paying fees and fines of up to $5,000 and returning to their home countries - ultimately try for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. The process couldn't begin until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated. And all but the highest-skilled temporary workers would have to return home after work stints of two or three years, with barely any opportunity to apply for permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens.

Only 10,000 green cards annually would be available for guest workers, and they would be awarded on a so-called "points system" that favors higher-skilled and better-educated immigrants.

"We're trying to make sure that people who are temporary workers don't melt into society and put down roots. Temporary means temporary," Graham said.

Negotiators were still weighing the particulars of the guest worker program, including the length of the visas and whether to allow workers to renew them multiple times.

In perhaps its most contentious change, the proposed plan would radically shift the entire immigration system from one heavily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for those with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card, although senators were still haggling over how heavily points for family ties would be weighed.

U.S. citizens would see their ability to bring foreign-born parents to the U.S. limited. Temporary workers could not bring family members at all unless they accepted a shorter-term visa and could show they would not become primarily dependent on government benefits.

Behind the scenes, some Democrats and liberal groups are deeply divided over whether the proposal is worth supporting. Leading Republicans, too, warned that they were wary of being pushed too far in the interests of a compromise.

"We need to have immigration reform, but not just any immigration reform," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the party whip. "We're not going to be forced into passing a bad bill."

Copyright © 2007 KABC-TV and The Associated Press (AP). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.