The climate bill passes to the floor.

• The climate bill passes to the floor. - Trigger Happy
  • What will happen...... - sm
  • Been trying to call the white house....busy ALL DAY!! - Probably purposefully! nm
    • Okay, heard from radio - linda
      • Here's another site where you can - Mythbuster
      • The web site is americansolutions.com ... - Just sayin .....
      • Worked for me - Old part-timer
        • yep, tnx. That is how I had it, but when - linda
          • no, it didn't work for me either - cj
            • I muddled my way through - Old part-timer
              • finally got it...somehow. n/m - linda
  • I had hoped SOME of them had a brain - Old part-timer
    • I just contacted my senators - Trigger Happy
      • I just did the same. Let's speak up, people! - TechSupport - NM
        • My congress person is - Mythbuster
      • I did the same... - cj
      • I contacted mine too - Old part-timer
  • A 12-vote margin out of 400+ votes suggests - it will have trouble in the Senate.
    • I do not understand what the agenda - linda

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Immediate Release

The Interfaith Alliance

September 22, 2005

Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370

House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination

Washington, September 22 – Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination

The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.

The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.

The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:

In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.

This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.

The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.

Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.

Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.

Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill

09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm

Filed by RAW STORY

The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.

Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.

The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.

President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.

Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.

The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.

Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.

Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

REPUBLICANS

John Warner (Virginia) Chairman

John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)

DEMOCRATS

Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member

Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)

Read this report (see link below).  It's a little stuffy and dense to read, but worth it.

I think that no matter what anyone "thinks" about climate change, it's impossible to argue that we don't need to get the science right before we embark on these $trillion schemes that could literally disorder the world's economy in ways that are both foreseeable and unforeseeable.. 

.

I was raised in the church but I think some religious fanatics get carried away with their rules.  Just another way to try and control people. 

AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,”  Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:

REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18^th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)

[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/14/23544/282

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a health insurance bill for 10 million children, clearing the measure for President Bush, who said he would veto it.

The 67-29 vote followed a series of speeches by Republican senators supporting the bill and urging Mr. Bush to reconsider his veto threat.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, one of 18 Republicans who voted for the bill, said the White House had shown “little if any willingness to come to the negotiating table.”

Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine, would shift people from private insurance to a public program and would allow coverage for illegal immigrants and children in high-income families.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said it was “intellectually dishonest” to make such “outlandish accusations.”

Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward “government-run health care for every American.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said those fears were unfounded.

“What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,” Mr. Corker said.

The bill would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover nearly four million uninsured children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. It would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than the current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed.

Mr. Bush has not shown a willingness to compromise. But he may come under pressure so from Republican lawmakers who do not like being portrayed as hostile to children’s interests.

Democrats have selected Graeme Frost, 12, of Baltimore, to deliver their Saturday radio address. He will appeal to the president to sign the bill.

On Monday, the Service Employees International Union will rally outside the White House, and children will deliver petitions urging approval of the bill.

The child health program was born in 1997 from collaboration between Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

On Thursday, Mr. Hatch said that “it pains me” that Mr. Bush has not worked with Congress to renew the program. Some people in the administration “have been slow to recognize the realities of the new Congress,” where Democrats have a majority, Mr. Hatch said.

The bill has support from AARP, the big lobby for older Americans; the American Medical Association; America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers; and governors from both parties.

In the House, the bill was approved on Tuesday, 265 to 159, with support from 45 Republicans. The House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said he was confident that the veto would be upheld. A two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override the veto.

The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents. It would require states to cover dental services for children and would increase coverage of mental health services in many states.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: “Our Democratic colleagues have taken Schip hostage, and what they want in exchange is Republican support for government-run health care., courtesy of Washington .”

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.

You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.

How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?

BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.

But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...

O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.

MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?

You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.

O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.

But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?

All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?

MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.

O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.

MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.

O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...

MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.

In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.

We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...

O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.

MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...

O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.

MAHER: Whatever it costs.

O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?

MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.

O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.

MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.

O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.

MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.

O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.

MAHER: Thank you.

O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.

MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.

O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?

MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?

O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.

MAHER: Yes.

O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.

But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.

There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.

I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.

MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.

O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.

Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?

MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.

O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.

Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.

MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.

O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

The communists are coming!!!!!!

Then let's get out of there and let them control their government.  Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them.  As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own.  And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it. 

And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this.  The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS.  What a wonderful plan. 

Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that?  I agree with you to some extent on that point.  My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids.  Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks.  I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill.  He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).

I think all presidents are given too much power.  Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power.  A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader.  If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it?  If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor?  I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale?  I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill.  If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital?  Of course not.  Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying.  If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.

let this Country down with his behavior.  That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country.  Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has.  There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president.  I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration.  This is an important election.  We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can. 

this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?