Each person justifiably wants a decent life for himself and his family and will do what he must to survive. Poor countries like those in Central America can’t support their own populations, so people flee to the north. In Africa, vast populations are on the move fleeing war, drought, and famine. This is happening in developed nations too — witness the struggles Europe and America are having over immigration, while Asia and wealthy Middle East nations face increasing pressures on their populations. Wars are fought over scant resources, and the losers lose everything.

The Lord has provided the means for our planet to control its population, yet religious fundamentalism threatens the reproductive rights of women. The Catholic Church alone could influence entire continents if it changed position and allowed the practice of birth control.

Global warming, jobs, housing, education, natural resources, urban sprawl, food safety, traffic, immigration, health care, endangered species, human rights, economics — there is no major issue that isn’t exacerbated by population growth, yet it’s virtually ignored in the media and in politics. If we could get a grip now and make this issue a major focus of our activism, we could begin almost immediately to make a difference in such areas as overdevelopment, air and water quality, Third World living standards, deforestation, health care, and climate change. Even areas like my home, Orange County, might begin to spare some open space from bulldozers, or do a better job educating the kids already here, or reduce air pollution, or manage our water supply, or eliminate the need for another toll road. And if this happened in every community, the effects worldwide would be enormous.

The alternative is to continue adding a few billion people per decade to the limited living space we have, then trying to feed, shelter, cure, and educate them all, and without raising taxes or fighting wars. We would be risking rather than raising the living standards for EVERY community, because no matter how many fortress walls we build, the tide of humanity will overwhelm them. Did we enjoy the last Ice Age or Dark Ages? It’s not inconceivable that we could face them again.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/politics/14177032.htm

Watchdog contends budget bill broke law
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post

WASHINGTON – For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang “I’m Just a Bill,” how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.

“He signed ya, Bill – now you’re a law,” shouts the cartoon lawmaker on “Schoolhouse Rock” as Bill acknowledges the cheers.

But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the House. Bill – in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans – became a law because it was “certified” by the leaders of the House and Senate.

After stewing for weeks, Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued Tuesday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.

The issue is bizarre, with even constitutional scholars saying they could not think of any precedent for the journey the budget bill took to becoming a law. Opponents point to elementary school civics lessons to make their case, while Republicans are evoking an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest a bill does not have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.

“We believe that the law is constitutional and that this is yet another political attempt by the Democrats to stop us from cutting spending,” said Ronald D. Bonjean Jr., a spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

But liberal interest groups hoping to bring down the budget law have the backing of many legal scholars, who say that a $2 billion mistake cannot be ignored.

“The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 may be something, but it is not law within the meaning of the Constitution,” said Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor.

No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes.

Among those other changes was a provision to save $2 billion by restricting Medicare payments for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and oxygen tanks. Under the Senate bill, government-funded leases for such equipment could last only 13 months.

As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month-restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.

After the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.

“This is simple elementary school civics,” said Public Citizen attorney Adina Rosenbaum, announcing that the group sued in U.S. District Court to nullify the law. “The courts should declare void laws passed in an unconstitutional manner.”

The suit has the sympathy of constitutional scholars.

“I think it’s an open and shut case,” agreed Michael Gerhardt, director of the Center on Law and Government at the University of North Carolina School of Law. “It would be a horrible precedent to set if this is how Congress is allowed to make laws.”

For their part, congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court decision, Field v. Clark, to argue that as long as the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate certify a bill passed, it is passed. In that case, a bill signed by President Benjamin Harrison and authenticated by the leaders of the House and Senate was different from the version printed in the official journals of Congress, known now as the Congressional Record.

“Congress presented a bill certified by both chambers. It’s been signed into law, and we consider the matter closed,” said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House budget office.

In the 1892 case, the Supreme Court did not rule that the law really was a law, but instead said the dispute was not a matter for the courts to decide, said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University. The main problem for Public Citizen will not be showing that the budget law is technically not a law, but getting the courts involved, Dorf said, especially with a measure as sweeping as this one.

“An honest application of precedents would probably lead to the conclusion that the courts should strike this down,” Dorf said. But, he added, “The courts will probably try to find a way to not throw the law out because it is so broad.”

The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate.

But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election.

But the issue may be snowballing. On Feb. 13, James Zeigler, a Republican lawyer in Alabama who specializes in elder-care issues, filed a similar suit, challenging the budget measure’s constitutionality.

“The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them,” Zeigler said. “The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it’s not law. Case over.”

Boulis was killed in the midst of a bitter dispute over SunCruz, which he had sold in September 2000 to Abramoff and New York businessman Adam Kidan.

Was Abramoff involved?
[Posted By ShiftShapers]
By AP [Unattributed]
Republished from The Washington Post
Court Grants Request to Question Abramoff in SunCurz Slaying Trial

Fort Lauderdale, Flordia – A judge has approved subpoenas for former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an ex-business partner to answer questions about the mob-style slaying of the owner of a gambling fleet they bought.

Abramoff and Adam Kidan have insisted, through their attorneys, that they know nothing about the slaying of Konstantinos “Gus” Boulis, who was ambushed in his car by a gunman in Fort Lauderdale a few months after the pair bought SunCruz Casinos from him.

A lawyer for Anthony “Big Tony” Moscatiello, one of three men charged in the 2001 slaying, wants to question Abramoff and Kidan, according to court documents. Circuit Judge Michael Kaplan approved the request Thursday, but the subpoenas had not been issued as of Friday.

Abramoff and Kidan are not charged in the slaying. Their lawyers did not return telephone calls or e-mails seeking comment Friday.

After five years of this, his steadfast refusal to be baptized exasperated his superior officer to the point of using violence against my greatuncle. He defended himsels and since this was a capital offense he escaped and got on a boat to New York as part of the crew with literally nothing but the clothes on his back.

Has the clock turned full circle?

Now BP has spilled the second-largest spill in Alaska ever, and guess what, poorly maintained pipeline is the reason. Why would a company that makes so much money, spend so little on maintenance….?

After having the Republicans in control of all three branches for so long, it’s become quite obvious that they are NOT the solution. At least, they are major failures as a “one-party system”.

It’s interesting that even though they’re the only party with power, that any failures they make are somehow the fault of everyone else.

Republican: never having to say your sorry or admit your responsibility.

Terrorism is a danger and it’s a reality but the cure has proved to be a 100 times worse than the disease. [......] What do terrorists want? They don’t want to win. They only want to destroy the western world and any country that adapts its form of living and then they want to go to their alleged paradise. By turning our countries into police states we’re achieving most of their goals for them.

Anti-terror efforts and powers that present themselves as protectors of the people from terrorism are the real threat now and not terrorists, at least that’s the case in Iraq.

Our mere presence is the most destabilizing force in the region. It’s time to get out. If Saddam was a problem, Saddam is no longer in power. It is time to remember the real reason why our army left our shores in the first place and it’s time we rejoined the fight against terrorism and went after Bin Laden. You remember Bin Laden, don’t you? You know – the 9/11 attacks? The guy who is poised to release a message of terror just in time for the November elections? Of course you do. The question is, does Bush?

#16 Hey, thanks, Republicans! Thanks for swinging the Hispanic vote completely over to the Democrats. Appreciate it!

Now, if you can just keep up the unscripted questions for Bush and the non-pre-screened audiences, that’d be great. Love the quotes we get from those.