Watchman #95

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Monday it will file a friend-of-the-court brief in two religious-freedom cases being litigated by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

In one case, Turton v. Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of Education, a New Jersey student was prohibited from singing a Christian song during a talent show.

The second case, Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, concerns a church that was refused rental space at a New York City public school. The school district allows non-religious groups to rent the facilities.

The two cases are among four featured in the DOJ's publication Religious Freedom in Focus.

Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for ADF, said Christians and Christian organizations should not be singled out for different treatment because they are religious.

"We appreciate the DOJ's position on these two cases and are glad they concur with the analysis that discrimination against someone based upon their point of view is unacceptable under the Constitution," he said. "Our position and the position of the Department of Justice is just common sense: public school officials cannot make decisions on what speech to allow or who to allow use of public facilities based upon what type of viewpoint people have. That's clearly unconstitutional."

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Click here to read the U.S. Department of Justice Newsletter. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/newsletter/focus_18.htm

Back

Church-Free Zoning Rule Challenged in Federal Suit

August 02 2006 Alison Espach CNSNews.com Correspondent

A church-free zoning ordinance has touched off a legal fight in Titusville, Pa., with city officials relying on a 1976 regulation to try to prevent the Lighthouse Christian Center from building a new church in the city's commercial district.

The conservative legal group Liberty Counsel has filed a federal lawsuit against Titusville on behalf of the church, alleging that the "church-free" zoning rule violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed to protect religious freedom.

Tim Lorenz, a building inspector and zoning officer for the city of Titusville, cited the "Codified Ordinances of Titusville," specifically Article 1311.04, for deciding to reject the church's plans.

The section in question limits C-1 Commercial district permits to stores, restaurants, offices, theaters, gas stations, hotels, clubs and other nonreligious services. Churches are only permitted in residential areas of Titusville.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said the city blocked the Lighthouse Christian Center from locating in the commercial district, even though the church had already secured a lease in a building zoned for C-1.

He blamed Titusville officials for applying the 1976 ordinance without checking to see if it complied with the RLUIPA or the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the latter of which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Staver said the city's ruling also violates the Lighthouse Christian Center's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property."

"It's one thing to have a code that's just sitting there, but it's another thing to actually continually apply it, as in this particular case the city has done," said Staver.

The Lighthouse Christian Center is "in dire straits because this particular city ordinance has essentially removed them from the city limits and they can't use the property that was ideal for them," he added.

According to Liberty Counsel, the church was previously located in East Hickory, Pa., in a 1,400 square foot building that had no sewage or running water.

The new building leased by the Lighthouse Christian Center was intended to house worship meetings, food storage and distribution and as well as a Christian bookstore, teenager outreach program, and television ministry. Liberty Counsel stated that the facility was the "ideal location" for the Center because it is "located in the target population of the church's primary outreach to teenagers."

"They are now languishing in a rental property that lacks heat and insulation," Staver added. "Certainly that has to be remedied fairly quickly, because when we enter the winter months that could be essentially a component that would shut the operation down."

Lorenz said he was simply doing his job to enforce the law. "It is a pretty old ordinance, and what the people who are responsible for writing the ordinance had in mind back then, I have no idea," said Lorenz. "I am just enforcing it as it is written."

Staver said that when Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), "it was incumbent upon all municipalities to revisit their zoning ordinances in relation to houses of worship."

RLUIPA states that "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution."

Staver said many local zoning ordinances conflict with RLUIPA and such controversies have been frequently litigated since the federal law went into effect.

On July 26 a small Orthodox synagogue in Hollywood, Fla., was permitted to remain in its location after Judge Joan Lenard of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled against the city's zoning ordinance.

On June 6 the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y., could not use its zoning ordinance to prohibit a religious "conference and training center" run by the Legion of Christ in the same building as a secular "conference and training center" run previously by IBM.

Staver said there is "no question" that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where he filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Lighthouse Christian Center, will decide to allow the church to move into Titusville's commercial district.

Back

Liberty Counsel Defends School District and Gideons Against ACLU Lawsuit

August 1 2006 News Release Liberty Counsel

St. Louis, MO - Liberty Counsel, along with co-counsel David Limbaugh, is defending a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the South Iron R-1 School District. The ACLU is attempting to restrict the Gideons from making Bibles available to fifth graders at South Iron Elementary School.

It has long been the practice of the District's Superintendent to allow many groups to present information to students at District schools. These groups included, among others, the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare, and Union Pacific Railroad. The District has an open access policy and has not limited access to any particular groups. In accordance with its policy, the District also authorized access to schools by the Gideons, although the Gideons were only allowed to present information during the last hour of the day, which is a study period. The other groups were permitted access to the students during classroom time.

David Limbaugh, who authored the book Persecution, and whose brother is radio personality Rush Limbaugh, is co-counsel on this case. Mr. Limbaugh's book, which overviews religious liberty litigation, references Liberty Counsel and its cases many times. Mr. Limbaugh and his firm recommended to the District that Liberty Counsel be brought in to assist in defending the suit against the ACLU. The District approved the request, and Liberty Counsel has now joined the legal defense team as lead counsel.

Mr. Limbaugh's book has been widely read. Enrolled at Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia, are two students who decided to attend the School of Law after reading Persecution. They are scheduled to graduate next year. Liberty Counsel's Virginia office is located one floor above the law school and provides internship, externship and clerkship opportunities to students interested in constitutional law and public policy.

Anita L. Staver, President of Liberty Counsel, stated: "We are pleased to defend the actions of the South Iron R-1 School District against unfounded attacks by the ACLU. The District is providing equal access. The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access means equal access for religious speech, but equal treatment is required by the Constitution."

Mathew D. Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and the Interim Dean of Liberty University School of Law, stated: "The First Amendment provides that community groups must receive equal treatment under an open access policy. The Constitution does not pick and choose between viewpoints on permissible subject matters. Religious viewpoints are clearly protected."

Back

Democracy / Security

Bush Administration pursuing Globalist Agenda

August 1 2006 Phyllis Schlafly

The hottest issue at the grass roots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, "Why doesn't the Bush administration get it?"

Maybe the Bush administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants and plans to solve the problem by just declaring them all legal through amnesty and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush administration is pursuing a globalist agenda. Consider this chronology.

On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where they issued a press release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."

This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."

Tying this document into the Bush-Fox-Martin March 23 Summit, the Council of Foreign Relations stated that the three men on that day "committed their governments" to the North American community goal, and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

On June 9, 2005, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., held a friendly committee hearing that featured task force member Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and author of the 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" (Institute for International Economics, $28). He revealed further details of the plan for a "continental perimeter," including "an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors."

Pastor asserted that President Bush endorsed North American integration in the Guanajuato Proposal of February 16, 2001, in which Bush and Fox promised that "we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community." Bush followed up on April 22, 2001, by signing the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration."

On June 27, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa at which he said, "We want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a press release endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting "an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."

In July 2005, the White House let it be known that it is backing a coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.

On March 31 President Bush met at Cancun, Mexico, for a spring frolic with Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Their press release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the partnership, and Bush demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill with a worker permit program.

On May 15 Bush made a nationally televised speech in which he enunciated the amazing non sequitur that we can't have border security unless we also have a "comprehensive" bill including legalization of illegal immigrants now in the United States and the admission of new so-called guest workers.

Thanks to the investigative work of Jerome R. Corsi, we have learned that the partnership's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating in the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, which refuses to reveal the groups' members because, in the words of partnership spokeswoman Geri Word, the Bush administration does not want them "distracted by calls from the public."

Corsi discovered recently that the partnership issued a "Report to Leaders" on June 27, 2005, that shows the partnership's extensive interaction with government and business groups in the three countries.

On June 15, 2006, the partnership's North American Competitiveness Council, consisting of government officials and corporate chief executive officers from the three countries, met to "institutionalize the partnership and the North American Competitiveness Council, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations."

The Bush administration is using a series of press releases, without authority from Congress or the American people, to shift us into the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership with "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

Back

Fiftieth Anniversary of Our National Motto, "In God We Trust," 2006

July 27 2006 for Immediate Release - Office of the Press Secretary

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On the 50th anniversary of our national motto, "In God We Trust," we reflect on these words that guide millions of Americans, recognize the blessings of the Creator, and offer our thanks for His great gift of liberty.

From its earliest days, the United States has been a Nation of faith. During the War of 1812, as the morning light revealed that the battle torn American flag still flew above Fort McHenry, Francis Scott Key penned, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'" His poem became our National Anthem, reminding generations of Americans to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation." On July 30, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the law officially establishing "In God We Trust" as our national motto.

Today, our country stands strong as a beacon of religious freedom. Our citizens, whatever their faith or background, worship freely and millions answer the universal call to love their neighbor and serve a cause greater than self.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of our national motto and remember with thanksgiving God's mercies throughout our history, we recognize a divine plan that stands above all human plans and continue to seek His will.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 30, 2006, as the 50th Anniversary of our National Motto, "In God We Trust." I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Back

Are War-Weary Americans already Suffering "Combat Fatigue" from TERROR, INC.

July 27 2006 Oliver North

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- If recent surveys of public opinion are correct, war-weary Americans are already suffering "combat fatigue" from the most recent battle in the global war on terror -- the fight between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Apparently the U.S. public doesn't believe this bloody engagement to have to do with us -- thus, the waning interest. Those who believe that Hezbollah is simply an Israeli problem need to think again.

"Know your enemy" isn't just a hackneyed military slogan -- it's an essential survival tool in this new world disorder of global Islamic terror. Hezbollah is -- and has always been -- America's enemy.

When Lebanon descended into civil war along sectarian and ethnic lines in 1975, nearly half dozen rival factions with armed militias began a deadly struggle for power -- Christian, Sunni, Shia, Druze and Palestinian. Into this chaos, and well before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Ayatollah Khomeini began sending Pasdaran -- Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- to the Lebanese Biqa Valley to organize, train and equipped the poorly armed, disparate Shia militias into an effective politico-military force. Hezbollah was the result -- and almost immediately, Americans began to die.

From their bases in the Biqa, Hezbollah terrorists launched a series of spectacular attacks against Americans:

-- April 18, 1983: A suicide bomber driving a pickup truck loaded with explosives rams into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 -- including 17 Americans.

-- Oct. 23, 1983: A suicide bomber detonates a truck full of explosives in the U.S. Marine barracks near Beirut International Airport, killing 241 U.S. servicemen.

-- Dec. 12, 1983: Hezbollah operatives attack the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. Near simultaneous attacks are carried out against the Emir of Kuwait, the French embassy, the airport, a major oil refinery and an American residential compound. In all, six people die; more than 80 are wounded.

-- April 2, 1986 -- a bomb aboard TWA Flight 840, en route from Athens to Rome to Athens kills four members of the Kluge family from Annapolis, MD, an American family that included an infant girl.

-- Feb. 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Col. William Higgins, assigned to the U.N. Peacekeeping Force for Lebanon, is kidnapped, tortured and murdered.

-- June 14, 1985: TWA Flight 847 is hijacked and landed at Beirut International Airport. During the 17 day stand-off, U.S. Navy Seabee Diver Robert Stethem is murdered aboard the aircraft and his body is dumped on the tarmac.

-- In a wave of kidnappings between 1982 and 1988, Hezbollah took more than 30 Westerners hostage in Lebanon, among them, CIA station chief William Buckley, American University of Beirut President David Dodge, AP reporter Terry Anderson, American University of Beirut librarian Peter Kilburn, American University Hospital Administrator David Jacobsen, Father Martin Jenco, a Roman Catholic Priest, and Rev. Benjamin Weir, a Presbyterian missionary. Though most survived captivity -- Anderson was held 2,454 days -- some, like Buckley, were tortured to death.

-- June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia is bombed, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and wounding more than 400.

Though all of these terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Hezbollah operatives, the individuals carrying them out were trained, equipped and controlled by Iran. We have known that with absolute certainty since 1986, when I went secretly to Tehran seeking the release of Americans being held hostage in Beirut. Though the Reagan administration's covert overtures to Iran remain highly controversial, there is no doubt Tehran directed the capture -- and eventually the release -- of Weir, Jenco and Jacobsen.

For those who think this is all ancient history and that Hezbollah is no longer a threat to the United States, consider that just last week, Iranian Hezbollah spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli issued a threat to dispatch 2,000 operatives "to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America's interests." He continued: "If America wants to ignite World War III ... we welcome it."

Idle threat? Not to the FBI. Two months ago, before Hezbollah attacks on Israel precipitated the most recent round of hostilities the New York Post reported the group "may be planning to activate sleeper cells in New York and other big cities to stage an attack as the nuclear showdown with Iran heats up." The threat seemed credible enough for the FBI to launch "urgent new probes in New York and other cities," including Detroit, Los Angeles and Boston. The effort, the Post reported, identified "about a dozen hard-core supporters of Hezbollah" in New York City alone.

President Bush has repeatedly warned the global war on terror will not be short, cost-free or without losses. We can reduce our losses by knowing our enemies and acting against them. Hezbollah is surely such an enemy.

Back

On the case of U.S. bankruptcy

July 27, 2006 Richard W. Rahn

If you knew the U.S. government was going bankrupt primarily because of spending on Social Security and Medicare, and the only solutions were the following, which one would you pick?
    (1) Doubling individual and corporate income tax rates.
    (2) Immediately cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits by two-thirds.
    (3) Immediately cutting all federal discretionary spending (including defense) by 143 percent.
    (4) Reforming Social Security and Medicare by moving from the current defined benefit plans to a program of individual investment accounts, like the current 401(k) and Medical Savings Account (MSA) plans.
    Many leading economists of the political right and left have concluded the U.S. government will not be able to pay its creditors, including its current and future retirees, the full value of promised benefits, unless current policies are radically changed. (Most recently, Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff in a paper for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and Lawrence A. Hunter, former chief of staff for the Joint Economic Committee in a paper for the Institute of Policy Innovation, using different models, each concluded the U.S. is on its way to bankruptcy. The above alternative solutions were taken from these papers.)
    Simply, government spending, in particular Social Security and Medicare, is growing faster than real economic growth. Obviously, it is a mathematical truism that this trend cannot continue indefinitely -- and when something cannot continue forever, it will not.
    When governments go bankrupt, they pay off their debts by running the printing presses, which results in high inflation and perhaps hyperinflation. Under the condition of bankruptcy/hyperinflation, everyone gets poorer, including both workers and retirees. Argentina is a good example of a country that has been going through bouts of bankruptcy. A century ago, it had the world's third-highest per capita income and was on par with the U.S. But Argentina now ranks about No. 70 in the world with a per capita income of only around $13,000 per year as contrasted with the U.S. and Ireland with per capita incomes of about $41,000 yearly.
    Increasing the tax rates by the magnitude necessary would make U.S. tax rates even higher than most European nations, and lead to economic stagnation, or worse. The French, Germans and Italians are trying the high tax rate route, and it is not working. Cutting current Social Security and Medicare benefits would not be fair to those who are retired, or near retirement, and cutting other government spending by the necessary amount would not be politically acceptable.
    When the AARP folks, or most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress, tell you the Social Security and Medicare problems can be solved by minor tweaks, they are either ignorant or lying. Most AARP members are at retirement age. If you look at the AARP position on Social Security and Medicare reform, you can only conclude these people don't really care about their grandchildren.
    Fortunately, if Congress acts quickly, there is a relatively painless way out, which will avoid the U.S. going the way of Argentina (and France). It involves both tax and entitlement reforms. Tax reform means either moving to a sales tax or flat tax system in which taxes on capital are removed. Such reform will increase both capital and labor, thus increasing productivity growth. Entitlement reform means moving from the current pay-as-you-go defined benefit systems for Social Security and Medicare to defined contribution systems with individual retirement and medical accounts, as most private companies have been forced to do.
    The transition to individual accounts will entail some transition costs that can be covered through some temporary increase in government borrowing and/or sales of government assets such as federal land (the federal government owns more than 40 percent of the land in the U.S.).
    Serious and responsible people both right and left understand the national debate over the defined contribution plans should be about the size and the extent of government versus individual control. This debate is not happening -- to the necessary degree to get reform -- because most Americans still do not understand the magnitude of the problem (as shown by the polls). There is also no need to reduce the real promised benefits to current and near-retirees -- but only if Congress acts soon.
    The Bush administration made a strategic mistake by failing to educate the American people to the nature and extent of the problem before launching its partial solution. Given the irresponsibility and the inability of much of the political class and media to explain the real problem and lead the country to the solution, private parties will have to do it. The only salvation is for well motivated individuals to invest the time and resources to do the necessary educational effort -- or in a few decades the U.S. will look like Argentina.
     Richard W. Rahn is director general of the Center for Global Economic Growth, a project of the FreedomWorks Foundation.

Back

Selby: Dewhurst, Hutchison speak out on immigration for Corporations

July 26 2006 COMMENTARY: W. GARDNER SELBY

Possible future foes stake out stands in San Antonio, Washington.

Just when summer seemed sleepy, two Texas Republican heavyweights aired fresh stands on the simmering issue of illegal immigration. Coincidentally, David Dewhurst and Kay Bailey Hutchison both seek re-election and might fence for governor in 2010.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst huddled privately this month with folks connected to the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He reportedly said: "I don't see why we don't give all 12 million (illegal) immigrants worker permits after they step forward. Of course, they have to get registered so we can know who they are."

A chamber leader, Ed Riojas, confirmed the wording, which became public in an e-mail blast this week from GOP activist Joe Solis. Riojas, a credit union executive, said Dewhurst stressed the need to identify immigrants so they can pay taxes.

A.J. Rodriguez, chamber president, didn't recall the remark but said the lite guv "understands the need for the immigrant work force here." Dewhurst also supported development of tamper-proof ID cards that hold key information for all U.S. residents.

Solis said Dewhurst would never have suggested work permits for immigrants at the June GOP state convention in San Antonio, where border security was Ouchy Topic A. "That would NEVER happen in a 1,000 years," Solis wrote. "That would be the end of his political career."

Balderdash, Dewhurst said Wednesday, stressing that like other conservatives, he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, but believes that it's probably impractical and inadvisable to deport law-abiding workers, who should have shots at seeking temporary worker permits once U.S. borders are secure. At the GOP convention, Dewhurst did not dwell on immigration, focusing on changes in school and tax laws. He suggested this week that if he had waxed on immigration, he would have received as loud or louder applause than others who hammered on the border.

U.S. Sen. Hutchison this week pitched a proposal she cobbled with U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., to start a temporary worker program and establish a 17-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants once borders are secure. Privately run "Ellis Island" centers would screen applicants once they had self-deported themselves to countries of origin.

"We owe it to our country to solve this issue," Hutchison said.

Hutchison's Democratic opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, called Hutchison's offering wacky and unworkable. "Just puffing; she did it for attention," Radnofsky said. "A sad grandstand."

Partisans are mindful. Cathie Adams of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, focused on securing U.S. borders, said Dewhurst and Hutchison seem to speak for corporations. "What we are up against is the taxpaying citizen versus the elites who are only looking out for the cost of doing their own business at the expense of mom-and-pop taxpayers," Adams said. "This is hurting. I'm sorry that maybe our voices haven't been loud or clear enough. . . . If Dewhurst and Hutchison are at the same place on this, it's bad news."

wgselby@statesman.com;

Back

The many dangers of the Pence Amnesty Plan

June 28 2004 Phyllis Schlafly

Despite the consistent failure of all guest worker plans (e.g., France), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is peddling a new plan to import foreign workers who really are guests and really do go home. Pence has turned his back on the 88 percent of House Republicans who voted that we must achieve border security first, because we'll be cheated on border security if Congress passes a "comprehensive" bill.

The Pence plan tries to avoid the amnesty label by requiring illegal aliens now in the U.S. to make what he calls "a quick trip across the border" to Mexico or Canada to pick up a new W visa. A foreigner could get a W visa only if a U.S. employer certifies that a job awaits him.

Pence's plan calls for setting up privately financed offices outside the U.S., with the cutesy title Ellis Island Centers, to hand out the new W visas, which he claims would be more efficient than government bureaucracy. Business would, indeed, be more efficient than government in importing more foreign workers.

Having private employment agencies distribute the W visas would put the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Private industry has a built-in incentive to import as much cheap labor as possible.

Pence says that the Ellis Island Centers will be able to match workers with jobs, perform health screening, fingerprinting, and convey information to the FBI and Homeland Security for a background check in "a matter of one week, or less." We'll have to see that to believe it.

What about the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. today who do not have an employer willing to go on record as guaranteeing a job for a foreigner? These would include the relatives of jobholders, the day laborers, and the millions of illegal aliens working in the U.S. underground cash economy (an estimated 40 percent of the total).

Pence's bill is silent on this and his staff predicts that the free market will provide the answers. Pence told Time Magazine his bill "will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave."

What about the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are not Mexicans? Illegal aliens will not have to return to their home country, but only appear at an Ellis Island Center anywhere outside the U.S. to pick up their papers. Will Mexico and Canada put out the welcome mat for a mass exodus of illegal aliens from the U.S.?

The Pence plan provides that the guest workers, after living here legally for six years under the protection of a W visa, can choose whether to apply for citizenship or to return home. If guest workers don't apply for citizenship, will Pence hire buses to deport them after they have raised a family and established roots?

Six years is ample time to have a U.S.-born anchor baby, or two or three, which starts family chain migration. Any attempt to deal with the racket of birthright citizenship would linger at least six years in the courts.

The Pence promise that employers would have to offer jobs to Americans first is a sick joke. American engineers and computer techies who lost their jobs to foreigners under the H-1B visa guest-worker racket know that a look-for-Americans-first rule is never enforced and easily evaded.

Pence revealed an amazing open-ended part of his plan in his Wall Street Journal article: "My immigration reform plan does not favor illegal immigrants. Anyone may apply for a guest-worker visa at the new Ellis Island Centers; indeed, the plan may actually work to the advantage of applicants who have never violated our immigration laws, since guest-worker visas will be issued only outside the U.S."

Anyone may apply, from anywhere in the world and without any limits; Pence wrote, "There will initially be no cap on the number of visas that can be issued."

The Pew Hispanic Center surveyed 120 locations in Mexico and concluded that 49 million Mexicans want to live in the United States if they get the opportunity.

If Pence's "guest worker" plan actually worked, and the guests voluntarily go home after six years, it would mean instituting a system that is immoral and un-American. Inviting foreigners to come to America to do jobs that Americans think they are too good to do, creates a subordinate underclass of unassimilated foreign workers, like the serf or peasant classes that exist in corrupt foreign countries such as Mexico.

That's not the kind of economy that made America a great nation. Theodore Roosevelt warned: "Never, under any condition, should this nation look at an immigrant as primarily a labor unit."

Pence and others who promote "guest worker" plans have a favorite mantra: "Let the free market solve our economic problems." Americans should realize that a global, or even a Western Hemisphere free market, means forcing American workers to compete with people who work for 50 cents an hour.

Letting the free market decide our future also requires loss of sovereignty to some kind of multinational government, as the European Union found out. Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco last year and reaffirmed at Cancun this year.

Back

U.S. prepares for showdown in Cuba

August 3 3006 Laurie Kellman Associated Press Writer

The White House and Congress, caught unaware by Fidel Castro's illness, prepared Wednesday for a possible showdown in Cuba as lawmakers drafted legislation that would give millions of dollars to dissidents who fight for democratic change.

"The message will be, `The United States stands with you,'" Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., one of the bill's authors, said in an interview. "Be ready to assert your independence."

There was no sign of upheaval in Cuba on Wednesday, two days after Castro stunned U.S. officials and many of his own countrymen with the news that he had temporarily ceded power to his brother, Raul, in order to undergo surgery.

The handover was a surprise to the White House and Congress, one senator said.

"The president's comment was that everybody was caught by surprise, and we'll have to wait and see" what U.S. action is necessary, said Sen. Robert Bennett (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, who discussed the developments with President Bush on Tuesday. "I think all of us can say we had no idea this was coming."

The remarks underscored the scanty reliable intelligence the U.S. has on an old Cold War foe that lies just 90 miles off the Florida shore.

"It's difficult for us to assess what the situation is," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. He cautioned Cubans against any mass exodus — and Cuban-American exiles against returning to claim property they lost in Cuba.

"Stay where you are. This is not a time for people to try to be getting in the water and going either way," Snow added. "We have talked about the importance, eventually, of finding an orderly and safe way for people to make transit between two places."

At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had no independent information about Castro's health. "This is a pretty closed decision-making circle and it's very opaque as to what is actually going on," he said.

For now, Bush administration officials and members of Congress were focused on offering dissidents cash for fighting for democratic change.

Legislation sponsored by Nelson, fellow Floridian Mel Martinez, Majority Leader Bill Frist and others would authorize as much as $80 million over two years — and pay half of that almost immediately — to dissidents and nongovernmental organizations on the island.

Recommended by a presidential commission three weeks ago, the legislation says those eligible for the money would include political prisoners, workers' rights organizations, independent libraries, journalists, doctors and economists.

Meanwhile, the House's three Cuban-American members, Republican Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, discussed the issue early Wednesday with members of Bush's National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security before boarding a flight to Miami.

Mario Diaz-Balart said afterward that the administration would not accept rule by Raul Castro as a changeover worthy of lifting sanctions.

"Raul Castro has been part of that regime for 47 years," Diaz-Balart said in a telephone interview. "Fidel was the mastermind for 47 years and Raul was the executioner."

Still, Fidel's step down from power presents "a window of opportunity that is so important for the United States, for the American people and the international community to help the Cuban people free themselves," said Ros-Lehtinen.

Federal law enforcement officials are keeping watch on the ocean between Florida and Cuba.

The Coast Guard, which routinely patrols the area, has seen "absolutely no indication" of an increase of refugees since Castro's announcement, said Cmdr. Jeff Carter. "Nor are we seeing any going the other direction, from Florida."

According to a defense official, Navy ships are not moving closer to Cuba. Tropical Storm Chris in the eastern Caribbean is expected to become the first hurricane of the Atlantic season over the weekend — a development that also may deter potential rafters.

The Navy does have a large number of ships, from destroyers to frigates, in the general area, at the Mayport Naval Station in Florida and the Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia. Those ships would be in range and ready to respond if the situation in Cuba changed, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Some U.S. officials fear that post-Castro instability in Cuba could lead to a large-scale migration by Cubans to South Florida, similar to those in 1980 and 1994.

The Coast Guard has long had a plan, called Operation Vigilant Sentry, to deal with mass migrations from Cuba and other destinations by sea. But the agency has not activated them in light of Castro's illness, Carter said. He said no additional ships, aircraft or personnel have been moved to the region since Castro stepped aside.

Back

Family / Social

Study disputes public school advantage

August 3 2006 UPI Staff United Press International

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (UPI) -- U.S. private school students do better in reading and math tests than their public school peers, a Harvard study released in Cambridge, Mass., finds.

The researchers claim a recent U.S. Department of Education study of the same test results was flawed.

The government study, which fanned the flames of the school voucher debate when it was released last month, said public school students did roughly the same as, and in some cases better than, private school students in fourth and eighth grades.

Both studies compared the scores of fourth- and eighth-grade students from nearly 7,000 public schools and 530 private schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.

The Harvard researchers said the government study was skewed toward schools receiving federal funding for students from low-income families and receiving specialized education services.

"When you use participation in federal programs as a measure of a student's family background, you undercount the number of disadvantaged students in the private sector," said Paul Peterson, a professor of government and one of the study's authors.

By contrast, Harvard's study gave a more accurate picture of student performance in both public and private schools, Peterson said.

Back

Press Misses Huge Story about National Academies of Science Recognition of Abortion-Premature Birth Link, Says Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

August 3 2006 Media Advisory Christian Newswire

Last week, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer published a press release noting that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an organization of the National Academies of Science, has listed "prior first trimester abortion" as a risk factor for subsequent premature birth. [1,2] Leading radio networks carried the story, but not the mainstream print press.

It is understandable that journalists who originally covered the IOM's report on premature births on July 13 might have missed the inclusion of abortion as an "immutable medical risk factor" for premature birth. The information was buried in a table on page 519 of the report and omitted in the IOM's press release. [2,3]

Nevertheless, what will women think if the press never reports this risk of abortion? The information impacts many women, children and doctors. Approximately 1.29 million abortions were performed in the U.S. in 2002. [4]

"Women have the right to know that premature birth is associated with cerebral palsy for children and breast cancer for mothers, regardless of the prevailing ideology of the U.S. elite," asserted Karen Malec, president of the coalition.

"Childlessness is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. The post-abortive woman who prematurely delivers before 32 weeks gestation is at risk for childlessness and breast cancer. Why aren't women being told?" demanded Malec, a cancer survivor.

Journalists covered a story about U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman and Carolyn Maloney and other Democrats on the U.S. House Government Reform Committee who on July 17, 2006 accused crisis pregnancy centers of "providing false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion." [5]

Shouldn't the Democrats be asked why they haven't done their homework on the risks of abortion?

Billionaire Warren Buffett is giving the Gates Foundation, a large contributor to Planned Parenthood, approximately $37 billion.

Shouldn't Warren Buffett and Bill Gates be asked whether it troubles them that their gifts to Planned Parenthood will cause more cases of cerebral palsy in children, neonatal deaths and breast cancer in mothers?

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References online at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases /060803/index.htm

Back

Texas Educational Flim-Flam Where 35% is a Passing Grade

August 1 2006 Scott Bennett DallasBlog.com

Only at the Texas Education Agency is 35 percent a passing grade.

That’s right, schools rated “acceptable” this week by the Texas Education Agency only needed to have 35 percent of their students pass the science portion of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).

But there’s another story lurking behind the curtain. The reality of the Texas public school system varies dramatically from all the “happy talk” Texans have heard from successive commissioners of education.

Here’s how the Texas Education Agency assigns accountability ratings:

Generally, a school’s rating is based on two main factors: scores on the state’s standardized test and completion rates, which measure the percentage of ninth graders who complete high school four years later (i.e. don’t dropout).

The Texas Education Agency issues four ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, and Unacceptable. The latter rating is given to a small number of schools each year and has serious consequences for the school district and personnel, up to and including state takeover of the school. Campuses and districts get rated. (A more technical explanation of accountability ratings can be found in the Texas Education Agency’s accountability manual available here: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2006/manual/index.html)

In 2006, schools must show a 75 percent completion rate. This rate is measured for all students and each student group (white, African American, economically disadvantaged, Hispanic). In other words, 75 percent of all students must complete, and 75 percent of African Americans and 75 percent of Hispanics, etc.

In addition to the completion rate, schools must have an acceptable passing rate on state’s standardized tests. In 2006, schools needed to have 35 percent pass the science test at all grades. In math, schools needed 40 percent. For the other subjects (reading, writing, and social studies), schools needed a 60 percent passing rate to get an acceptable rating. Again, this passing rate applies for each student group and grade level.

But there’s another feature of this system the Texas Education Agency doesn’t like to discuss. The percentage of correct answers required to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is often small.

On the seventh grade math test, a student only had to get a raw score of 28 out of 48 (58 percent) to pass. On the eleventh grade science test, a student need only score 29 out of 55 (53 percent) to pass.

(The full raw score conversion tables can be found here: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/scoring/convtables/2006/index.html)

To put it another way, in order to get an acceptable rating, a high school has to get 35 percent of its students to answer 53 percent of the questions correctly on the state’s eleventh grade science test. A similar story can be constructed for most tests at most grade levels.

But even these low standards cause a few schools problems. So the TEA grants exceptions to schools that are improving or come very close to passing.

Remember, only the TAKS is used in assigning accountability ratings. The ratings do not reflect college entrance exam scores, are not used in the college admissions process, and do not reflect how well a school’s vocational education programs do at imparting work-related skills.

In short, state accountability ratings do not impart much useful information.

How did this problem get this way?

Politics.

The theory behind the Texas Accountability System (which is the model for the federal No Child Left Behind Act) is test everyone, set a really low bar, and put on a huge public relations show when many students pass.

Perhaps in chronically underperforming schools this forces school administrators to pay attention to some kids who were written off in the past. But it also results in the overemphasis on one type of standardized test and the dumbing down of curriculum in the majority of schools, because scores on the state’s tests often determine administrator salaries and career prospects.

Whether this is good educational policy is debatable, but until recently, it’s been great politics. It produced wonderful headlines for Gov. George W. Bush’s presidential campaign about “improving schools.”

During the 1990s, some of the elected conservative members of the Texas State Board of Education began to criticize this system. Then-board member Richard Neill (R-Fort Worth) lambasted then-Commissioner of Education Mike Moses for the ease of questions on the state’s standardized test.

One such question asked students how many legs are on an insect. If they did not know, an accurate picture was provided. Another question asked students which region of the U.S. had the most silver mines in the late 19th Century. If they did not know, a map of U.S. Silver Mines was provided.

In response to criticism about the ease of the test, Moses proposed the reaction of a new test – to take effect after Bush left office.

The TAKS, which is currently used in Texas public schools, is an improvement over its predecessor. The high school math test now contains algebra, for example.

But the number of correct answers to pass the test is still way too low, as is the required passing rate. Additionally, for the two higher ratings at the high school level, the agency ought to consider college entrance exam scores.

The current accountability system was not designed by the current governor. The Texas school accountability system is a bad joke, but Texas newspapers and broadcast media aren’t laughing anymore. The press is finally doing stories on the low accountability standards and rampant cheating.

Texas is in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign right now. It’s time for the current governor and the other candidates in this race to take a long-term view of the situation. The political benefits of manipulating the state’s accountability ratings are beginning to wane. It’s time to stop providing incentives to dumb down the public schools and be honest with the public. If that means more schools get a negative label, so be it.

Only then will Texans get the public schools we truly deserve.

Back

Gay Groups Announce Agenda 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage' and Against Marriage/Family

July 31 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

Marriage isn't the only 'worthy' form of relationship, statement says.

To try to counter the family-values agenda, lesbian, gay and bisexual activist groups joined hands recently to publicly announce a new agenda.

They issued a major statement called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships."

"Our strategies must be visionary, creative and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a 'wedge' issue that pits one group against another," the statement claims. "The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families."

Dr. Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America said the statement is clear evidence that there is not only a "gay agenda" — activists have no intention of giving up on it.

"I think it's a declaration of war," Crouse said. "It's a warning for those of us that value the traditional family — where there's a mother and a father and their children, either biological or adopted.

"This document very clearly says, 'Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or of relationships.' They are clearly going for redefinition of what it means to be a family."

Specifically, the groups advocate, in their words:

— Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families — regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

— Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including, but not limited to, health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster-recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

The statement cites single-parent households or cohabitation of unrelated elderly people as examples of relationships that need "protection."

Glenn T. Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said it's now very clear that most gay activists never really sought same-sex marriage. What they really want is "anything goes."

"This statement fails to take account of the fact that the government recognizes, or sees, certain relationships as legal, because those relationships are essential and necessary to society," Stanton said. "That is, the society needs these relationships in order to be productive, healthy and prosperous."

Interestingly, the gay activists and their supporters called for "separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families."

Stanton said, however, we don't find marriage just in Christian or religious cultures.

"You find marriage in all human cultures," he said. "Marriage, as a relationship between a man and a woman, is present in all human societies. It's a human thing. So, if they're going to 'set themselves free,' they are going to have to do it by the separation of humanity and state — rather than the separation of religion and state. Religion is not what drives marriage; humanity is what drives marriage."

For Gary Bauer, president of American Values, the gay-activist message to America is clear.

"Translated, it means they want to change the subject," Bauer said. "I don't blame them, after a series of humiliating defeats at the ballot box, and, at least in recent weeks, a series of debates in what has been their stronghold — which is the judiciary of the country. So clearly, they are going back to the drawing board to try to come up with a different strategy."

Back

Plan B at the Top of FDA 'To Do' List

July 31 2006 Citizen Link

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today it will meet with Barr Laboratories within the next week to establish what actions the company must take in order to sell controversial emergency contraception without a prescription, The Associated Press reported.

Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, is a high dose of hormones that, if taken within 72 hours, can prevent pregnancy. If conception has already occurred, it can also cause an early abortion.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, said it's unrealistic and naïve to assume that pharmacists can act as "drug police" to keep the drug out of the hands of vulnerable teens.

"Adults purchase alcohol and cigarettes for minors, why not emergency contraception?" she asked. "Just consider adult men who prey on and have sex with teenage girls. The availability of this drug over the counter, even with supposed age restrictions, is a teenage girl's nightmare."

Earll said men could use easy access to Plan B as a means to pressure girls to have sex, with the guarantee that the girl won't get pregnant and her parents won't be the wiser.

"Let's not put young girls at risk by such an irresponsible move," she said. "Teens will get the drug via an adult, and parents will be left out of the equation. This proposal violates parents' r By Stephen Dinan and Brian DeBose
ights, even with the semblance of age controls."

>>> TAKE ACTION --- CALL OR E-MAIL THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY!

The last point of intervention to keep the dangerous "morning-after" pill from being available across the counter at your neighborhood drug store is the White House.

Stop whatever you're doing and take 30 seconds right now to tell President Bush to use his executive authority to overrule the Food and Drug Administration. Tell him to stop Plan B!

>>> WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE: 202-456-1111

>>> WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL: comments@whitehouse.gov

Please do it now! There is less than one week to make a difference.

Back

Government / Legislation

Senate Now votes to fund 370 miles of the border fence

August 3 2006 Stephen Dinan and Brian DeBose the Washington Times

The Senate did an abrupt about-face yesterday, voting overwhelmingly to begin paying for 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, just three weeks after voting against the same spending.
    The amendment's sponsor said senators were so embarrassed by that July 13 vote that most felt they had to reverse course and vote for it this time -- especially after so many were on record in May voting to build the fence in the first place. The amendment, which provides nearly $2 billion for the project, passed 94-3, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes" votes since last month.
    "I think people wanted to get right," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. "People heard from their constituents after they voted to authorize the fence in May and then voted against funding it a couple of weeks ago."
    The fence has become one of the flash points as Congress and President Bush try to craft a new immigration enforcement policy this year piece by piece. Mr. Bush travels to Texas today to review operations at the border, including the success of his plan to deploy the National Guard to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
    This week, the president reached his goal of assigning 6,000 Guard troops to the Border States by Aug. 1. Still, of the 6,340 troops assigned as of yesterday, only 2,675 troops, or 42 percent, were "forward deployed." The rest are at joint task force headquarters, in training or in transit.
    But the Guard's presence has led to a 25 percent drop in apprehensions at the border compared with the same time last year, suggesting the troops are having success in preventing illegal aliens from trying to cross.
    That good news, though, was tempered by a government report that found Department of Homeland Security employees were fooled by counterfeit driver's licenses in nine different tests by undercover investigators at U.S. border crossings. The Government Accountability Office said that hole in security "potentially allows terrorists or others involved in criminal activity to pass freely into the United States from Canada or Mexico."
    Democrats seized on the report as evidence Mr. Bush has fallen short on a key measure of homeland security.
    "The record is clear: for more than five years, the president has failed to secure our borders and to enforce our immigration laws," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who added that Republicans in Congress have let Mr. Bush get away with under funding the Border Patrol and have delayed "real immigration reform" by fighting among themselves over whether to do enforcement first or pass a broad bill.
    At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the administration is still pushing for a broad bill and he sees headway on administration insistence that Congress pass a broad bill that includes a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
    "I think there's increasing awareness in both houses of Congress that that is the proper way to proceed," Mr. Snow said.
    But House Republicans remain adamant about border security first, said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.
    He said Mr. Hastert, who toured the border two weeks ago, is pleased with the assistance the Border Patrol is getting, "but a lot more needs to be done. The speaker believes we need a broad, strong border security bill first before we can do anything else."
    Mr. Sessions said he senses that senators are moving toward stricter enforcement because they have heard from constituents back home.
    "The voice of the American people is beginning to be heard, and there's been a sea-change in how people are thinking about some of these issues," he said. "It's become clearer and clearer that the fence does work, and it's been clearer and clearer that the American people want us to put our money where our mouth was."
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who voted against the amendment three weeks ago, praised yesterday's vote, which came on an amendment to the defense appropriations bill. The Tennessee Republican called it a step toward fulfilling the commitment the Senate made in May but stressed that he remains committed to a broad immigration bill.
    "Getting border security right, including building fences, is a key component to securing our homeland -- which also helps open the door to comprehensive immigration reform," he said.
    Mr. Frist made no mention of the July vote, which was on an amendment to the homeland-security appropriations bill, but his spokeswoman said her boss feared what homeland-security programs might be cut under that earlier amendment.
    Other top Republicans seconded that explanation as the reason they voted against the last amendment and for this one.
    The new amendment took money from a $86.3 billion "contingency fund" the Senate included in its proposed 2007 budget, which the lawmakers said was a better source than funding the border fence with homeland security money.
    The three senators who voted against yesterday's fence amendment were Democrat Russ D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and independent James M. Jeffords of Vermont.

Back

Mt. Soledad Cross's Victory in Congress Won't End Court Battles, Supporters Say

August 2 2006 Jenni Parker Agape Press

Conservative political leaders and pro-family advocates are applauding the U.S. Senate's swift, unanimous passage last night of the Bill to Preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Strongly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the legislation provides for the federal government's immediate acquisition of the embattled San Diego veterans memorial, which features a 29-foot-tall cross.

The concrete cross, which stands 43 feet tall if one includes the height of its base, is the centerpiece of a commemorative monument that includes more than 1,700 granite plaques honoring fallen U.S. military veterans from the Civil War to the Korean War, to the current war in Iraq. But the cross is also at the center of a 17-year legal battle between an atheist, supported by the ACLU, and San Diego, supported by numerous veterans and people of faith, over the so-called separation of church and state.

The bill to transfer the cross to federal land was first introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. The House overwhelmingly passed it in a 349-74 vote on July 19 and sent it to the Senate on July 20, where it was introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Senate's unanimous approval moves the legislation to the desk of President Bush, who is expected to sign it.

During his announcement of the bill's passage, Senator Sessions said he was glad to see the Senate join the House in approving a bill "that will put an end to the litigation under the California Constitution by transferring the memorial to the federal government." However, he lamented the fact that this embattled monument has "sadly come under attack by the ACLU because it contains a cross commemorating fallen soldiers."

Sessions went on to point out that America "has a long history and tradition of memorializing members of the armed forces who die in battle with a cross or other religious emblems of faith." The Alabama lawmaker said he is glad Congress has "stepped up" to help ensure that the Mount Soledad memorial remains "as a tribute to those who sacrificed their lives in defense of their country."

Congressman Duncan Hunter, who joined two GOP colleagues from San Diego County in writing the House version of the cross-transfer bill, called its bicameral passage "a significant step forward," Copley News Service reports. Hunter said the August 2 vote "reaffirms the overwhelming desire" of San Diego citizens to keep the memorial "exactly where it has proudly stood for over 50 years."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also expressed support for the cross-transfer legislation. After the bill's passage, he remarked that allowing the Mount Soledad memorial to be destroyed would "send the wrong message to our nation's veterans."

The Cross in Court: A Long Battle That Isn't Over
A federal judge ruled last May that since the controversial Mount Soledad cross is on city land, the memorial violates the California Constitution's ban on government endorsement of any one religion. The City of San Diego has been ordered to remove the religious symbol or be fined $5,000 a day. However, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has issued an indefinite stay to put off any fines against the city until the matter has gone through the entire judicial process.

Supporters of the cross believe the legislation allowing for transfer of the memorial to the federal government will help their case and will protect the cross from further court challenges, as religious displays can legally occupy federal land if they have a secular meaning. Once the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial is officially on federal land, their hope is that it will no longer be susceptible to continued litigation under California's Constitution.

Richard Thompson is President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, one of a number of organizations that have joined in the fight to save the cross. He is calling the passage of the Bill to Preserve the Mount Soledad Cross a "great victory for our veterans and our fallen war heroes" and says he applauds Senator Sessions for keeping the pressure on to move it through Senate.

However, Thompson says it would be a "serious mistake" to think the fight is over." He observes that the plaintiff and the ACLU have already shown "persistence and zeal" in their efforts against the cross, and "this political defeat will most likely intensify their legal efforts," not unlike "a red flag waved in front of a bull."

Thomas More Law Center's West Coast Director, San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri, has spearheaded the legal defense of the cross. He was quoted as saying he and other supporters are obviously "delighted" with the passage of the bill. However, he agrees with Thompson that this legislative win will not mean the end of the judicial struggle over the monument.

Coalition of Cross Supporters Continues the Fight
"Legal attacks on the Mount Soledad cross will continue in both the federal and California courts," LiMandri asserts. Still, he adds, "Clearly, Senate passage of this legislation will greatly assist us in these court battles." Fortunately, he notes, many other supporters, including veterans groups, legal and pro-family organizations, and individuals, have been engaged in the fight to preserve the Mount Soledad cross.

The Thomas More Law Center is involved in both the California appellate court and the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, a group that played a major role in the successful petition drive to transfer the memorial site land to the federal government. However, the Center notes, retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton -- a member of the Law Center's Citizens Advisory Board, a former Vietnam P.O.W. and a former U.S. Senator -- also proved instrumental in the effort by obtaining political support for the memorial in Washington.

Along with the Thomas More Law Center, a number of other pro-family groups and legal organizations are involved in the fight to save the