Valuable Information about News And Events, Politics And Government and More

Congress is sending President Bush several bills that would tighten laws on child pornographers’ use of the Internet.

The House on Friday passed by 418-0 a measure clarifying that images obtained over the Internet were subject to federal interstate commerce laws. The bill was in response to a federal court ruling that prosecutors must show that images kept on a computer had crossed state lines.

“This legislation closes the jurisdictional loophole that allowed a guilty man to escape punishment,” said Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., the bill’s sponsor.

The same legislation contained another bill sponsored by Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa., that would allow prosecutors to include money laundering as a tool in child pornography cases. That would fix another loophole that has allowed Internet users to evade child pornography laws by not downloading or saving the images.

The House was also scheduled to take up legislation, passed by the Senate on Thursday, that would provide federal funds to create a nationwide network of trained law enforcement experts to address the problem of child exploitation.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., requires the Justice Department to develop a national strategy to fight child exploitation. It also requires the attorney general to set up a grant program to ensure that local agencies have the resources needed to create robust cyber units with highly trained investigators.

The bill contains a proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to require more electronic service providers to report online child pornography and make failure to report known child pornography a federal crime.

Currently, Internet service providers are required to report child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The legislation would expand those companies with reporting obligations to include search engines such as Google and Yahoo!, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, domain name registrars and wireless phone carriers.

These companies would not be required to monitor Web sites, but the legislation would triple fines for knowing failure to report child pornography.

Republican John McCain agreed to attend the first presidential debate Friday night even though Congress doesn’t have a bailout deal, reversing an earlier decision to delay the event until Washington had taken action to address the crisis.

With less than 10 hours until the debate was scheduled to start, the McCain campaign announced that the Arizona senator would travel to the University of Mississippi. The campaign said that afterward McCain would fly back to Washington to continue working on the financial crisis.

Obama had always planned to attend the debate and was onboard his plane preparing to take off when McCain’s announcement was made.

The McCain campaign’s statement said he was optimistic that there has been progress toward a bipartisan agreement. But earlier in the week, McCain said he would delay the debate “until we have taken action to address this crisis.”

“He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations,” the McCain campaign said in a statement.

It was a different position than McCain had taken Wednesday, when he announced, “I’m directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.”

McCain had taken a gamble with that position, trying to appear above politics and as a leader on an issue that had overshadowed the presidential campaign and given him trouble. But Democratic rival Barack Obama had not bowed to McCain’s challenge, and instead questioned why the Republican nominee couldn’t handle two things at once — the debate and involvement in the bailout negotiations.

An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll out Friday just before McCain’s announcement showed the public overwhelmingly wanted the candidates to debate, 60 percent to 22 percent, with the rest undecided.

By Friday morning, it appeared McCain was looking for a face-saving way to get to the debate even though a deal had not been reached. He met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, before heading to his campaign headquarters and the issuing the statement that blamed others in Washington for the failure to reach an agreement.

“John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis,” the statement said. “In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money to bail out bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.”

Just before McCain’s announcement, Obama told reporters that he had spent Friday morning on the phone with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and congressional leaders and he was optimistic that progress was being made toward a bailout deal.

“At this point, my strong sense is that the best thing that I can do, rather than to inject presidential politics into these delicate negotiations, is to go down to Mississippi and explain to the American people what is going on and my vision for leading the country over the next four years,” Obama told reporters aboard his campaign plane as they prepared to travel to Mississippi.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a “huge mistake” by even discussing canceling the debate.

“You can’t just say, ‘World, stop for a moment. I’m going to cancel everything,’” Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it’s more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.

Both McCain and Obama had returned to Washington on Thursday at the urging of President Bush, who invited them to a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House. But a session aimed at showing unity in resolving the financial crisis broke up with conflicts in plain view.

McCain’s campaign said the meeting “devolved into a contentious shouting match” and implied Obama was at fault — on a day when McCain said he was putting politics aside to focus on the nation’s financial problems.

Democrats differed, saying the refusal of McCain and other Republicans to support the plan worked out by congressional negotiators was creating a road block.

“The insertion of presidential politics has not been helpful,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday.

When asked whether the meeting was a mistake, Obama replied, “I’m not sure it was as productive as it could have been. I think at this point it’s important to just move forward.”

Pay a lobbying firm $15,000 a month for several years to do no lobbying. Pay a former campaign aide to John McCain $30,000 a month for five years following the senator’s failed bid in 2000 for the presidency.

At any other time, it would be business as usual in Washington.

Not today. The money came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two failed housing giants that are a huge part of the financial crisis imperiling the economy.

And the recipient of most of the funds is McCain’s current campaign manager, Rick Davis.

“The payments are for ‘access insurance’ with the Republican Party and with someone very close to McCain,” James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, said Wednesday.

Thurber, who teaches lobbying and spent seven years looking into the conduct of political campaigns, says the money to Davis is especially instructive with regard to McCain, who bills himself as the candidate who will change the way Washington works.

Good-government groups say Washington’s money trail goes a long way in explaining why the country finds itself having to hang its future on a financial bailout that may or may not work.

Over the years, the hated “r” word — regulation — came up frequently in Congress with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but not often enough, financial experts say in retrospect.

McCain was among those who said more regulation was needed, a point his campaign emphasized in lambasting The New York Times for writing about the payments to Davis and his lobbying firm.

In the end, the idea of reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac always got buried under a cascade of dollars that went to both Democrats and Republicans, concludes a report by Common Cause.

Before this month’s inconvenient crackup, Fannie Mae gave more than 60 percent of its $916,000 in campaign donations this election cycle to Democrats in Congress, since the party broke Republicans’ long grip on Capitol Hill. Likewise, Freddie Mac gave 54 percent of its $478,000 in donations to Democrats, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, a private group that tracks money in politics. Overall, the financial sector has contributed $1.6 billion to federal candidates and their parties since 1997, the center says.

The money game in Washington is played in a myriad of ways and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played it to the hilt. Campaign contributions, fundraisers and hiring the well-connected are all part of it.

In Davis’s case, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set him up to run an entity they created and paid for called the Homeownership Alliance. It promoted Fannie’s and Freddie’s achievements and discouraged any changes to the wide-open road on which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated.

Everyone — Barack Obama’s campaign included — profited, at least until now.

On Wednesday, McCain’s campaign pushed back.

“Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,” the McCain campaign said in criticizing the news media’s focus on the payments to Davis and his lobbying firm.

Robert McCarson, who was director of corporate relations at Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2004, said it is “ironic that the campaign that bills itself as the campaign of reform would give such a legalistic answer.

“The reality is that Rick Davis didn’t have to register as a lobbyist to do his most powerful lobbying, which was to be the person that John McCain staked his future in as his campaign manager,” said McCarson, a Democrat who was an aide in 1990-91 to then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

“The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue.”

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Republicans called that effort a sham that would have left almost 90 percent of offshore reserves effectively off-limits.

The Interior Department estimates there are 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil beneath the Outer Continental Shelf, about half of it off California.

While the ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action, it doesn’t mean any federal sale of oil and gas leases in the offshore waters — much less actual drilling — would be imminent.

The Interior Department’s current five-year leasing plan includes potential leases off the Virginia coast but probably would not be pursued unless the state agrees to energy development. And the state is unlikely to do so without Congress agreeing to share federal royalties with the state.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to make offshore oil drilling a priority if elected president. He has called for developing the oil and gas resources along all of Outer Continental Shelf and for the federal government to share royalties with states who go along with drilling.

Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has said he would support limited drilling in certain areas — possibly the South Atlantic region — if it is part of a broader energy plan to shift the U.S. away from oil to alternative fuels and more energy efficiency.

The debate over offshore drilling is not expected to subside in the first months of the next presidency — no matter who sits in the White House.

Lifting the drilling ban gives considerable momentum to the underlying bill, which includes the Pentagon budget, $24 billion in aid for flood and hurricane victims and $25 billion in loans for Detroit automakers in addition to keeping the government open past the Oct. 1 start of the 2009 budget year.

But Democrats decided not to use the must-pass measure as a battering ram to carry an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless past White House veto promises, prompting grumbling among some lawmakers. Efforts to boost food stamps and give states billions of dollars to help with Medicaid bills also fell through.

But the measure would double, to $5.2 billion, funding for heating subsidies for the poor, Obey said.

The measure also would provide more than $600 billion to fund the 2009 budgets for the Pentagon, Homeland Security Department and the Veterans Affairs Department. Nine other spending bills for the 2009 budget year starting Oct. 1 remain unfinished.

Bush had threatened to veto bills that don’t cut the number and cost of pet projects known as “earmarks” sought by lawmakers in half from current levels or cause agency operating budgets, taken together, to exceed his request. Obey said, however, the White House would reluctantly sign the measure.

1. Absolutely!!

2. No. The President needs to be intelligent and powerful enough not to be a puppet.

3. Nope.

4. Oh my god no. She is the freakiest person I ever heard of. She makes absolutely no sense when she talks. She speaks in that government speak and does not make any sense. Have I mentioned she makes no sense?

5. Possibly, a black woman being president would be GREAT, but I don’t think there’s a chance she would ever run. She does seem to agree with EVERYTHING Bush does, other than that I think she could handle the job.

6. From what I have seen of her, I would seriously consider her as a viable candidate.

7. I would sooner vote for Condie than for Hillary

8. Helllllllllllllllllllllll Nooooooooooooooooooo!

9. It depends on who she ran against but she is definitely very highly regarded by me.

10. nope…no way …not a frig’n shot, she’s as bad as bush and darth cheney

11. Possibly, yes. IMHO, she’s the most qualified woman in America. However, she has never held an elected position in government. I say that she’d be a good VP running mate for the republican party … that would get Hillary’s and the democrat party’s panties in a bunch!

12. I would vote for her before I would Hillary Clinton. And with the way she handling foreign relations and the mid-eastern peace talks I think she would make a good president.

13. Maybe, depend on the other choice

14. She was so weak as the national security adviser and the Secretary of state that Donald Rumsfeld and the defense department bullied their way in to dictating what state department policy should be.

She would be a weak president.

15. depends on her stances and ideals, but i wouldn’t out right rule it out.

16. You bet. It’s nice to have a leader with class. And she’s tough and is a good speaker.

Joey, what a great idea!

17. No, since I never voted for her in anything in the first place. I want to know who the People get to nominate? All we get is a premade selection of choices that I would never make in the first place.

Counteract Violence with Knowledge…educated yourself about the situation at hand and seek out peaceful, collaborative and empowering alternatives. Violence spawns from an attempt to recover what one believes was pilfered. Whether this was money, land, dignity, etc—violence is only a temporary fix to secure these lost assets and rational, intelligent avenues to make the self whole yield the most sustainable results.

Counteract Anger with Understanding…pause, listen and truly hear the angry voice. Anger is frustration and becomes louder because no one will listen. Often anger can be diffused significantly when given a passive audience. You do not have to agree with the position to support the human behind it.

Counteract Hate with Love…hate is toxic. And perhaps my answer is cliché, but in my personal experience…it is the only way. Every individual is human (with good parts and not so good parts) applying this ideology inhibits the reciprocation of this hate. Hating the hate gives it an excuse to hate more, but by loving the hate…the diseased cycle is starved

Attorneys choose jurors by using a system known as voir dire. This is where each side of a case has the opportunity to ask questions of the jurors to determine who would not be suited to serve on this case due to underlying biases. This is where the differences between federal and state court arise. In federal court, the judge is the one who generally conducts voir dire. the attorneys submit questions to the judge who will ask the questions to the jurors. In state court, generally each attorney is permitted to ask questions to the jurors in an alloted time period. At the end of voir dire, the attorneys are permitted to use for cause challenges to get rid of the jurors from the jury pool who would be tainted from delivering a verdict. This means for example if it is a murder case, juror fourteen’s sister was murdered. This juror would be struck for cause because it would be hard for this juror to think about this murder case differently than they would think about their own sister’s murder case. Then each side has an opportunity to exercise their preemptory challenges to get rid of a juror. This is where Batson challenges can arise. It is pretty complicated going into the ins and outs of jury selection but this is a bare bones summary.

Attorneys choose jurors by using a system known as voir dire. This is where each side of a case has the opportunity to ask questions of the jurors to determine who would not be suited to serve on this case due to underlying biases. This is where the differences between federal and state court arise. In federal court, the judge is the one who generally conducts voir dire. the attorneys submit questions to the judge who will ask the questions to the jurors. In state court, generally each attorney is permitted to ask questions to the jurors in an alloted time period. At the end of voir dire, the attorneys are permitted to use for cause challenges to get rid of the jurors from the jury pool who would be tainted from delivering a verdict. This means for example if it is a murder case, juror fourteen’s sister was murdered. This juror would be struck for cause because it would be hard for this juror to think about this murder case differently than they would think about their own sister’s murder case. Then each side has an opportunity to exercise their preemptory challenges to get rid of a juror. This is where Batson challenges can arise. It is pretty complicated going into the ins and outs of jury selection but this is a bare bones summary.

Liberty is the essential heart of freedom. Liberty means being able to choose one’s own actions, without intrusion by government. Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.

Privacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private. For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.

Every infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty. For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.

People have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights. This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights. These rules govern due process. This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search.