Friday, November 16, 2007
The Perdue Flood
Sonny prayed and the following night something strange happened: It was a cold and dark night in Atlanta. I was watching TV and then it happened. Something wet was going on outside. If my memory serves me right, I think it was RAINING! Yes, it was. I actually looked it up in the dictionary to make sure of this fact. I was filled with all kinds of joy and happiness. It was as if God opened the floodgates of heaven and a great pouring out of water appeared. An astronomical, huge, gigantic, well maybe not that much, actually it was only 4 tenths of an inch but here in Hotlanta, we are calling it "The Perdue Flood".
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Prosecute the Murderers
Report: FBI finds fault with Blackwater in Iraq
Feds determine 14 of 17 killings in Iraq unjustified, N.Y. Times reports
updated 9:18 a.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Blackwater Worldwide supports “stringent accountability” for any wrongdoing, a spokeswoman said following a report saying federal investigators found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by its guards violated rules of deadly force.
The New York Times cited unidentified civilian and military officials in reporting for Wednesday’s editions that the killings of at least 14 of the 17 Iraqi civilians shot by Blackwater personnel guarding a U.S. Embassy convoy were found to have been unjustified and violated standards in place governing the use of deadly force.
Responding to the Times report, Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company “supports the stringent accountability of the industry. If it is determined that one person was complicit in the wrongdoing, we would support accountability in that. The key people in this have not spoken with investigators.”
She added that the company will withhold further comment “until the findings are made available.”
A government official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday night that no final conclusions have been reached about any of the fatalities. A State Department official said he was not aware that the department had been informed of any findings. Both requested anonymity because the investigation is still under way.
The Times said the Justice Department is already reviewing the findings even though the FBI is still investigating the Sept. 16 shootings.
No evidence supports assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians, but the FBI has concluded that three of the deaths may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force in response to an imminent threat, the paper reported.
“Without a doubt, the teams were faced with deadly force that day,” the Blackwater spokeswoman said.
‘Productive moves toward accountability’
Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, the newspaper reported. One guard has become the focus of the investigation, the Times reported, because that guard was responsible for several deaths.
The shootings took place in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square. Blackwater contends that its convoy was attacked before it opened fire, but the Iraqi government’s investigation concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.
State Department officials have said it has offered limited immunity to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq. They disagreed with law enforcement officials that such actions could jeopardize prosecutions in the Sept. 16 incident.
Rep. David E. Price, D-N.,C., has sponsored legislation to apply U.S. criminal law to contractors serving overseas and called for the Justice Department to hold someone accountable for the shootings.
“We’ve always supported any productive moves toward accountability, including Congressman Price’s bill,” said Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman.
Paul Cox, a spokesman for Price, said late Tuesday that “we don’t have any independent verification of this. I don’t have any access to the report.” But he said if the FBI concludes there was criminal wrongdoing, “just because there are deficiencies in the law, and Congressman Price is trying to rectify that, that’s no excuse not to prosecute.”
“For him, it just underscores that the administration should work with Congress in trying to pass this bill,” added Cox.
Feds determine 14 of 17 killings in Iraq unjustified, N.Y. Times reports
updated 9:18 a.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Blackwater Worldwide supports “stringent accountability” for any wrongdoing, a spokeswoman said following a report saying federal investigators found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by its guards violated rules of deadly force.
The New York Times cited unidentified civilian and military officials in reporting for Wednesday’s editions that the killings of at least 14 of the 17 Iraqi civilians shot by Blackwater personnel guarding a U.S. Embassy convoy were found to have been unjustified and violated standards in place governing the use of deadly force.
Responding to the Times report, Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company “supports the stringent accountability of the industry. If it is determined that one person was complicit in the wrongdoing, we would support accountability in that. The key people in this have not spoken with investigators.”
She added that the company will withhold further comment “until the findings are made available.”
A government official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday night that no final conclusions have been reached about any of the fatalities. A State Department official said he was not aware that the department had been informed of any findings. Both requested anonymity because the investigation is still under way.
The Times said the Justice Department is already reviewing the findings even though the FBI is still investigating the Sept. 16 shootings.
No evidence supports assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians, but the FBI has concluded that three of the deaths may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force in response to an imminent threat, the paper reported.
“Without a doubt, the teams were faced with deadly force that day,” the Blackwater spokeswoman said.
‘Productive moves toward accountability’
Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, the newspaper reported. One guard has become the focus of the investigation, the Times reported, because that guard was responsible for several deaths.
The shootings took place in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square. Blackwater contends that its convoy was attacked before it opened fire, but the Iraqi government’s investigation concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.
State Department officials have said it has offered limited immunity to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq. They disagreed with law enforcement officials that such actions could jeopardize prosecutions in the Sept. 16 incident.
Rep. David E. Price, D-N.,C., has sponsored legislation to apply U.S. criminal law to contractors serving overseas and called for the Justice Department to hold someone accountable for the shootings.
“We’ve always supported any productive moves toward accountability, including Congressman Price’s bill,” said Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman.
Paul Cox, a spokesman for Price, said late Tuesday that “we don’t have any independent verification of this. I don’t have any access to the report.” But he said if the FBI concludes there was criminal wrongdoing, “just because there are deficiencies in the law, and Congressman Price is trying to rectify that, that’s no excuse not to prosecute.”
“For him, it just underscores that the administration should work with Congress in trying to pass this bill,” added Cox.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Time to wake up, America
Report: Wars cost average U.S. family $20,000
Democrats say hidden costs double price of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan
Upated 5:26 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007
WASHINGTON - A new study by congressional Democrats says "hidden costs" have driven the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to about $1.5 trillion, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
That figure is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested, according to the report by the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee, which examines the hidden costs of the wars, the Post said.
According to the panel, the hidden costs include higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars, the newspaper said.
SJK: Who are we borrowiong thisb money from? Some of the people we are borrowing money from are the same ones we are already paying a Billion dollars a day to.
The report was expected to be presented on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
A 21-page draft obtained by the newspaper estimates that the wars have cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000, the Post said.
SJK: I don't know where they are coming up with this $20,000. If we have a 420 Billion dollar debt and we have 380 million people in the US, that would be more than a Billion dollars for each person unless there counting corporation's income.
$20,000 seems awfully low to me.
The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.
The Post said the report estimated that war injuries could add more than $30 billion in future disability and medical care costs, including billions in lost earnings for veterans who cannot work because of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Members of the panel's Republican staff could not be reached for comment, the Post said.
The newspaper cited war funding experts as saying that some of the numbers in the report should be met with skepticism.
The experts said it is difficult to calculate the precise impact of the Iraq war on global oil prices. They also said it was speculative to estimate how much the war will cost over time because situations change daily on the battlefield, the Post reported.
Democrats say hidden costs double price of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan
Upated 5:26 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007
WASHINGTON - A new study by congressional Democrats says "hidden costs" have driven the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to about $1.5 trillion, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
That figure is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested, according to the report by the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee, which examines the hidden costs of the wars, the Post said.
According to the panel, the hidden costs include higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars, the newspaper said.
SJK: Who are we borrowiong thisb money from? Some of the people we are borrowing money from are the same ones we are already paying a Billion dollars a day to.
The report was expected to be presented on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
A 21-page draft obtained by the newspaper estimates that the wars have cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000, the Post said.
SJK: I don't know where they are coming up with this $20,000. If we have a 420 Billion dollar debt and we have 380 million people in the US, that would be more than a Billion dollars for each person unless there counting corporation's income.
$20,000 seems awfully low to me.
The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.
The Post said the report estimated that war injuries could add more than $30 billion in future disability and medical care costs, including billions in lost earnings for veterans who cannot work because of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Members of the panel's Republican staff could not be reached for comment, the Post said.
The newspaper cited war funding experts as saying that some of the numbers in the report should be met with skepticism.
The experts said it is difficult to calculate the precise impact of the Iraq war on global oil prices. They also said it was speculative to estimate how much the war will cost over time because situations change daily on the battlefield, the Post reported.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
It's about time
Congress Hands Bush First Veto Override
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 8, 2007; 2:31 PM
A year after Democrats won control of Capitol Hill, Congress delivered its clearest victory yet over President Bush today, resoundingly overturning Bush's veto of a $23 billion water resources measure -- the first veto override of his presidency.
The Senate voted to override the veto, 79-14, with 34 Republicans abandoning the president and just 12 standing by him. The Senate vote followed one in the House, which rejected the veto Tuesday, 361-54. Both votes were well over the two-thirds majorities needed to defy Bush.
"I hope that the Congress feels good about what we've done," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I believe in the institution of the legislative branch of government. I think it should exist, and for seven years, this man has ignored us."
"We have said today as a Congress to this president, 'You can't just keep rolling over us like this. You can't make everything a fight, because we'll see it through'," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a primary architect of the law.
Today's override marks only the 107th time that Congress has overridden a presidential veto in the nation's history. Congress overrode two of Bill Clinton's 22 vetoes and just one of George H.W. Bush's 44 vetoes. Gerald R. Ford, who vetoed 66 bills, and Harry S. Truman, who vetoed 250, each had 12 overridden, the most of any president other than Andrew Johnson in the mid-19th century.
As obscure as the Water Resources Development Act may be, Congress's action sets the stage for much larger spending and tax fights to come in the next few weeks. The House tonight is scheduled to send Bush a $151 billion measure to fund federal health, education and labor programs, a bill that Bush has promised to veto because it exceeds his request by nearly $10 billion.
The Senate is likely to give final approval to a $459.3 billion defense spending this evening as well, one that increases defense spending by $35.7 billion -- or 9.5 percent -- over last fiscal year. Bush is expected to sign that legislation.
Democrats made clear today they will relentlessly compare the president's willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense and war, while he rejects much smaller increases for domestic spending. Republican leaders vowed to round up enough votes to sustain Bush's vetoes on the spending bills, even though they acknowledged that many Republicans are likely to break with the White House.
Indeed, both parties sounded a discordant note on fiscal rectitude today. House Democratic leaders, defending a tax measure that will come to a vote tomorrow with offsetting tax hikes, largely on Wall Street titans, claimed to represent the party of fiscal responsibility -- even as they were pushing through some of the biggest domestic spending increases in years.
"We are making the hard decisions that Republicans refused to make, and continue to refuse to make," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Republicans said they were the party of small government and austerity, even as they abandoned the White House in droves to push through a water bill that, if fully funded, would build over 900 projects valued at a total of $38 billion, according to the White House.
"Sadly, because the authors of this bill have rained a few earmarks to every member's district, Congress didn't have the courage to stop this reckless overspending," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), whose dissent on the measure was a lonely one.
The bill would authorize billions of dollars in coastal restoration, river navigation and dredging projects, levee and port construction and other Army Corps of Engineers public works efforts. Seven years in the making, the measure took on particular political resonance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as Gulf Coast lawmakers secured nearly $2 billion in restoration and levee construction projects for the region. The bill also would continue projects such as the restoration of the Everglades and the dredging of the upper Mississippi River, while expanding oversight of the Army Corps.
The measure authorizes $30 million to reduce nitrogen flowing from the Washington-area Blue Plains sewage treatment plant into the Chesapeake Bay. It also provides $40 million for other Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction projects.
Another $192 million is authorized for the expansion of the bay's Poplar Island project, which involves rebuilding the island with dredged material from the channels that serve the Port of Baltimore. It includes a $30 million increase for Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration and an additional $20 million for other bay environmental protection projects.
But the law merely authorizes such projects. Lawmakers who support the projects now must secure funding through the House and Senate appropriations committees, with no guarantees. Senate Republicans repeatedly justified their votes by saying the law actually does not spend a cent, but Boxer made it clear that the authorizations would speed the allocation of funds.
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 8, 2007; 2:31 PM
A year after Democrats won control of Capitol Hill, Congress delivered its clearest victory yet over President Bush today, resoundingly overturning Bush's veto of a $23 billion water resources measure -- the first veto override of his presidency.
The Senate voted to override the veto, 79-14, with 34 Republicans abandoning the president and just 12 standing by him. The Senate vote followed one in the House, which rejected the veto Tuesday, 361-54. Both votes were well over the two-thirds majorities needed to defy Bush.
"I hope that the Congress feels good about what we've done," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I believe in the institution of the legislative branch of government. I think it should exist, and for seven years, this man has ignored us."
"We have said today as a Congress to this president, 'You can't just keep rolling over us like this. You can't make everything a fight, because we'll see it through'," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a primary architect of the law.
Today's override marks only the 107th time that Congress has overridden a presidential veto in the nation's history. Congress overrode two of Bill Clinton's 22 vetoes and just one of George H.W. Bush's 44 vetoes. Gerald R. Ford, who vetoed 66 bills, and Harry S. Truman, who vetoed 250, each had 12 overridden, the most of any president other than Andrew Johnson in the mid-19th century.
As obscure as the Water Resources Development Act may be, Congress's action sets the stage for much larger spending and tax fights to come in the next few weeks. The House tonight is scheduled to send Bush a $151 billion measure to fund federal health, education and labor programs, a bill that Bush has promised to veto because it exceeds his request by nearly $10 billion.
The Senate is likely to give final approval to a $459.3 billion defense spending this evening as well, one that increases defense spending by $35.7 billion -- or 9.5 percent -- over last fiscal year. Bush is expected to sign that legislation.
Democrats made clear today they will relentlessly compare the president's willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense and war, while he rejects much smaller increases for domestic spending. Republican leaders vowed to round up enough votes to sustain Bush's vetoes on the spending bills, even though they acknowledged that many Republicans are likely to break with the White House.
Indeed, both parties sounded a discordant note on fiscal rectitude today. House Democratic leaders, defending a tax measure that will come to a vote tomorrow with offsetting tax hikes, largely on Wall Street titans, claimed to represent the party of fiscal responsibility -- even as they were pushing through some of the biggest domestic spending increases in years.
"We are making the hard decisions that Republicans refused to make, and continue to refuse to make," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Republicans said they were the party of small government and austerity, even as they abandoned the White House in droves to push through a water bill that, if fully funded, would build over 900 projects valued at a total of $38 billion, according to the White House.
"Sadly, because the authors of this bill have rained a few earmarks to every member's district, Congress didn't have the courage to stop this reckless overspending," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), whose dissent on the measure was a lonely one.
The bill would authorize billions of dollars in coastal restoration, river navigation and dredging projects, levee and port construction and other Army Corps of Engineers public works efforts. Seven years in the making, the measure took on particular political resonance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as Gulf Coast lawmakers secured nearly $2 billion in restoration and levee construction projects for the region. The bill also would continue projects such as the restoration of the Everglades and the dredging of the upper Mississippi River, while expanding oversight of the Army Corps.
The measure authorizes $30 million to reduce nitrogen flowing from the Washington-area Blue Plains sewage treatment plant into the Chesapeake Bay. It also provides $40 million for other Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction projects.
Another $192 million is authorized for the expansion of the bay's Poplar Island project, which involves rebuilding the island with dredged material from the channels that serve the Port of Baltimore. It includes a $30 million increase for Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration and an additional $20 million for other bay environmental protection projects.
But the law merely authorizes such projects. Lawmakers who support the projects now must secure funding through the House and Senate appropriations committees, with no guarantees. Senate Republicans repeatedly justified their votes by saying the law actually does not spend a cent, but Boxer made it clear that the authorizations would speed the allocation of funds.
Repent Purdue for voting for the BUSHwhacker
What Sonny should first do is Repent; then he should pray! The droughts aren't an accident. It is God's wrath upon those who voted for the Wicked BUSHwhacker (Proverbs 12:6 "The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood". War is NOT the solution. Thru DIPLOMACY we can acheive PEACE.
Governor of parched Georgia prays for rain
Leader will host prayer service to ask for relief from Southeast drought
Lauren Victoria Burke / AP file
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has several times mentioned the need for prayer — along with water conservation — as the state’s drought crisis has worsened. Over the summer, he participated in day of prayer for agriculture at a gathering of the Georgia Farm Bureau in Macon, Ga.
Drought grips Southeast
From parched lawns to boats that have run aground, see the impact of a record-breaking dry spell in the Southeast.
updated 11:44 p.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
ATLANTA - What to do when the rain won’t come? If you’re Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, you pray.
Governor of parched Georgia prays for rain
Leader will host prayer service to ask for relief from Southeast drought
Lauren Victoria Burke / AP file
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has several times mentioned the need for prayer — along with water conservation — as the state’s drought crisis has worsened. Over the summer, he participated in day of prayer for agriculture at a gathering of the Georgia Farm Bureau in Macon, Ga.
Drought grips Southeast
From parched lawns to boats that have run aground, see the impact of a record-breaking dry spell in the Southeast.
updated 11:44 p.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
ATLANTA - What to do when the rain won’t come? If you’re Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, you pray.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
What Liberals already know; You hypocrital Creationists
More evangelicals concluding God is green
Traditionally conservative movement moving to embrace ‘creation care’
More evangelicals concluding God is green
Most viewed on MSNBC.com
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 7:11 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007
Alex Johnson
Reporter
The evangelical awakening to climate change is still a work in progress, but as the politically powerful movement becomes more active in environmentalism, political leaders will have to take notice or risk losing their jobs, a prominent evangelical leader said Tuesday.
Since President Bush’s re-election in 2004, a movement called “creation care,” which asserts that Christians are the stewards of God’s creation, has rapidly been been gathering momentum, said the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, or NAE.
“What is really happening is that American evangelicals are becoming, well, green, if you will,” Cizik said in an interview with MSNBC-TV’s Joe Scarborough.
The American evangelical community is in the midst of a wrenching shift in thinking on the environment. As recently as this spring, politically influential evangelicals were locked in a showdown over climate change, when 25 conservative evangelical leaders demanded that the NAE fire Cizik for his environmental advocacy.
The association’s refusal — rebuffing such influential conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer; and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council — marked a turning point for green evangelicals, emboldening them to take creation care into the political arena.
SJK: good for you; tell the Hypocrits to shut up.
“This is going to be an issue which evangelicals are going to look at when they cast their ballots,” Cizik said.
“I think it should be on par with all the other issues,” like abortion and same-sex marriage, he said. “When you think about it ... hundreds of millions of people around the globe are already being impacted by climate change.”
‘New day’ as conservative elders fade
For most of the movement’s history, American evangelicals as a rule steered clear of politics, heeding leaders who preached against risking contamination by secular culture.
But in the 1970s, a generation of deeply conservative activists attracted by the open courting of Ronald Reagan, who was preparing his successful run for president, broke with tradition and began talking about reforming that secular culture. That movement provided the foundation for the rise to prominence of conservative political pastors like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Rev. Pat Robertson and a coalition of dissidents who seized control of the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1980s.
Those conservative evangelical leaders largely rejected the environmental movement, both because of its liberal heritage and because of the biblical injunction that Christians should worship the creator, not his creation. With their focus on conservative social issues like abortion, they kept environmentalism marginalized as an evangelical issue.
In a sermon shortly before his death in May, Falwell criticized “naive Christian leaders” for being “duped” by environmentalism, which he told his congregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., was “Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus” from evangelism.
Since the re-election of President Bush in 2004, however, and especially in the past two years — as awareness of climate change and disenchantment with the war in Iraq have crystallized — moderate and liberal evangelicals have been willing to step out of the shadows and confront the conservative leaders most Americans identify with evangelicalism.
Praise God. It's about time to silence these Hypocrits. On the one hand they defend God's Creation but on the other hand they don't mind polluting it. I'm sure God's impressed Dobson, Stanley, Bauer, Kennedy and others.
Traditionally conservative movement moving to embrace ‘creation care’
More evangelicals concluding God is green
Most viewed on MSNBC.com
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 7:11 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007
Alex Johnson
Reporter
The evangelical awakening to climate change is still a work in progress, but as the politically powerful movement becomes more active in environmentalism, political leaders will have to take notice or risk losing their jobs, a prominent evangelical leader said Tuesday.
Since President Bush’s re-election in 2004, a movement called “creation care,” which asserts that Christians are the stewards of God’s creation, has rapidly been been gathering momentum, said the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, or NAE.
“What is really happening is that American evangelicals are becoming, well, green, if you will,” Cizik said in an interview with MSNBC-TV’s Joe Scarborough.
The American evangelical community is in the midst of a wrenching shift in thinking on the environment. As recently as this spring, politically influential evangelicals were locked in a showdown over climate change, when 25 conservative evangelical leaders demanded that the NAE fire Cizik for his environmental advocacy.
The association’s refusal — rebuffing such influential conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer; and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council — marked a turning point for green evangelicals, emboldening them to take creation care into the political arena.
SJK: good for you; tell the Hypocrits to shut up.
“This is going to be an issue which evangelicals are going to look at when they cast their ballots,” Cizik said.
“I think it should be on par with all the other issues,” like abortion and same-sex marriage, he said. “When you think about it ... hundreds of millions of people around the globe are already being impacted by climate change.”
‘New day’ as conservative elders fade
For most of the movement’s history, American evangelicals as a rule steered clear of politics, heeding leaders who preached against risking contamination by secular culture.
But in the 1970s, a generation of deeply conservative activists attracted by the open courting of Ronald Reagan, who was preparing his successful run for president, broke with tradition and began talking about reforming that secular culture. That movement provided the foundation for the rise to prominence of conservative political pastors like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Rev. Pat Robertson and a coalition of dissidents who seized control of the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1980s.
Those conservative evangelical leaders largely rejected the environmental movement, both because of its liberal heritage and because of the biblical injunction that Christians should worship the creator, not his creation. With their focus on conservative social issues like abortion, they kept environmentalism marginalized as an evangelical issue.
In a sermon shortly before his death in May, Falwell criticized “naive Christian leaders” for being “duped” by environmentalism, which he told his congregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., was “Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus” from evangelism.
Since the re-election of President Bush in 2004, however, and especially in the past two years — as awareness of climate change and disenchantment with the war in Iraq have crystallized — moderate and liberal evangelicals have been willing to step out of the shadows and confront the conservative leaders most Americans identify with evangelicalism.
Praise God. It's about time to silence these Hypocrits. On the one hand they defend God's Creation but on the other hand they don't mind polluting it. I'm sure God's impressed Dobson, Stanley, Bauer, Kennedy and others.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Get the Bitch
Rice to be subpoenaed in espionage case
Judge OKs calls for intel officials to discuss talks with pro-Israel lobbyists
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have to testify about her use of pro-Israel lobbyists as a go-between in crafting Middle East policy.
View related photos
Burhan Ozbilici / AP
updated 4:37 p.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 2, 2007
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more than a dozen other current and former intelligence officials must testify about their conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case.
Lawyers for two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year. Prosecutors had challenged the subpoenas in federal court.
Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman maintain the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.
If they ultimately testify in court, the trial in federal court in suburban Alexandria, Va. could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way U.S. foreign policy is crafted.
Criminal or diplomatic?
The lobbyists are accused of receiving classified information from a now-convicted Pentagon official and relaying it to an Israeli official and the press. The information included details about the al-Qaida terror network, U.S. policy in Iran and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors said.
But defense attorneys argued that top U.S. officials regularly used the lobbyists as a go-between as they crafted Middle East policy. If so, attorneys say, how are Rosen and Weissman supposed to know the same behavior that's expected of them on one day is criminal the next?
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the lobbyists have a right to argue that "they believed the meetings charged in the indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell cheered the ruling.
"For over two years, we have been explaining that our clients' conduct was lawful and completely consistent with how the U.S. government dealt with AIPAC and other foreign policy groups," Lowell said on behalf of both defendants. "We look forward to the trial."
Ellis left open the possibility that the Bush administration may challenge the subpoenas on the grounds they would reveal privileged information. But the judge said his ruling Friday "may trump a valid governmental privilege."
If so, that could force the government to decide whether to allow the testimony or drop the case.
Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department had an immediate comment.
Among those subpoenaed in the case were: former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; and Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.
Judge OKs calls for intel officials to discuss talks with pro-Israel lobbyists
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have to testify about her use of pro-Israel lobbyists as a go-between in crafting Middle East policy.
View related photos
Burhan Ozbilici / AP
updated 4:37 p.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 2, 2007
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more than a dozen other current and former intelligence officials must testify about their conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case.
Lawyers for two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year. Prosecutors had challenged the subpoenas in federal court.
Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman maintain the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.
If they ultimately testify in court, the trial in federal court in suburban Alexandria, Va. could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way U.S. foreign policy is crafted.
Criminal or diplomatic?
The lobbyists are accused of receiving classified information from a now-convicted Pentagon official and relaying it to an Israeli official and the press. The information included details about the al-Qaida terror network, U.S. policy in Iran and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors said.
But defense attorneys argued that top U.S. officials regularly used the lobbyists as a go-between as they crafted Middle East policy. If so, attorneys say, how are Rosen and Weissman supposed to know the same behavior that's expected of them on one day is criminal the next?
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the lobbyists have a right to argue that "they believed the meetings charged in the indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell cheered the ruling.
"For over two years, we have been explaining that our clients' conduct was lawful and completely consistent with how the U.S. government dealt with AIPAC and other foreign policy groups," Lowell said on behalf of both defendants. "We look forward to the trial."
Ellis left open the possibility that the Bush administration may challenge the subpoenas on the grounds they would reveal privileged information. But the judge said his ruling Friday "may trump a valid governmental privilege."
If so, that could force the government to decide whether to allow the testimony or drop the case.
Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department had an immediate comment.
Among those subpoenaed in the case were: former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; and Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
