Haditha firefight, not murder - video evidence

New Evidence Emerges in Haditha Case

Lefty Lies Uncovered: Hundreds of WMDs found - Saddam ties to Taliban

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html

•Full-page "Saddam Dossier" Archive

•Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection
June 16, 2006
•Terror Links to Saddam's Inner Circle
June 12, 2006
•Documenting Saddam's Link to Terror
June 11, 2006

Fun facts about FEMA

FEMA, as a collection of emergency response agencies, was created under President Jimmy Carter in 1979 under a Democratic Congress.

President Carter's 1979 executive order merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into a new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Source: FEMA website

95th Congress (1977-1979)
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

Source: US Senate website

No Rove Indictment

Oh, look. Another MSM-created phony media story. Chalk that one up there in the top ten.

Hate the Jesus Week?

Gil Smart called last week "Hate the Gay Week".

Interestingly, Jesus Christ had to say this about marriage:

Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Fortunately, our leaders have more common sense and information than editorial columnists.

Read this recent news article.

Pa. moves to ban same-sex marriage

The state House approved, by 136-61, a constitutional amendment that would shore up an existing law.

By Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG - In the first major legislative action since the primary election shook up its ranks, the state House yesterday did not take up property-tax relief or lobbying disclosure - issues voters have complained most vocally about - but instead approved a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

By a vote of 136-61, which included significant Democratic support, the House approved a proposal that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill will likely be voted on in the Senate by the end of the month, a Senate Republican spokesman said.

A constitutional amendment requires passage in the legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approval by voters in a statewide referendum, which could come as early as spring 2007.

High-pitched debate on the House floor dragged on for more than three hours as supporters cited a need to protect the traditional definition of marriage, while opponents said such an amendment would stigmatize the state as intolerant and discriminatory.

"This is a very sad day for this great institution and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which historically led the way to greater liberty and civil rights in this country," said Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.).

Proponents argued that "activist courts" have threatened the institution of marriage and the state laws, including Pennsylvania's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which seek to protect it.

"Over the past 10 years, there has been a slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define marriage throughout the nation," said Rep. Scott Boyd (R., Lancaster), citing the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and similar court decisions.

Nineteen other states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania is one of 26 states that have such a ban written in statute.

The impassioned floor speeches in the state Capitol echoed the debate that ensued in the U.S. Senate yesterday, where a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage appeared headed for defeat.

One Democratic lawmaker compared House leaders to President Bush, who lobbied vigorously over the last few days for the passage of the federal amendment, saying both were trying to take the public's mind off other problems.

"I am stunned we are talking about this issue today when we need to be dealing with substance; we need to talk about minimum wage, we need to talk about property tax," said Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny). "George Bush wants to divert attention [from other issues]. I would suggest that is why the majority party wants to proffer this legislation."

But one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Daryl Metcalf (R., Butler), said the issue was important in his district, where a survey he took showed the amendment had 80 percent support.

Proponents denied the amendment would affect the rights of gay couples or unmarried individuals, but rather would halt the "judicial tyranny" going on in other states.

"We have what is called an institution of marriage. Today we are here, unbelievably, defending the institution of marriage," said Rep. Sam Rohrer (R., Berks), one of the bill's sponsors. "Our frame of government is under attack."

The vote comes as courts in New Jersey and New York state are poised to rule in cases that would make same-sex unions legal, as they are in Massachusetts.

And judges in several states, most recently Georgia, have invalidated voter-approved constitutional amendments.

In Pennsylvania, opponents say an amendment would go far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, raising comparisons to the treatment of African Americans prior to the civil-rights era. They said it could have a profound effect on the rights of same-sex and unmarried couples to receive pensions and benefits, make medical decisions, and inherit property. They also said it would threaten the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children, and cause unnecessary hardship in child custody cases.

"Do we want our legacy to be writing, for the first time ever, discrimination into the constitution?" asked Rep. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery), choking up as he spoke. "This is a basic issue of justice, fairness and common sense."

Gov. Rendell has no role in the amendment process and took no position on the bill approved yesterday, his spokeswoman Kate Philips said.

"The governor believes that couples in long-term committed relationships who are gay should have the same rights as heterosexuals do in marriage," she said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.

The Amendment
The amendment approved by the Pennsylvania House:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

How They Voted
• House members from the Philadelphia area who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage were: William Adolph Jr. (R., Delaware); Stephen Barrar (R., Delaware); Raymond Bunt Jr. (R., Montgomery); Mario Civera Jr. (R., Delaware); Paul Clymer (R., Bucks); Thomas Corrigan Sr. (D., Bucks); Jacqueline Crahalla (R., Montgomery); Gene DiGirolamo (R., Bucks); John Fichter (R., Montgomery); Robert Phlick (R., Chester); Thomas Gannon (R., Delaware); Robert Godshall (R., Montgomery); Kate Harper (R., Montgomery); Tim Hennessey (R., Chester); Arthur Hershey (R., Chester); George Kenney Jr. (R., Montgomery); Thomas Killion (R., Delaware); Anthony Melio (D., Bucks); Nicholas Micozzie (R., Delaware); John Perzel (R., Phila.); Scott Petri (R., Bucks); Thomas J. Quigley (R., Montgomery); Ron Raymond (R., Delaware); Curt Schroder (R., Chester); Elinor Taylor (R., Chester); John Taylor (R., Phila.); Matthew Wright (R., Bucks).

• Voting against the measure: Louise Williams Bishop (D., Phila.); Thomas W. Blackwell IV (D., Phila.); Mark Cohen (D., Phila.); Angel Cruz (D., Phila.); Lawrence Curry (D., Montgomery); Dwight Evans (D., Phila.); Michael Gerber (D., Montgomery); Harold James (D., Phila.); Babette Josephs (D., Phila.); William Keller (D., Phila.); Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware); Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery); Marie Lederer (D., Phila.); Kathy Manderino (D., Phila.); Michael McGeehan (D., Phila.); Charles McIlhinney Jr. (R., Bucks); John Myers (D., Phila.); Frank Oliver (D., Phila.); Bernard O'Neill (R., Bucks); Cherelle Parker (D., Phila.); William Rieger (D., Phila.); James Roebuck Jr. (D., Phila.); Chris Ross (R., Chester); Carole Rubley (R., Chester); John P. Sabatina Jr. (D., Phila.); Josh Shapiro (D., Montgomery); David Steil (R., Bucks); W. Curtis Thomas (D., Phila.); Greg Vitali (D., Delaware); Ronald Waters (D., Phila.); Katharine Watson (R., Bucks); Jewell Williams (D., Phila.); Rosita Youngblood (D., Phila.).

• Not voting: Susan E. Cornell (R., Montgomery); Robert Donatucci (D., Phila.); Eugene McGill (R., Montgomery); Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.).

In Their Words
"This is a very sad day for this great institution and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which historically led the way to greater liberty and civil rights in this country."

- Rep. Babette Josephs
(D., Phila.)

"I am stunned we are talking about this issue today when we need to be dealing with substance; we need to talk about minimum wage, we need to talk about property tax. George Bush wants to divert attention [from other issues]. I would suggest that is why the majority party wants to proffer this legislation."

- Rep. Dan Frankel
(D., Allegheny)

"We have what is called an institution of marriage. Today we are here, unbelievably, defending the institution of marriage. Our frame of government is under attack."

- Rep. Sam Rohrer
(R., Berks)

"Do we want our legacy to be writing, for the first time ever, discrimination into the constitution? This is a basic issue of justice, fairness and common sense."

- Rep. Daylin Leach
(D., Montgomery)

"Over the past 10 years, there has been a slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define marriage throughout the nation."

- Rep. Scott Boyd
(R., Lancaster)

"The governor believes that couples in long-term committed relationships who are gay should have the same rights as heterosexuals do in marriage."

- Kate Philips, Gov. Rendell's spokeswoman

I guess you could say Gil hates the PA House of Representatives? Oh, and the Pennsylvania citizens which are represented by them. And he must also hate Jesus, too.

Top Ten Phony News Stories Aimed at Republicans

1) Gas prices in Lancaster will reach and exceed $3.00 per gallon (currently an average of $2.69).
2) An Iraq Civil War is imminent (Anyone seen that Iraq Civil War?).
3) South Korean made stem cell breakthrough (Phony)
4) 500,000 frozen embryos could be used to cure diseases, but Bush won't allow it
5) Downing Street Memo
6) Bush at 29% "approval" (additional 25% thought Bush was doing "fair").
7) Bush behind NSA wiretaps (Project Echelon)
8) Bush solely behind Michael Brown post (Lieberman confirmed him without much ado during a Democrat Senate majority)
9) "End to major combat" speech debunked (U.S.S. Lincoln's Mission was accomplished on May 6, 2003 - Bush was addressing the crew of the ship)
10) 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq (DoD says 1,953 KIA as of June 2, 2006)

Keep of the good work, Gil! Maybe they will move you from Perspective to the Merchandiser next time?

Hypocrisy at its best.

This week, Gil has decided to complain about a "false" news media story, implying that it was rightwingers responsible for having the story about Iranian badge-wearers appear in the news media. (Anyone seen that Iraq Civil War?)

Note: Iraq less violent than some U.S. cities.

Ironically, Newsmax picked up on this very story.

View Canadian Paper: Iran 'Badge' Story Erroneous dated May 25, 2006.

An interesting excerpt:

Douglas Kelly, editor-in-chief of the National Post, ran a lengthy column on page 2 Wednesday explaining that the story was based on a column by Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, and two expatriate Iranians living in Canada.

So not only did this story come from Canada -- it came from Iranians.

I like how Gil artfully dodges this point by stating "The Financial Times subsequently reported that the story was “drawn from” a column in the same paper by Amir Taheri, a former Iranian newspaper editor who wrote for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other publications before joining Benador Associates, a public relations firm that has represented, among others, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and Charles Krauthammer — some of the best-known, most hawkish “neoconservatives” around."

Nice deception there with the word "former", too. Is he a "former" Iranian? If he was born there, I think not. He's still Iranian. And he was born there.

The way it's worded, one might think the newspaper was merely Iranian.

Taheri's original article.

An interesting follow-up here by Chris Wattie.

It notes: "The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect."

Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran — including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament — and they denied any such measure was in place.

Mr. Kermanian said the subject of “what to do with religious minorities” came up during debates leading up to the passing of the dress code law.

“It is possible that some ideas might have been thrown around,” he said. “But to the best of my knowledge the final version of the law does not demand any identifying marks by the religious minority groups.”

Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds.

Also, Amir Taheri posted a follow-up standing by his original story.

Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it.

The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation. Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation,
including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908). I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004.

This blogger admits that what Taheri stated is technically correct. His story is accurate. He feels, though, that we've been "deceived". (However, the "lie" was in the minds of those who misinterpretated plain English.)

The irony is that this guy will not take responsibility for misreading the article. He blames it on a "rightwing conspiracy". Give me a break. If anyone is to blame for "false" stories - it's the media itself. So much for personal responsibility (even though he admits "Ms von Maltzan underlined this distinction in her first comment to me, and I did not fully register its importance.")

Hardy har har. Get real.

For more details, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_sumptuary_law