Mc Cain and Leiberman... what does this mean?

Recently Senator McCain renounced any connection with John Hagee, a pastor who says Hitler got it right and apparently runs a group called Christians United for Israel, a misleading name as they are about anything BUT peace.

This July, Pastor Hagee will lead thousands of followers to Washington for an "Israel Summit" sponsored by "Christians United for Israel". And guess who is scheduled to deliver the keynote address? That's right, it's Lieberman.

It isn't possible that Joe doesn't know what Hagee is all about. Pastor Hagee's greatest hits include gems like these:

* On Muslims: "All Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews."¹
* On Hurricane Katrina: "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."²
* On women: "Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."³

And yet McCain has not renounced his connection to Joe Leiberman, who is a keynote speaker at the upcoming conference for Christians United for Israel, and still associates with John Hagee. This concerns me. I'm still researching it, but here's a few things you may want to read and watch.

Check it out:

Pastor John Hagee on Christian Zionism. Fresh Air NPR Interview, September 18, 2006: npr-org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6097362

Pastor John Hagee on Christian Zionism. Fresh Air NPR Interview, September 18, 2006: npr-org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6097362

Fox News interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman about Pastor Hagee: foxnews-com/story/0,2933,355696,00.html

---

Take the Bush-McCain Challenge

Hi,

I took The Bush-McCain Challenge—a fun online quiz to see if you can tell the difference between George W. Bush and John McCain. Check it out, and see if you can do any better than I did!

Start the Bush-McCain Challenge by clicking here:

http://Bush-McCainChallenge.com/?rc=taf3&r_id=12619-5769906-rnFuWE&t=1

Enjoy!

P.S. After you finish 10 questions, there's a hilarious "Carrot Round" that you definitely don't want to miss.

Medical Marijuana in the US

Recently I contacted my congress person about Medical Marijuana to see where they stand. I received an interesting response, including the following:

"The prohibition of marijuana began with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and was further enforced by the Controlled Substances Act passed in 1970. In the more than three decades since its enactment, drugs have become stronger and potentially more dangerous.

On April 17, 2008, Rep. Barney Frank introduced H.R. 5843, the Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults. If enacted, H.R. 5843 would remove federal penalties for the possession of marijuana for personal use. H.R. 5843 is currently pending consideration by the House Committees on Judiciary and Energy and Commerce.

You may also be interested to know that Rep. Frank introduced another bill, H.R. 5842, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, that would allow states to decide whether individuals may use marijuana for medicinal purposes. This bill is pending consideration before the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

I was left unsure by the email if this person is for or against Medical Marijuana, tho they lead me to believe they are in support of it. I did however find them to be aware, and thought I would pass along the historical and current events related portion of the email here.

Personally I have researched this in my usual way, by reading anything I can get my hands on. I posted about some of that research previously. I believe that marijuana is no more or less dangerous than alcohol, and in fact less dangerous than cigarettes, especially if eaten rather than smoked. We once had a prohibition against alcohol in this country, and it was found to be useless, and to criminalize behavior that would be better left to the decisions of aware and consenting adults rather than governed by officials who have better things to do. I would rather the actual criminals be put in jail rather than the grandmothers, cancer patients, and responsible adults ingesting THC. I hope that Representative Frank is successful in moving those Bills through.

Blessed be,
Sistah Shanti

Stop Bush from Getting Away with Wiretapping

Dear Readers,

Our hard fought victories on the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping program are in danger once again.

CREDO Action alerted me to the fact that the ACLU is now reporting that some high-ranking members in the House -- including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- are working behind closed doors with the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress to negotiate a compromise bill.

Join me in taking action now -- we need to encourage the House of
Representatives to stand strong. Tell Speaker Pelosi to stop Hoyer and others from caving to Bush and his allies on the illegal wiretapping issue.

You can check out what is at stake and send your own message directly to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi using the link below.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_illegal_wiretapping/?r_by=202-1590405-SlR850&rc=mailto

Thanks!

Fwd: Upcoming Vote on Funding the War

Dear MoveOn member,

Tomorrow could be Congress' last chance to exercise real oversight on the war. The media is paying less attention to Iraq, but we need to remind our representatives that voters aren't—Americans are more frustrated with the war than ever before.

Can you call your representative right now and tell him that voters are tired of dumping billions into the unwinnable war in Iraq? Tell him that voters are looking for accountability from President Bush on the war and we want our troops home quickly. (We've included more details below.)

Then, please report your call to MoveOn.org

According to news reports, Congress will have a series of separate votes. There'll be one vote on whether to give the president $162 billion to fund the war through next year—with no strings attached. That's a huge amount to spend on keeping troops in Iraq, especially at a time when peoples' houses are being foreclosed and unemployment is going up at home.

Then, there will be separate votes on measures to redeploy our troops and hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions during the war—measures that could ban torture, hold contractors accountable, and prevent President Bush from committing our troops to a permanent presence in Iraq.¹

It's important that all members of Congress hear that voters do not want the president to get another $162 billion blank check for the war. Can you call Rep. Mitchell and ask him to reject a blank check for the president and to support proposals to bring our troops home and hold Bush accountable instead?

Thanks for all you do.

–-Nita, Michael, Daniel, Joan, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

P.S. Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post article explaining Thursday's votes:

"Setting up their last major battle over war policy with President Bush, House Democrats yesterday unveiled a plan to link their favored domestic spending projects and a troop-withdrawal timeline to additional funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan requested by the White House.

The $195 billion spending measure would pay for the wars well into next year while tacking on $11 billion to extend unemployment benefits and nearly $1 billion to offer expanded higher education benefits for war veterans. Democrats said they hope that the spending provisions, particularly the education measure, will prove politically difficult for Bush to veto in an election year.

"If he wants to make a federal case out of the fact that we feel the need to do something major to reward the troops, that's his prerogative. But I don't think the country will agree with him. And I certainly don't think the country would agree with any effort to deny the extension of unemployment benefits," said House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.).

The White House remained opposed to the additional spending, demanding a "clean" bill to fund the wars by the symbolically important date of Memorial Day.

"We feel strongly that the Iraq war supplemental should remain for national security needs. We understand that there could be debates on other issues, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, other issues that are important to a lot of people. But those issues can be taken up separate from our national security needs," said Dana Perino, White House press secretary.

House Republicans also denounced the Democrats' plan.

"It is unacceptable and, indeed, unimaginable for Congress to continue to hold our troops hostage for political leverage. If House Democrats want to ramp up spending on other government programs, those items should be considered separately," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The House's emergency supplemental funding measure is broken into three pieces, including $162.6 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which $66 billion is designed to cover war costs for several months after the next administration takes over. The second portion includes language mandating immediate troop withdrawals with a goal of having most all troops out by the end of 2009. The third part includes the domestic spending."

Click here to read the whole thing:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3633&id=12592-5769906-gwLctp&t=4

Source:

1. "Leader Reid gets pushback on Iraq war bill," The Hill, May 6, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3634&id=12592-5769906-gwLctp&t=5

Fwd: Ending "Don't ask don't tell"

Ending 'Don't ask, don't tell' Discrimination doesn't deserve federal support By Erika Stutzman
Sunday, May 4, 2008

'It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

-- Executive Order 9981, signed by President Harry S. Truman, 1948
Celebrating its 15th birthday this year is a confusing little policy with the catchy little name, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Widely viewed as a compromise between then President Bill Clinton and the U.S. military, which had a longstanding ban on gays, the policy is designed to let gays serve as long as no one finds out they're gay.

Since 1993, more than 12,000 servicemen and women have been dismissed under the policy. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, there are nearly 15,000 gay veterans in Colorado.
The Service-members Legal Defense Network is dedicated to ending the law that bans gays and lesbians from open service.

"Open" is where things get tricky, says Aubrey Sarvis, director of the network and a gay veteran. "It's arbitrary," he said. Sometimes, "open" might mean you go out to the press and declare you're a homosexual. Or it may mean that you've secretly sent an e-mail to a boyfriend at home, only to be outed by a fellow soldier who accessed your computer.
"The irony is that this 'compromise' is the only federal law that gives the government the right to discriminate, " Sarvis said.

A bill before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee -- with 142 co-sponsors including Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs) -- is expected to have a hearing this summer. But even its supporters admit that it will die without broad bi-partisan support, which it doesn't have now.
Most of our allies allow gays in the military, many -- like Britain, Israel, Canada and Switzerland -- with clear provisions stating that gays are legally protected from harassment.

Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated they want the law repealed; Sen. John McCain has said it would be a "terrific mistake" to "even reopen the issue."

It's hard to imagine that Truman desegregating the armed forces 60 years ago was such a bold move, given that minorities had been fighting for the United States since before its founding -- but it was.

And it's hard to imagine that ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be so controversial today -- but it is. Although national polls have shown the majority of Americans think gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military, there is strong resistance within the military itself.
But the U.S. military faced -- and eventually conquered -- the same resistance in its ranks over racial desegregation. The government should end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

-- Erika Stutzman, for the Camera editorial board

Government cutbacks lead to deaths?

A friend forwarded me this article as they knew that I used to live in California and have relatives there. http://www.bilerico.com/2008/05/california_set_to_kill_medical_recipient.php

I am one of those fortunate people to know that my elderly relatives have enough funds to pay for a healthy, positive environment to live in. But many elderly around the US do not quite have the funds to support themselves. And if one is disabled and living on SSDI/SSI, the likely hood is, that you are dependent upon Medicare and Medi-Cal. Those whose lives depend on the care they get in the live-in hospital situation are in danger of being put on the streets if these changes to California law go through. Read more here.

As the article says, this is not just a California problem, it is happening all over the US: "If these deaths start happening, they will not be the first that can be directly traceable to government cutbacks in healthcare. Far from it. As the recession slowly kicked in, budget cuts have been happening at state and federal levels for some years now. The rising death toll has been almost anonymous, out there on the fringes. Among the victims: poor people with AIDS, who started dying when access to ADAP was narrowed. In August 2003, the Charleston Gazette noted that three West Virginians had died since February while waiting for treatment. The state program covered treatment for tuberculosis and pneumonia as well as AIDS. 'People are now starting to die while they're on the waiting list,' the state ADAP director said. 'It's a crisis that will continue.'"

I believe this recession is in part the results of billions of dollars of our country's money being directed to war. As I said in a previous post, I voted for Bush the first time around. When I did that, one reason I voted for him was that talks with my father had convinced me that Republicans were going to get our country's financial situation repaired. No longer millions of dollars in debt, but a country working in the green. Instead we are deeper in the hole than ever, and recession is something our next President is going to have to fight actively so that we do not head into a depression. Something which hasn't happened in most of our lifetimes!

But whether any of my worries surface, the truth is we are dealing with a current medical crisis in this country. Hospitals are closing, patients are being turned away, and it will only negatively impact us all.