Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (69974)	11/16/2005 7:19:27 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 81568

it's the truth and "you can't handle the truth"

To: American Spirit who wrote (69974)	11/16/2005 9:00:26 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

as. Here is something legit that you can jump on Bush for. IMO pretty dumb to sign a thing like this into law. Tancredo blasts shield for religious groups He says that by allowing illegal-immigrant volunteers, a new law will aid terrorism. 11/15/2005 By Anne C. Mulkern Denver Post Staff Writer denverpost.com Washington - A new law that insulates religious groups from prosecution if they use illegal immigrants as volunteers drew outrage Monday from U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, who said it will protect terrorists and that he'll work to repeal it. "This provision opens a hole in our immigration system so big, a terrorist could drive a truck bomb through it," Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, said in a statement. "Terrorists in the United States have used religious organizations as fronts before," he said. "This provides legal cover for any church, synagogue, mosque or group that calls itself a religion to aid and abet illegals who may pose a national security threat." Written by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, the provision shields religious groups from a federal law against knowingly transporting, concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant. That law no longer applies to religious groups as long as the illegal immigrant is volunteering in a religious capacity, such as work as a missionary or in a soup kitchen. Bennett, chairman of the Senate committee that funds agricultural programs, added the language to a funding bill for the Agriculture Department. It was signed into law Thursday by President Bush. "It does not under any circumstances allow a terrorist or any illegal alien any kind of special sanctuary," Bennett said Monday. Church volunteers who are illegal immigrants could still face legal action, he said. He said the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration laws as well as terrorism issues, signed off on the language in the new law. Bennett wrote the provision at the behest of attorneys for the Mormon Church, which, according to Bennett, uses the largest number of volunteers of any U.S. religious group. A spokesman for the church, Michael Purdy, said the law will allow illegal immigrants to serve as Mormon missionaries, which they previously could not do. "This narrow exception to the immigration act allows people of all faiths to fulfill their religious obligations," Purdy said. Asked if a church might be protected if it housed illegal immigrants, Bennett said, "No, I don't think so." Bennett said the law does not protect religious groups acting as fronts for terrorists. But Tancredo's spokesman, Will Adams, said that while Bennett might intend for the law to apply only to soup- kitchen volunteers or missionaries, it will give shelter to those working with terrorists. While previously the Department of Justice could charge a religious group with immigration violations while it investigated alleged terrorist activities, it no longer can under the new law, said Adams, who previously worked as a Justice Department spokesman. He said a large number of terrorism cases are first brought as immigration violations and that religious groups have been charged with sheltering terrorists in the past. Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to inquiries about the new law.

To: American Spirit who wrote (69974)	11/16/2005 9:04:29 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

as. Do democrats have any morals at all? Wonder if silly willy has anything to do with this? :-) Bill softens bestiality statute Massachusetts pols push measure lessening punishment for animal sex November 16, 2005 Four state legislators in Massachusetts have introduced a bill that would soften the crime of bestiality, a move pro-family activists say is a natural progression of the state's legalizing same-sex marriage. Stated traditional-values organization Article 8: "State Sen. Cynthia Creem, Sen. Robert O'Leary, Rep. Michael Festa and Rep. David Linsky have some interesting things in common. "They're all strongly endorsed by the state's three major powerful homosexual lobbying groups. … They're all Democrats. They're all vocal supporters of homosexual 'marriage' and whatever else the homosexual lobby bids them to do. "And now all four have introduced Senate bill 938. Even the left-wing Weekly Dig can't believe that the Massachusetts Legislature is poised to go this far." A story in Boston's Weekly Dig describes the legislation, entitled "An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes." "The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion," the reported stated. "It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding 'abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.' "Archaic, indeed." While the bill would keep bestiality technically illegal, it gives the option of less severe penalties. Previously, those convicted of "a sexual act on an animal" could receive up to 20 years in prison. Explains the local weekly: "The new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine." The bill was taken up during a public hearing Nov. 1 in the Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Reportedly, no one from the public testified against the measure.