BEST, ABSOLUTE BEST PROGRAM ON TV IS THE ANCIENT ALIENS SERIES ON HISTORY CHANNEL

THIS SERIES IS THE VERY BEST SHOW ON TV NOW OR EVER. I AM AGAIN A GIGANTIC HISTORY CHANNEL FAN AND SUPPORTER FOR THIS SHOW ALONE!

http://joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/

http://joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/

SENSENBRENNER HAS PROSTATE CANCER

JIM SENSENBRENNER DIAGNOSED WITH PROSTATE CANCER.
EVIL BACKED UP INTO HIS PROSTATE, SO MUCH NEGATIVITY
HE COULD NOT GET IT OUT.

Probe of Sensenbrenner sought

Group writes letter to House ethics panel

By Maurice Possley
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 29, 2005


An advocacy group has asked the House ethics committee to open an investigation of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, alleging that the Wisconsin Republican violated ethics rules by attempting to influence a decision in an appeals court case in Chicago.

In a letter dated Wednesday, Nan Aron, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Justice, requested the investigation.

The Tribune reported July 10 that Sensenbrenner sent a letter in June to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago demanding that a prison sentence for a drug courier be increased.

House rules prohibit representatives from communicating privately with judges on legal matters, and general rules of litigation bar them from contacting judges on a case without notifying all parties. The letter was not sent to the lawyer for the drug courier.

Jay Apperson, chief counsel of a judiciary subcommittee, the staffer who brought the case to Sensenbrenner's attention, was dismissed last week. Apperson had defended the letter as a proper exercise of power, but he had conceded that it was "a mistake" not to have sent it to the attorney for the defendant.

"Mr. Sensenbrenner . . . abused his power as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and in all likelihood he violated written ethics guidelines in the process," Aron said Thursday. "[The] ethics committee needs to look into it and take appropriate action."

Committee rules provide that the panel must respond to a request for an investigation brought by a member of Congress, but there is no requirement that it act on a complaint brought by an outside group or individual. The committee is empowered to initiate an investigation on its own.

A spokesman for the committee--officially the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct--declined to comment on the letter, which was addressed to its chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), and ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.).

Thomas Schreibel, Sensenbrenner's chief of staff, defended the letter Thursday and said there were no ethics rule violations.

The prohibitions against becoming involved in cases apply to cases involving "constituents, not committee oversight," Schreibel said.

The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for sentencing legislation and "part of the committee process is to make sure these [statutes] are adhered to," Schreibel said. "Mr. Sensenbrenner has questioned on numerous occasions sentencing and how it's adhered to. This is clearly an oversight letter."

The letter noted that a three-judge appellate panel had upheld a 97-month sentence for Lissett Rivera, even though she had been convicted under a statute that carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. Sensenbrenner demanded a "prompt response" from Chief Appeals Judge Joel Flaum as to what Flaum would do to "rectify" the panel's decision.

Schreibel said he disagreed that the letter was an attempt to intimidate the court to change its decision.

"In this case, Mr. Sensenbrenner was looking for the rationale on why the mandatory minimum was not applied," he said.

"Judge Flaum has the responsibility to ride herd over the other judges to make sure they aren't breaking the law," Schreibel said. "That's part of the responsibility of being the chief judge. The chief judge has the day-to-day oversight to make sure the judges under him are applying the law in a fair manner."

The Rivera decision, issued by a three-judge appeals panel, noted that the sentence of 97 months was illegal but could not be changed because federal prosecutors had not appealed it.

After Sensenbrenner's letter was sent to Flaum, the panel revised the final paragraph of the decision to include a citation to a Supreme Court case that showed Sensenbrenner was wrong.

Under the law, a chief judge has no authority to interfere with a decision of a three-judge panel.

On Thursday, Alex Reinert, a member of the American Judicature Society's Task Force on Judicial Independence and Accountability, said, "We believe that all appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is respected."

State panel urged to probe congressman

By Maurice Possley
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 30, 2005


The state agency that oversees lawyer conduct in Wisconsin has been asked to investigate Rep. James Sensenbrenner for sending a private letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago demanding a longer prison sentence for a drug courier.

Barbara McFarland, a registered nurse from Middleton, Wis., and her sister, Deborah McFarland, a retired attorney in Edgewater, Md., sent a letter on Thursday to the Office of Lawyer Regulation in Madison.

The complaint alleges that Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, violated attorney conduct rules that prohibit a communication with a judge without notifying all parties in the case. Sensenbrenner's letter was sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, which prosecuted the case, but was not sent to Steve Shobat, the drug courier's attorney.

Jay Apperson, counsel to a Judiciary subcommittee who was dismissed after the Tribune disclosed the letter, has conceded that it was "a mistake" not to send the letter to Shobat, who obtained a copy only after it was placed in the court file.

Keith Sellen, director of the lawyer conduct office in Madison, said any grievance brought to his office would get a preliminary investigation before a decision was made on whether to conduct a formal investigation.

Sensenbrenner's Wisconsin law license is in inactive status. He has not been the subject of any public disciplinary findings, according to Sellen.

The grievance follows the filing of a similar complaint with the House ethics committee by Alliance for Justice.

In June, Sensenbrenner, whose committee controls the federal judiciary's budget, sent a letter to Chief U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joel Flaum, demanding the court overturn a decision affirming a 97-month prison term for Lissett Rivera and impose a 120-month term.

The McFarlands say in their letter: "We believe that Mr. Sensenbrenner should be barred from practicing law in Wisconsin in the future and should no longer be considered a member of the bar in good standing, active or inactive."

AIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA Agreement

AIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA Agreement: "AIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA Agreement
Thursday July 21, 10:25 am ET
Treaty Will Block Access to Affordable Medicine
WASHINGTON, July 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Republican House leaders have tentatively scheduled a vote on the DR-CAFTA free trade agreement for Wednesday, July 27.
Today at 1pm ET Global AIDS Alliance will co-sponsor a press conference by telephone to explain why many health advocates are opposing the treaty.
Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance, stated:
'Why would Members of Congress vote for a treaty that will hurt the fight against the worst epidemic the world has ever seen? It's hard to fathom.
How can members like Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Harold Ford (D-TN) and Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), who support the fight against AIDS, even consider backing this treaty?
This treaty gives special benefits to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry. It blocks competition from generic manufacturers. The result is that only the wealthy in these countries will be able to buy many critical medicines.
Honduras and the Dominican Republic have an HIV prevalence three times what we have in the US. The last thing these countries need is to have their hands tied as they tackle this problem.
Many patients find they can no longer use the typical, initial course of treatment, and they must take so-called 'second-line' drugs. But, these medications are extremely expensive. These prices will stay high and go even higher if trade treaties like DR-CAFTA discourage or even prevent the production of generic versions.
The President's own AIDS program will eventually be hamstrung by this and other US-backed treaties, because it will need to purchase second-line drugs in large quantities.
The claim that this issue has been resolved by a 'side letter"

AIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA Agreement

AIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA AgreementAIDS Experts Oppose CAFTA Agreement
Thursday July 21, 10:25 am ET
Treaty Will Block Access to Affordable Medicine


WASHINGTON, July 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Republican House leaders have tentatively scheduled a vote on the DR-CAFTA free trade agreement for Wednesday, July 27.
Today at 1pm ET Global AIDS Alliance will co-sponsor a press conference by telephone to explain why many health advocates are opposing the treaty.

Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance, stated:

"Why would Members of Congress vote for a treaty that will hurt the fight against the worst epidemic the world has ever seen? It's hard to fathom.

How can members like Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Harold Ford (D-TN) and Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), who support the fight against AIDS, even consider backing this treaty?

This treaty gives special benefits to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry. It blocks competition from generic manufacturers. The result is that only the wealthy in these countries will be able to buy many critical medicines.

Honduras and the Dominican Republic have an HIV prevalence three times what we have in the US. The last thing these countries need is to have their hands tied as they tackle this problem.

Many patients find they can no longer use the typical, initial course of treatment, and they must take so-called 'second-line' drugs. But, these medications are extremely expensive. These prices will stay high and go even higher if trade treaties like DR-CAFTA discourage or even prevent the production of generic versions.

The President's own AIDS program will eventually be hamstrung by this and other US-backed treaties, because it will need to purchase second-line drugs in large quantities.

The claim that this issue has been resolved by a 'side letter' protecting access to drugs is simply not true. The White House ignored instructions from Congress to protect access to medicine in this treaty. Then, when people objected, it issued a letter promising the treaty would not limit access. But this letter is non-binding and carries no real legal weight.

This is not about maintaining an incentive for research, since the Central American market is small. This is about brand-name manufacturers' putting profit above public health and their hope that this treaty will set a precedent for all other trade agreements."

sensenbrenner's nonsense on Judge Roberts....BROWN NOSE SENSENBRENNER!

WASHINGTON, July 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement tonight:

"President Bush tonight has nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court a highly qualified, capable, and accomplished jurist in Judge John Roberts. The Senate's unanimous confirmation of Judge Roberts to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals speaks to the impressive legal credentials and qualifications the Senate recognized in him just two short years ago. In addition, Clinton Administration legal officials such as former Solicitor General Seth Waxman profess high praise for Judge Roberts, demonstrating that support for his professional qualifications crosses political party lines.

"The President should be commended not only for the wisdom of his choice but also the dignified manner in which he reached out and consulted scores of Senate Members. Likewise, I am hopeful the Senate will consider the President's nominee for our nation's highest court in a dignified and timely manner and treat him with the respect he deserves."

Sensenbrenner House Floor Statement on USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Legislation

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/PatriotFJSfloorstate72105.pdf

Sensenbrenner House Floor Statement on USA
PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Legislation
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (RWis.)
delivered the following remarks during today’s House debate on reauthorizing expiring
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3199, the “USA PATRIOT and Terrorism
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.”
The attacks of September 11, 2001 tragically affirmed the urgency of updating America’s
laws to address the clear and present danger presented by international terrorism. On that day,
foreign terrorists maliciously and without provocation attacked the United States, murdered
thousands of our citizens, and destroyed symbols of our freedom in a failed effort to break the
spirit and resolve of the American people. We must also recall that these terrorists exploited
historic divisions between America’s law enforcement and intelligence communities that had
limited the dissemination of vital and timely information and increased America’s vulnerability
to terrorist attack.
In the wake of the 9/11 atrocities, broad bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress
passed the PATRIOT Act to lower the wall that prohibited our law enforcement and intelligence
communities from effectively sharing information, and to enhance investigatory tools necessary
to assess, detect, and prevent future terrorist attacks. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence
authorities have utilized expanded information sharing provisions contained in the PATRIOT
Act to gain critical knowledge of the intentions of foreign-based terrorists before they occur,
while preempting gathering terrorist threats at home.
While the PATRIOT Act and other antiterrorism initiatives have helped avert additional
attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded. Exactly two weeks ago, innocent citizens in
London were murdered in a series of ruthlessly coordinated attacks. Earlier today, it appears that
the London subway system came under renewed attack. Last year, the Madrid bombings brought
unprecedented terror to the people of Spain, and ongoing terrorist operations around the globe
demonstrate the imperative for continued vigilance.
When the House Judiciary Committee reported the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001, I
pledged to rigorously examine its implementation and the conduct of the war against terrorism.
In my words and actions as Committee Chairman, I have maintained this commitment and
emphasized the importance of better protecting our citizenry from terrorist attack, while at the
same time preserving the values and liberties that distinguish us as Americans. The legislation
we consider today reflects this careful balance.
H.R. 3199 is based on four years of comprehensive, bipartisan oversight consisting of
hearing testimony, Inspector General reports, briefings, and oversight letters. Since April of this
year alone, the Committee has received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the
PATRIOT Act. This extensive hearing and oversight record has demonstrated that the PATRIOT
Act has been an effective tool against terrorists and other criminals. Of no less importance, and
notwithstanding the vague and general suspicion expressed by some of its detractors, the record
also shows that there is no evidence that the PATRIOT Act has been abused to violate
Americans’ civil liberties.
To further allay the concerns expressed by some, H.R. 3199 makes important revisions to
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which pertains to “business records” obtained through the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – or “FISA.” I would note that Section 215 is probably the
most misunderstood and misrepresented provision of the PATRIOT Act. H.R. 3199 clarifies that
the information likely to be obtained through a FISA warrant must relate to foreign intelligence
information not concerning a U.S. person, or must be information pertaining to an ongoing
international terrorism investigation or clandestine intelligence activities. The legislation also
explicitly clarifies that a section 215 order will issue only “if the judge finds that the
requirements have been met,” and provides a judicial review process to authorize a court to set
aside a section 215 order that has been challenged. Contrary to the unfounded allegations of
some, there is no evidence that a single section 215 order has been served on any library.
The Judiciary Committee conducted a nearly 12-hour markup of this legislation at which
43 amendments were offered and debated. The reported version of the legislation extends for 10
years the sunset on sections 206 and 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206 pertains to “roving
wiretaps” under FISA. This crucial provision updates the law to reflect contemporary
communications technology by making a suspected terrorist, rather than a communications
device, the proper target of a wiretap. This sunset provision was approved by the Committee by
an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26-2. However, while the legislation sets expiration dates on
certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, congressional oversight of the entire PATRIOT Act
must be perpetual.
Let me conclude with the following point: for too long, opponents of the PATRIOT Act
have transformed it into a grossly distorted caricature that bears no relation to the legislation
itself. The PATRIOT Act has been misused by some as a spring board to launch limitless
allegations that are not only unsubstantiated, but false and irresponsible. Our constituents expect
and deserve substantive consideration of this vital issue, and I hope today’s debate reflects the
bipartisan seriousness the issue demands.
Mr. Chairman, the security of the American people is the most solemn responsibility
entrusted to Congress. Passage of the “USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention
Reauthorization Act of 2005" is vital to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement and
intelligence reforms that have reduced America’s vulnerability to terrorist attack. We must never
return to the pre-9/11 mind set that ignores the painful lessons of that day, as well as the tragic
experiences of our friends and allies. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this vital legislation.
####
================SNIP========================
See...all I have to is to report what this big fat, F'KING BABY says...he puts his own foot in his own mouth and spews hte most vile, insance crap possible...on his own!

THE PATRIOT ACT IS THE BIG BROTHER ENABLING ACT!

Fight them THERE so we don't have to fight them here? BULLSHIT

For those who advocate the Iraqi War by saying that we need to "Fight Them There So We Don't Have to Fight Them Here"...the attacks in London seem to prove you wrong, don't they!

The Real ID Act and Privacy: Part I

July 07, 2005

By: Robert Gellman
rgellman@netacc.net

The recently enacted Real ID Act may turn out to be an interesting bellwether for privacy over the next few years. It’s a complicated piece of legislation, with a checkered history and many opponents in many places. Yet it passed Congress this year without significant debate, amendments or a vote on the merits.
If all those descriptions sound disjointed, then keep reading. This is one of those complex situations where you need to juggle a number of balls to keep track of what happened and to understand what the controversies are. It’s all so complex that the discussion will continue in my next column.

The author of the law is Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. His goals included making it harder for everyone to obtain a driver’s license without meeting a higher standard of proof and clamping down on the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

The history dates to last year when Sensenbrenner wanted to add his proposal to the intelligence community reform legislation that resulted from the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Opposition to Sensenbrenner’s ID bill was strong in the Senate, and the House leadership held up that must-pass reform bill in response to Sensenbrenner’s protest over the Senate’s refusal to accept it. In the end, however, political pressure for intelligence reform was too great. The compromise was that the reform bill would pass, but the ID bill would come up at another time and in another way.

That’s what happened this year. The bill was attached to another must-pass bill authorizing money for the troops in Iraq. Senators were unhappy, but they were unwilling to push this fight to the wall, and Sensenbrenner got his way. Not only did his bill pass, but it also repealed a law enacted last year and already being implemented to strengthen the driver’s license process.

To be sure, there was support for the ID bill from most Republicans in the House, but the opposition in the Senate was probably strong enough to kill it again if the bill came up on its own. Sensenbrenner’s personal determination to pass the bill was the determining factor. The House leadership’s commitment to Sensenbrenner was also important. Curiously, the bill moved through the legislative process with little public attention until the very end. When the press and the public began to notice what was happening, the opposition was too late.

The new law says that unless state license procedures meet federal standards, the federal government will not accept the driver’s license as identification. If you think that it doesn’t matter, consider what you have to do to board an airplane, enter a federal building, apply for Social Security benefits, qualify for Medicare or otherwise interface with a federal agency. Most people show a driver’s license. You could use a passport if you have one, but most people do not. Almost no one carries a passport, anyway.

For most people, the driver’s license is the identification card used most often. It is commonly described as a de facto national identifier, and critics charge that the Real ID Act will go several steps further toward making the license an official national identifier. The law doesn’t quite do that, but it does advance in that direction. Much of the rhetoric and the newspaper editorials about the act focused on the national identifier angle, but there are plenty of other opponents to the law.

Some objected because of the law’s effect on the availability of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The act tells states that they must verify whether an applicant for a license or renewal is in the country legally. Licenses for aliens has been controversial, and states have implemented a range of solutions, including no driver’s licenses for illegals on one end and full licenses on the other. For our purposes, we can mostly set those issues aside except to note that the immigration community will continue to be a source of objection to the Real ID Act in the future.

Opposition to the Real ID Act also comes from the states. They see the legislation as an unfunded mandate with a large price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs at $100 million, but the National Conference of State Legislatures thinks the national price tag will be $500 million to $700 million. If you assign a cost to the time that people will spend waiting in line, the price tag could double.

The act does not take effect for three years, so I anticipate that there will be time for the issues to come back to a boil. My guess is that the immigration aspects of the act will cut both ways politically, and the federalism questions aren’t much different than many other comparable issues raised by federal legislation all the time. It’s the privacy issue that is most likely to continue to resonate broadly and to provide cover for politicians and interest groups otherwise unhappy about the Real ID Act.

Why might the privacy issue be so potent here? The factor that most often undermines the public’s desire for privacy is the public’s desire for convenience. People will give up their privacy for shorter lines, less hassle and faster transactions. The Real ID Act will result in exactly the opposite. We’ll find out why next month.

Rogues Gallery