Bill to ban cell phones in prisons advances

Staff Report

Thursday, 21 May 2009
The Senate gave final approval to legislation late Wednesday night to ban cell phones from prisons.  Sen. Don Barrington is author of Senate Bill 1064 and says keeping cell phones out of prisons will make them safer.

“The concern isn’t about those working in the facilities, but the prisoners themselves and their visitors.  There have been numerous cases of prisoners harassing their victims and the families of law enforcement personnel, not to mention continuing their drug cartel businesses from behind bars,” said Barrington, R-Lawton.  “They need to be cut off.  They’re allowed to make phone calls on facility phones so there’s no need for cell phones except for trouble, and that needs to stop.”

Under the new law, which will go into effect as soon as it is signed, it will be a felony to bring a cell phone or any electronic digital transmission device, without permission, into a facility where prisoners are located.  Violators will be guilty of a felony punishable with up to two years in prison, a fine of up to $2,500 or both.  The new law will also pertain to prisoners found with such devices in their possession.  Currently, this crime is a misdemeanor.  

“As I’ve said before this is common sense legislation.  We already ban several items from prisons because they can be used as weapons.  I believe cell phones are one of the more dangerous weapons since prisoners are using them to harass their victims and others as well as continue to be involved in organized crime,” said Barrington.  “I hope the Governor signs this bill quickly so we can put a stop to these types of crime.”

Numerous items are already banned from prisons including guns, knives, controlled dangerous substances, alcohol, tobacco products, and money.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 May 2009 )

Why Speaker Pelosi should step down

Newt Gingrich

The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:   The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can’t have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation.  America can’t afford it.     

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this:  If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?      Would you?  This Isn’t About Politics.  It  About National Security. 

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn’t political — she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.     But this isn’t about politics.  It  about national security.      At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques — specifically waterboarding — on captured al Qaeda terrorists.    

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality     Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used.  At last week  press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."     In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that  our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’"    

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory:  Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?       If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA , Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself.  She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it.  Not good, but not disqualifying.       

Pelosi on the CIA:   "They Mislead Us All The Time"     But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory.  Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her — misled Congress — and not just once, but routinely.       "They mislead us all the time," she said.    

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.     And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.      Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?     And the question that remains is why?  Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?     Perhaps it  because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is:  The Left  attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.    

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.     America was terrified.  As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn’t know where and we didn’t know when.     If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated     If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 — just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet — then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks — in other words, the Bush Administration policy — is vindicated.       But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance.  She didn’t know, so she claims. That  why she didn’t do anything about it.     But President Bush did know.  It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.     

It was Nancy Pelosi  job to know too.  But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she  now telling us she didn’t know.  And she  calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.       Shame on her.      Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe     Speaker Pelosi has damaged America  safety.     She  made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can’t count on their leaders to defend them.     And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.     America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi  contempt for those who defend her.       

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn’t political — she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.      But this isn’t about politics.  It  about national security.      At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques — specifically waterboarding — on captured al Qaeda terrorists.    

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality     Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used.  At last week  press conference she went beyond this position to assert that  the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."      In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that  "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’ "   

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory:  Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?       If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA , Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself.  She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it.  Not good, but not disqualifying.        Pelosi on the CIA:   "They Mislead Us All The Time"      But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory.  Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her — misled Congress — and not just once, but routinely.        "They mislead us all the time," she said.    

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.      And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.       Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?     And the question that remains is why?  Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?      Perhaps it  because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is:  The Left  attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.      Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.     America was terrified.  As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn’t know where and we didn’t know when.      If Pelosi consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is vindicated .     

If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 — just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet — then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks — in other words, the Bush Administration policy — is vindicated .       But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance.  She didn’t know, so she claims. That  why she didn’t do anything about it.     But President Bush did know.  It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.     It was Nancy Pelosi  job to know too.  But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she  now telling us she didn’t know.  And she  calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.      Shame on her.        

Speaker Pelosi has damaged America  safety.         She  made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can’t count on their leaders to defend them.         And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.         America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi  contempt for those who defend her.          

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

About the author:  Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works" and "Winning the Future".    

Waxman’s skyrocketing energy costs

Ernest Istook

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is the top dealmaker who wants to re-design America’s economy — and possibly destroy it — under the guise of saving the Earth from global warming.  His deals have bought off coal state Dems (represented by Virginia’s Rick Boucher) and those representing automakers’ states (such as Michigan’s John Dingell).
 
After weeks of horse-trading, Waxman is bringing his bill up for final revisions in committee this week and it may soon go to a vote in the full House.
 
Waxman’s energy tax bill (co-authored with Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.) was already a complicated mess.  His latest horse-trading for votes has added about $2 trillion to the 25-year cost of the bill.  According to a new Heritage Foundation analysis, the revised bill will cost $9.6 trillion and 2.5 million jobs during that period, as well as a reduced standard of living.
Nothing about this is simple.  Republicans are said to have 450 amendments to offer as Waxman’s House Energy and Commerce Committee considers the bill.  Waxman must fend them off while he keeps cutting deals to get favorable votes from at least 30 committee members.

If Waxman’s bill becomes law, businesses will be forced to buy, sell and trade permits in a process that will resemble Congress’ buying, selling and trading votes over this bill.
 
The measure establishes a “cap-and-trade” quota for emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases, with businesses required to buy emission permits.  They will pass along the massive costs to consumers.
 
At least 14 different buyoffs — oops, Waxman calls them “emission allowances”– were in the amended bill unveiled last week.  Each has its own intricate details, timeframes and hoops to jump through.  Each is a legislative double threat which can serve as money for some beneficiaries and tax exemptions for others.
 
Since it sets a limited cap on the overall emissions of CO2 in the USA, the bill limits Americans’ freedom by ending the availability of cheap energy, and reducing our ability to compete with the rest of the world.
 
However, there’s nothing cheap about Waxman’s buying of votes to pass his bill.
 
Utility companies would get 35% of the allowances, which still is not enough for them to produce {mosimage}electricity at their current levels.  Automakers would get 3%.   Another 5% would be given to “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries,” which will mean whoever lobbyists can get included in the definitions.  These and most other allowances will lapse in or before 2030.
 
But there’s a permanent 5% allowance up for grabs by whoever claims they’re protecting overseas tropical forests.  And a permanent 15% would be auctioned off by government each year and re-distributed politically to offset the higher energy bills of “low- and moderate-income families.”  (If you live in Speaker Pelosi’s San Francisco area, you can make $66,000 a year and qualify for this assistance.)  Some have started calling this “energy welfare.”
 
According to Waxman’s own document, he’s already given away 102% of the intended allowances and still claims to hold some in reserve for more Congressional horse-trading.  The unseemliness is not unnoticed, such as by The New York Times:

    “Cap and trade . . . is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”

 
Republicans are almost totally opposed (with possible exceptions such as Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who has an enormous windmill farm in her district).  That unity has some Democrats skittish.  They recall the party-line 1993 House vote for Pres. Bill Clinton’s proposed BTU tax, which was blocked in the U.S. Senate.  The vote became a major factor that helped create a GOP majority in 1994’s elections.  The concern is whether history might repeat itself.  Senate prospects for Waxman’s bill are iffy, even though President Obama wants it — and insists he must have the revenue to finance his ambitious health-care makeover plans.
 
President Obama didn’t help his cause when he admitted that electricity bills “would skyrocket” under cap and trade.  The Heritage Foundation’s report calculates higher energy bills of $1,500 a year for a family of four, even after they reduce their consumption, plus higher prices for almost everything as add-on costs of producing and transporting goods are passed along to consumers.  To meet the total costs, the family would lose $4,000 annually from its household budget.
 
So what is the supposed benefit from all of this?  By 2025, at the cost of trillions, Earth’s temperatures might drop by a few hundredths of a degree.  By the end of the century, the projected drop would be only two-tenths of one degree.  That will never be noticed, as Americans are forced to adjust their thermostats by far more, making the indoors hotter in the summer and colder in the winter.
 
Yet a fresh national poll shows 58% of Americans unwilling to pay anything more at all on their electric bills to combat climate change.  Just 26% said they’d approve of paying $10 more a month.  None said they’d support the $100 or more a month that Waxman and Obama would add to their bill.
 
The biggest impact may be on political climate, not global climate, because a lot of people will be red-hot under the collar.
 
 
About the author:
Ernest Istook calls himself a "recovering Congressman" from Oklahoma. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and chairs the National Advisory Board for Save Our Secret Ballot, www.SOSballot.org.  This piece was first posted 05/19/2009 by Human Events as “Waxman’s Workover.”

OK premiere of Barking Water at Circle Cinema

Staff Report

Frankie is dying. He needs to see his estranged daughter one last time and turns to Irene, the love that he left years ago. The two set out on a journey, confronting the past, love, and forgiveness. Barking Water is a tale of home… and what it takes to get there.
 
Writer and Director Tulsan Sterlin Harjo used an Oklahoman cast and crew to tell this tale which is set and filmed entirely in this state. Even the production companies involved, Indion Entertainment Group and Dolphin Bay Films are Oklahoma based. Oklahoma, the land itself, acts as a silent character in the film for even as they travel, it is always there – watching, listening, and moving with them.
Sterlin Harjo, a native of Holdenville living in Tulsa, belongs to the Seminole and Creek Nations and is no stranger to filming in Oklahoma. His first feature film, Four Sheets to the Wind (available at many local movie rental stores), premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and quickly gained support with audiences and critics. His new film, Barking Water was selected for the 2009 Sundance Film Festival and won the Worldfest Bronze Remi Award for Creative Excellence. “Barking Water will charm audiences with its mature story-telling and Native American sensitivity,” writes Jonathan W. Hickman of EINSIDERS.COM. Barking Water was also selected for Venice Days, Venice, Italy 2009 and deadCENTER Film Festival, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2009.

Richard Ray Whitman, who worked with Harjo on Four Sheets to the Wind, leads a very talented cast as Frankie. Whitman is from Gypsy Oklahoma and a Yuchi tribal member enrolled in the Muscogee/Creek Nation. He has appeared in many films including “War Party,” directed by Franc Roddam, “Lakota Woman,” directed by Frank Pierson and produced by Jane Fonda and “Missionary Man,” directed by Dolph Lundgren. Irene is played by Casey Camp-Horinek, a long time Native Rights activist, environmentalist, actress and member of the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma.
 
Barking Water will be showing at the Circle Cinema May 22-28 and tickets go on sale May 21 at 3:00pm. The evening of May 22 and 23 their will be Q&A with the filmmaker and also on the evening of Saturday, May 23, there will be live music from Fiawna Forte. The Circle Cinema is located at 12 S. Lewis in Tulsa. This film is an Indion Entertainment Group and Dolphin Bay Films movie. All rights reserved. More information about the film is available at our website, www.barkingwaterfilm.com. For show times and ticket prices, please call the Circle Cinema at 918-592-FILM (3456) or check online at www.circlecinema.com. 
 

Space flight souvenirs available

Staff Report

You may never fly in space, but a new club is offering “space geeks” everywhere the opportunity to own items that have.  The Astronaut Scholarship Foundation announced today its newest endeavor, 2009 Space Artifact Series, which offers its members three artifacts flown in outer space!

Now’s your chance to own a piece of the astronauts’ spaceship seat from possibly the most riveting mission in space exploration history, Apollo 13, from astronaut Fred Haise; a segment of the Apollo 9 Lunar Module insulation personally removed by astronaut Rusty Schweickart and a Space Shuttle tire segment that flew with astronaut Robert “Hoot” Gibson.  All three artifacts are individually numbered, elegantly encased in Lucite and accompanied by a certificate of authenticity signed by the astronauts themselves.

“I am thrilled about being part of the Space Artifacts Series,” said Gibson who flew a total of five Space Shuttle missions and serves as Astronaut Scholarship Foundation Vice-Chairman.   “These museum-quality space collectables are a unique way to raise money for college scholarships.”

Straight from the astronauts’ personal collection to you, each timeless collectible is sure to become an instant heirloom.  The space artifacts are display-ready and the perfect complement to any home or office!  Limited to just 200 memberships, the series will be sold on a first-come, first-served basis.  

Join the Space Artifact Series by paying in three easy installments of $249 or save by making a one-time payment of $699.  Orders can be placed online at www.astronautscholarship.org/sas or by calling 321-455-7015.  

All proceeds go directly to fund college scholarships to students who exhibit motivation, imagination, and exceptional performance in the science or engineering field of their major.  The Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization, awards 19 $10,000 scholarships annually and has awarded more than $2.8 million in scholarships to students nationwide.  

For more information, log on to www.AstronautScholarship.org  or call 321-455-7012.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 19 May 2009 )