Author: Shannon Bream

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will take his push to move financial reform legislation back to the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, after failing to get the numbers he needed during a vote late Monday. In the meantime, bi-partisan negotiations spearheaded by Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) continue on Capitol Hill. Senator Shelby tells Fox News, “The next 36 to 48 hours are crucial.” As lawmakers work to hammer out a compromise, some conservatives are voicing concerns about proposed language they see as a threat to consumer privacy.

As it stands now, a provision in the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 calls for the creation of the Office of Financial Research (OFR). The agency – which will not answer to Congress, the President or the Treasury – will be authorized to collect financial data on a wide range of transactions. Critics worry that means trouble for consumer privacy. According to Karl Rove, “They are going to have the capacity to go through everybody’s brokerage account and checking account and everybody’s credit card and financial transactions and sweep that information and then analyze it.” Senator Shelby says the more the American people learn about the “intrusive” provisions, the more they will mobilize against it. “I think the American people are now thinking, ‘We just don’t have that level of trust in the government,’” James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation says, adding, “We don’t want to give you that power to do something even though you promised that you won’t do it.”

Supporters of the legislation say the worries are overblown, partisan scare tactics. David Min, with the Center for American Progress, says the provision is more about keeping an eye on big business, not average American citizens. “[Regulators] would be looking at the firms themselves, the lenders – not the borrowers,” Min says. He notes that privacy advocates have no problem with the proposed language, and no one is planning to pry into your debit card activity. “If that was the case consumer folks and the ACLU would be all over this,” Min argues, adding, “Those guys are very sensitive to this stuff and the fact that they are on board with this to me suggests that there’s nowhere close to that type of intrusion.”

Health care reform issues are clearly not off the table for conservatives, and abortion seems to be the new battleground. According to Americans United for Life (AUL), more than two dozen states are now working on legislation aimed at closing what state lawmakers believe is a loophole for abortion and federal tax dollars. “This was the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade,” says AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest, referring to the new health care reform measure. Missouri state Senator Scott Rupp is among those who believe it is necessary for state legislatures to act in response to the federal law. Rupp heads up the state senate committee that quickly passed proposed legislation which would ban any health insurance exchange, like the ones states will create under the new federal law, from offering policies that cover elective abortions. “There are multiple issues where taxpayer funds can and would be going to fund abortions,” according to Rupp.

Many in the pro-choice community say the push for state laws is a politically-motivated smokescreen. “These initiatives are really unnecessary,” says Planned Parenthood’s Laurie Rubiner, adding, “There are no federal funds being used to pay for abortions and that’s made very clear in the bill.” Rubiner also points to the Executive Order signed by President Obama, negotiated primarily to allay the fears of pro-life Democrats headed up by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI). The order served to reassure that group to the point of winning key “yes” votes on health care reform, but not everyone’s convinced. “The truth is, everyone knew that the Executive Order was just a fig leaf that was meant to cover up the fact that they were going to pass this huge expansion of abortion funding,” says Yoest.

Planned Parenthood has pledged to work against state efforts to restrict abortion coverage options. Rubiner says it’s also important “that people understand what’s really behind these initiatives” calling them “very political.” It’s certainly an issue that could work its way into state and national elections this fall. Political analysts like Michael Barone say, “I think it’s a fair question to ask a candidate, ‘Are you for or against such provisions?’” Lawmakers want to be clear: this isn’t a referendum on the legality of abortion. “We’re just saying we don’t want our tax dollars to go to fund these types of things,” Rupp says.

With anti-government sentiment growing among conservatives across the country, there is worry they may refuse to take part in the 2010 census. In doing so they risk losing congressional representation, which is assigned strictly by population. It’s something Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) understands all too well. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah missed picking up an additional seat on Capitol Hill by a count of roughly 800 people. “We’ve got to fill out the forms if we want to be represented,” warns Chaffetz. He also understands why some are hesitant to take part. “I have been one of the more critical people of the census, but it is one of the things that’s outlined in the Constitution,” Chaffetz says. Though he finds the process has flaws, Chaffetz urges conservatives to take part and adds, “We can work to improve the census later.”

Census Bureau Director Robert Groves has seen the hesitation as well. “I haven’t met many people who like to fill out forms,” Groves acknowledges. He also understands that the current political climate may impact participation. “There are folks who believe that the federal government is too big, that federal spending is out of control,” Groves says. However, he warns that by opting out of the 2010 Census citizens risk losing the ability to impact who represents them on Capitol Hill and how their tax dollars are spent. Groves says the Census Bureau is a “non-partisan statistical agency” that is independent of any political use of census data. “Our job is to count everyone in the country,” Groves says.

The Census Bureau has launched broad outreach efforts to a wide range of groups, including a focus on members of the lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgender community. A variety of ads and testimonials urge LGBT citizens to complete their forms, even going so far as recommending that same sex couples identify themselves as married if they like. One ad states: “For the first time, same sex married couples will be counted. This includes couples who may live where their relationship is not recognized.” A number of the testimonials also talk about using the 2010 Census to help achieve the political aims of the LGBT community, by making sure they garner maximum funding for programs they are most interested in. With that in mind, conservatives who opt out may wind up losing ground on issues they care most about. “It’s critical that Republicans and conservatives participate,” Chaffetz urges.

With word on Sunday that Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) had reached a deal with the White House, Democrats confidently moved toward a landmark vote on health care reform. Stupak, and the pro-life Democrats who joined with him, were holding out for tougher language banning any federal funding for abortions. They got the reassurance they were looking for in the form of an Executive Order from President Obama. But critics say, no executive order can trump laws passed by Congress. Bill Burck, former Deputy Counsel to President George W. Bush, says, “If it came down to a challenge between what the Executive Order says and what the legislation says, any court would go with the legislation – not the Executive Order.” Burck says no president has the independent authority or power to overrule legislation via an executive order, which apply only to personnel and agencies with the executive branch.

Others, like Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, believe the Order from President Obama will settle the abortion funding question, “If the goal is to make sure that federal funds don’t go directly to abortion, to fund abortions, the Executive Order does that.” It was certainly enough to convince Stupak, who concedes he would have preferred to have his own language inserted into health care legislation. Stupak says when it became clear that wouldn’t happen, the Executive Order was the next best option. According to Stupak, “The Executive Order will have the full force of law.”

But both sides of the abortion debate remain unconvinced. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List was set to give Stupak its “Defender of Life” award on Wednesday night, but has since rescinded the prize. President Marjorie Dannenfelser tells Fox News Stupak morphed from someone she believed in to, “someone who could trade away the lives of unborn children and force taxpayers to pay for it.” Under those circumstances, Dannenfelser said of the award, “we just couldn’t do it.”

Even Planned Parenthood issued a statement suggesting Stupak was duped. The message from the organization’s president, Cecile Richards, said, “What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) had insisted upon,” and went on to add, “It is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.” In the end, what the Congressman may have been left with is simply political cover for his vote. Burck says if Stupak didn’t like the bill’s underlying language, he shouldn’t be comforted by a piece of paper. “This Executive Order does nothing to change that,” Burck continues, “Representative Stupak, if he doesn’t know that – he really should.”

He’s been described as both a “bulldozer” and a “puppy dog,” and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is working Capitol Hill like never before. Emanuel has been the voice of the White House in many meetings with lawmakers, as he tries to rally votes in President Obama’s push for health care reform. John Podesta, Chief of Staff for former President Bill Clinton, understands why Obama tapped Emanuel to work the Hill. “He saw him operate in Congress, and I think that was the whole reason for bringing him back to the White House,” says Podesta.

Others think the aggressive role isn’t the right one for a chief of staff and that Emanuel has gotten too involved in the “sausage-making” process. Brad Blakeman, who served on former President George W. Bush’s staff, says, “Emanuel has taken it upon himself to be the legislative affairs guy for the president instead of the chief of staff.” Blakeman says the frontline job of negotiating for votes on the Hill isn’t usually something the chief of staff takes on, but that it’s gotten “personal” for Emanuel. In concentrating all his efforts on a single topic, Blakeman believes Emanuel will eventually wind up damaging the President’s overall agenda. According to Blakeman, “Rahm seems to have pigeon-holed the president into health care, which has hurt him on every other issue he has sought to take up this past year.”

As for what it’s like inside those meetings with Emanuel at the helm – it all depends on “which Rahm” shows up, according to Lanny Davis, who worked with Emanuel in the Clinton administration. Though Davis and Emanuel clashed during the Clinton years, Davis calls Emanuel a “man of integrity” who is “loyal” and “authentic.” Davis describes watching Emanuel lead a meeting as something like watching a movie, very entertaining with many characters. “He’s tough, but a great schmoozer,” and Davis says that’s exactly the combination President Obama needs as he works to pass massive health care reform. Podesta is among those who believe Emanuel’s efforts will pay off, “I think that Rahm’s proven himself to be someone who is quite good at steering legislation through the Hill.”

It’s no surprise that Republicans aren’t among Emanuel’s fan base, but in recent weeks and months he’s been taking heat from the left as well. As bloggers and pundits on the left talk about whether Emanuel is to blame for the president’s inability to get significant portions of his agenda passed, Davis says they’re aiming at the wrong target. “It’s the oldest game in Washington when you’re afraid to attack the president, blame it all on the chief of staff,” Davis says, but he doesn’t expect Emanuel to publicly fire back. With so much work left to do on health care, Davis doubts Emanuel has the time or inclination to answer his critics.

If you want to know just what your kids are learning from their history books, all you have to do is apply the “Reagan test,” says Professor Larry Schweikart.

As the Texas textbook battle continues to simmer, Schweikart says the first thing he does to determine whether a book is politically slanted is to go to any section discussing President Ronald Reagan. What you’ll find there, he says, will tell you everything you need to know, he says.

Schweikart says the majority of books he’s examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, and not Reagan. That’s “a joke,” Schweikart says. “I lived through the Reagan years, I remember.”

“The reason why textbooks get to where they are is because this is the world view of (a) the people who write the text books, (b) people who edit the text books, and (c) people who publish them,” the history professor says.

Schweikart says the textbooks’ authors bring an inherently liberal viewpoint to their work.

“They all tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia,” giving them a “drastically” different viewpoint from the rest of America, he says.

Aside from bias, there are factual errors as well.

One book — Call to Freedom: Beginnings to 1877 (Holt, 2003) — states on pages 53-54 that Christopher Columbus was “the first European explorer to land in the Americas.”  But Norseman Leif Ericson actually arrived hundreds of years earlier – a fact that is stated on page 18 of the same book.

How about the Louisiana Purchase in 1803? The same textbook says that the Louisiana Purchase extended America to the Mississippi River, when it actually expanded all the way to the Rocky Mountains.

Another text, The American Nation: Beginnings Through 1877 (Prentice, 2003),  states that the city of New Orleans was settled by the French in the 1600s. But didn’t actually happen until 1718.

With this in mind, parents may be inspired to start digging into their own children’s books to see what’s inside. And experts say that’s a great idea.

Gilbert T. Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, says: “The facts are often used to create an interpretation or reality that simply is at the very least controversial and may be dead wrong.”

Dr. Frank Wang, one-time president of Saxon Publishing, says there are serious “quality control” problems. Wang cautions that many books are thrown together on a tight schedule by a group of freelance writers, leaving them with little time or pride of authorship. He’s spotted errors touching on everything from the Statue of Liberty to the Korean War.

Sewall is also aware of the mistakes. “The problem with textbooks,” he says, “is missing information, or distorted information.”

Wednesday the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) meets to discuss curriculum standards that could have an impact on what students across the country see in their textbooks. The Lone Star state is one of the world’s largest textbook buyers, so publishers craft their books to match Texas state curriculum standards – in hopes of writing books their biggest customer will want to buy. Those same textbooks are sold to school systems nationwide.

As the curriculum Texas Textbook debate plays out, some of the most heated accusations involve claims about religious bias. Critics say conservatives on the “religious right” are trying to inject too much emphasis on Christianity into history curriculum and textbooks, while the other side argues you can’t tell America’s story without acknowledging those principles.

It’s something I asked a group of parents from Maryland and Virginia about.

As the Texas textbook debate begins in earnest, odds are most American parents likely have no idea how their children’s books are actually crafted. The 15 members of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) will make key decisions about curriculum – what’s in, what’s out – and textbook publishers will write books to match those standards. That’s because Texas is one of the largest textbook buyers in the world.

Dr. Frank Wang, one-time president of Saxon Publishing, says the process of producing a textbook has changed a great deal over the years. Historians and authors are increasingly being replaced by a collage of freelance writers, hoping to quickly churn out a project that will match up with curriculum standards. “The process has evolved from art to engineering,” Wang says. He adds that it’s become more of an “assembly line” system, rather than a carefully crafted “work of art.”

Gilbert T. Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, believes textbooks that end up in classrooms around the country have been steadily getting worse. “There’s no doubt that identity politics have contributed to the decline of textbook quality over the last twenty years,” says Sewall. He warns that vocal groups from gender activists to nutritionists have “demanded” their way into curriculum, simply by being the most vocal. Sewall says an editor at a top publishing company told him years ago that the squeaky wheel gets the attention and, “What was true then is even more true today.” In Sewall’s estimation what he calls “the Christian right” has been most persuasive in recent battles in Texas.

This week in Texas, the State Board of Education (SBOE) will consider curriculum modifications that could impact millions of students across America. That’s because what Texas ultimately decides has great influence among textbook publishers. The Lone Star state is one of their biggest customers in the world, so publishers craft their books to meet Texas standards. Those books are then sold nationwide. While the Texas SBOE debates whether to include things like Christmas, Paul Revere and the Liberty Bell – some are calling the textbook showdown the newest frontline of the culture war in the U.S.

It’s a battle Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, is watching closely, “Well, if you grab the minds of the young people you grab the minds of the next generation.” Sekulow believes a child’s school board meeting is the most important governmental event a parent can plug into. “Parents don’t check their rights to raise their children at the door to the schoolhouse,” Sekulow cautions. He knows the stakes are high this week in Texas because, “This curriculum, once established, will affect a generation of students – how they think.”

Others are concerned that conservative, religious interests are attempting to stuff Texas textbooks full of their viewpoint. “There is a whole movement to convince Americans that this was founded as a Christian nation, and that’s simply not the case,” says Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lynn also worries, as others do, that elected board members – and not educators – are the ones making the final curriculum decisions. “The idea of electing people to make judgments about these topics, which frankly they often know nothing about, is a terrible idea,” Lynn says.

Gilbert T. Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, says elected officials are often impacted by what he calls the “squeakiest wheel” – regardless of their ideology. “I think there’s no doubt that identity politics have contributed to the decline of textbook quality over the last 20 years,” Sewall laments. He says groups from nutritionists to gender activists have demanded their way into textbooks, but points to the one as the most prominent, “The most visible groups are the Christian right that wants to use American history textbooks to recapture the soul of the nation.”

Conservatives, like attorney Jonathan Saenz of the Liberty Institute, say they don’t mind being singled out and that it works to their benefit when liberal groups take to the Board of Education to take on subjects like Christmas and the Liberty Bell. According to Saenz, “The louder they shout the more they end up really equipping and informing people that agree with keeping things conservative and traditional.”

There is a battle brewing over textbooks in Texas, and what happens in the Lone Star state may have a direct impact on what children all over the country learn about America’s heritage and basic science.

That’s because Texas is one of the world’s top textbook buyers.

Publishers draft their materials to meet Texas curriculum guidelines in an effort to sell millions of textbooks there.

Those same books are sold to school systems nationwide. This week, the Texas State Board of Education will vote on a number of suggested curriculum changes.

I talked with a panel of parents from Maryland and Virginia about some of their concerns about what’s happening in school curriculum and textbooks today. One hot topic that surfaced: the debate about whether both evolution and creationism should be taught in public schools.

For more information be sure to tune into Special Report with Bret Baier Monday night at 6 pm ET for our ongoing coverage of this story.  I’ll be filing reports all week long on the “Texas Textbook Wars,” along with my colleague Brian Wilson who will be reporting from Texas.

Fox News’ Gretchen Gailey contributed to this report.

Inside Karl Rove’s new book, Courage and Consequence, there are numerous in-depth stories about the immediate hours and days after the September 11th attacks. Rove describes the ride from the school where President George W. Bush had been talking to students, as the Secret Service sped to get Bush aboard Air Force One. Along the way, they received word of the Pentagon attack and Rove says Bush was “preternaturally calm.” Soon they were airborne, “Once in the air, Air Force One then stood on its tail to get as high as possible, as rapidly as possible. I had not been in a jet at such a steep incline.”

Right away, Bush was facing decisions he never imagined confronting. Rove writes, “Almost immediately after we were airborne, Vice President Cheney phoned with a tough decision for Bush to make. The Air Force had scrambled to put up a combat jet patrol over Washington but needed rules of engagement. What should happen if another plane were hijacked and could not be controlled? Could it be shot down? The president uttered a forceful “Yes.” Cheney asked again and Bush said, “You have my authorization.” Rove goes on to talk about how worried Bush was about any young military pilot being asked to pull the trigger on a plane full of civilians. As a former fighter pilot himself, Bush understood what he was potentially asking them to do.

Once in the air, Bush wanted to return to Washington immediately, but the Secret Service insisted that he go elsewhere – believing it would violate their duty to protect him. Rove describes Bush’s fury at the debate, “At one point, he even barked at (Andy) Card, ‘I am the president!’ when Andy tried to importune him to listen to the Secret Service’s concerns. Later that day Bush would override the Service’s concerns and those of others, after being about as angry as I’d ever seen him.”

Days later, Bush visited Ground Zero, and had plenty of company. Rove writes: “Some congressmen wanted to be in every photograph, so they pushed their way to his side. Representative Nadler was particularly insistent about the photo opportunity, getting mad first at a White House staffer and then making the near-fatal mistake of trying to push a Secret Service agent aside. The agent expertly parried the congressman’s efforts to attach himself to the President’s rib cage.”

Rove also describes having someone find a bullhorn and place for Bush to give his well-known “the world hears you” speech to those working in the rubble. Rove spotted a giant fire truck that had been destroyed by falling debris. There were two men standing on top of it, and Rove thought that spot would allow everyone to see the president. He asked the two men to jump up and down, but didn’t tell them he was thinking of sending Bush over. Once convinced the truck provided a safe platform, Rove had Andy Card help him get the president to the spot. Retired firefighter Bob Beckwith was standing atop the truck. “Beckwith looked down into the scrum below him, saw the outstretched hand, grasped, and pulled. In an instant, Bush was sharing the top of the truck with Beckwith, who suddenly realized he’d helped up the president of the United States. Beckwith tried to crawl down but the president asked, ‘Where are you going?’ Bob said he was getting down. Bush said, ‘No, no, you stay right here.’ “

Later that same day, Bush met with the families of a number of victims. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was also in the area. Rove was less than impressed with her response when some rescue workers approached her for a picture. Rove recalls: “They dug out a disposable camera and asked for a picture. I took the camera, they clustered around her, and I took the shot. I found myself irritated that she did not rise in the presence of such men.”

The barren, rocky lot down an Alexandria, Virginia, alley doesn’t look like much, but it’s worth millions. Charlie Hooff’s family owned the land for more than 40 years before the government decided to take it by eminent domain in order to expand operations for the Alexandria Sanitation Authority (ASA). Hooff had negotiated with the ASA years before, but when the parties couldn’t reach a deal, Hooff decided to take it onto the open market. He says he had an offer in the neighborhood of $48 million, which evaporated once the government announced it would take the land. The ASA wound up offering Hooff $20.4 million, but he’s refusing to accept that as final. “They are absolutely convinced they are going to steal this property,” Hooff says, adding, “It’s just not going to happen.” Hooff points to the $48 million offer, along with appraisals he’s contracted which he says put the value in the range of $44 to $51 million.

The ASA maintains it negotiated in good faith and that it followed state law by hiring an independent, professional real estate appraiser who set the $20.4 million price tag. The agency adds, “As a responsible steward of public funds, ASA has not agreed to pay more than the appraised value of the property.” Although the ASA now owns the land, the battle over how much it will pay for the parcel is far from over. Hooff is waging a legal battle in the Virginia court system, but concedes even a win won’t give him everything he thinks the land is worth. “The process is flawed from the very get go because even in the best of circumstances the landowner never really gets his full measure,” according to Hooff.

In Virginia, property owners already start at a disadvantage because their attorneys’ fees aren’t covered. Real estate lawyer Paul Terpak says that discourages most landowners from fighting back. “The toughest case is a relatively small taking from a regular person,” according to Terpak. He gives the example of a government project that knocks down a tree someone’s grandfather planted in their front yard. “How much can those people fight over a $30,000 issue,” Terpak asks. He adds, “Can they pay $10,000 for an appraisal when they’re in a very tough situation?” Terpak also notes that the tough economic climate can make government entities more aggressive than they might otherwise be because they are “more driven by budgets than by fairness.”

One bright spot for Virginia landowners who decide to go to court: their juries must be made up of property owners. Terpak says, in his experience, landowners tend to find a sympathetic audience in the courtroom, and often feel vindicated by the final compromises reached there. Hooff plans to make the most of his May trial, saying, “I’ve been fighting with this city for all of my life, and they’re my most favorite enemy.”

Across the Atlanta area there are now billboards with the face of a young African-American child and the words “Endangered Species.” A number of pro-life groups joined together to launch the eye-catching campaign, saying the black community has been disproportionately impacted by abortion. They cite figures from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showing African-American women are three times as likely as white women to abort their pregnancies. Ryan Bomberger, who is adopted, designed the billboards and says he wants to expose Planned Parenthood and its “racist” beginnings based in eugenics. “It’s undeniable, why our present day reality is the way it is when you understand the history of Planned Parenthood,” Bomberger says.

Catherine Davis, of Georgia Right to Life, says the billboards have been effective, pushing the African-American community to have an important conversation about abortion. However, others say they are infuriated by the “offensive” billboards including Paris Hatcher of SPARK Reproductive Justice Now. Hatcher says there are several of the billboards in her neighborhood, and she doesn’t think she’s the only one who finds them disturbing. “Most Atlantans have been incredibly put off,” Hatcher says, “this language and approach is not the way we should be having this conversation.” Hatcher believes the campaign shames black women and demeans African-American children by equating them to “animals.” But, Davis points the finger back at groups like Planned Parenthood and says they are the ones who have devastated the black community with their “eugenics-based motivation.”

It is a Supreme Court showdown, pitting the First Amendment right to free speech against the government’s interest in eliminating terror groups aiming to destroy the United States. At issue is a federal law that bans any material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The law prohibits not only financial contributions, but also “service … training, expert advice or assistance … personnel.” A number of humanitarian groups say the law is too vague and keeps them from assisting the legitimate efforts that some terror-designated groups actually perform – while also stifling their right to free speech. Sharon Bradford Franklin of the Constitution Project says, “They want to be able to provide training in human rights activities and peace building activities.” For more than a decade, those groups have waged a legal battle to have the material support law overturned.

Today, a number of Justices expressed skepticism about the ability of any individual or group to provide support to the legal efforts of a terrorist organization without benefitting the violent, illegal wing of the organization. Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress had clear intentions and that, “Any assistance you provide to these organizations cannot be separated from assistance to their terrorist activities.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has filed a brief in support of the government’s efforts to uphold the current law. Deborah Lauter, of the ADL, echoes Justice Scalia’s comments, “If you’re going to be supporting humanitarian aid to these organizations you’re in effect bolstering their work to engage in terrorist activity.” Lauter added, “You can’t have it both ways.”

As to arguments about whether the wording of the law itself is too vague, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed willing to examine that issue when she noted tongue-firmly-in-cheek, “Under the definition of this statute, teaching these members to play the harmonica would be unlawful.” Justice Sotomayor went on to say, “There has to be something more than merely a congressional finding that any training is bad.” It could be months before we get the Court’s opinion. In the meantime, more than 150 people have been charged under the material support law in its current form.

“He Said, She Said”

Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s newly-appointed envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, is facing heat over comments attributed to him that appear to show sympathy for an admitted terror supporter. In a 2004 article, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs recounted a session held at the Muslim Students Association gathering in Chicago. Hussain, then a Yale Law student, participated in the discussion. Talk turned to the case of Dr. Sami al-Arian, who was then detained in a federal penitentiary and later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ has been classified as a foreign terror organization by the U.S. government. Hussain was quoted as saying that al-Arian’s case was one of many “politically motivated persecutions” and that al-Arian was being used “politically to squash dissent.”

The 2004 article was later edited to delete all of Hussain’s comments. Washington Report Editor Delinda Hanley tells Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit. Hanley remembers telling the group’s webmaster, “Let’s just take out the quotes since they have been attributed to the wrong speaker.” Hanley suggested to another media outlet that the comments attributed to Hussain were actually made by Sami al-Arian’s daughter, Laila, who also attended the event. However, the woman who authored the original article, Shereen Kandil, told Fox News she worked with Laila al-Arian and would never have confused her with Hussain. Kandil added, “If I quoted someone it’s because they said it.”

Late Tuesday a White House official spoke with Hussain and confirmed to Fox News that Hussain did attend the 2004 event. The official says Hussain went with plans to discuss civil rights in the wake of 9/11, but remembers the conversation turning to Sami al-Arian’s case. According to the White House official, Hussain has “no recollection” as to whether or not he made the comments attributed to him.

There has been a great deal of public debate about whether or not terror suspects should be tried in U.S. civilian courts or before military commissions. Significant differences exist, so let’s look at a few.

Jurors

In a federal civilian trial, jurors are pulled from a pool of people who live in the surrounding community. In a military commission, both the judge and jurors are military officers.

Guilty Verdicts

In military commissions, some guilty verdicts require only 2/3rd of the jury to vote to convict. In civilian courts, a guilty verdict requires a unanimous vote.

Warrants

This gets to the issue of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You need a warrant to get most evidence into a civilian court, but the same principle does not hold in a military setting. A military judge can admit evidence obtained without a warrant.

Hearsay

Hearsay occurs when someone takes the stand at trial and wants to testify to what someone else said, and then that statement is admitted to prove the truth of what was said. It is almost never allowed in civilian courts, but a military judge can allow it.

Miranda Rights

Incriminating statements made by defendants who have not been presented with a Miranda warning (i.e., “the right to remain silent”) may not be admitted in a civilian trial, but those same statements could be allowed into a military commission trial.

Terror suspects whose trials play out in a civilian court will indisputably find themselves with heightened protections and legal rights. However, regardless of whether a suspect starts out in a civilian court or a military commission it’s interesting to note that their legal appeals ultimately end up in the same place – U.S. federal court.

More than 90 Maryland homeowners with beautiful views of the Chesapeake Bay say they’re now staring at an ugly reality. The structures are perched on an eroding cliff, but the property owners can’t do anything to stop the soil from wearing away because of a rare insect.

The Puritan tiger beetle is an Endangered Species, and the majority of the known beetles live in the cliffside underneath Chesapeake Ranch Estates. Residents say it’s not just a matter of losing their homes, it’s literally a life and death situation.

In 1996, a landslide killed a 12 year old girl. Since then, some residents have awoken to find large sections of their property have literally vanished into the Bay.

Residents have been fighting for years for the right to put in reinforcing stones or other structures, but have been denied at every turn because of the beetles. Glenn Therres, a biologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), says the agency will try to help homeowners – but not at the cost of the beetles.

In an October 5, 2009, memo from the MDNR, homeowners asking for permission to reinforce the cliff area were told, “”The proposed project would clearly destroy larval habitat, and is therefore prohibited.” Homeowner John Eney says, “They show absolutely no concern for human life or private property.”

Maryland Delegate Anthony J. O’Donnell (R) has introduced legislation designed to give property owners the right to take steps in order to save their homes, but it has been unsuccessful in solving the dispute so far. Residents say they are gearing up to sue the federal government if necessary.

In the meantime, at least one road within the subdivision is no longer open. Erosion has worn away the land abutting the road to the point that residents believe they are no longer safe to drive there. A community meeting to discuss the next step is scheduled for February 20, 2010.

There’s no mistaking the impact that Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts is having on Republican efforts for the fall elections. Senator John Cornyn, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign, says having strong GOP candidates in each race is “90% of the game,” and that Brown’s victory is making his job a lot easier these days. “We’ve heard from a lot of people who previously said they were not going to run and telling us now they’re reconsidering, “ Cornyn says. The Senator says that’s in addition to “a great range” of high-quality candidates across the country. One of the most prominent examples is the Arkansas race for incumbent Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln’s seat. Congressman John Boozman (R-AR), says Brown’s upset win convinced him that now is the right time to challenge Lincoln, and he has officially entered the race. The “Scott Brown Effect” is also showing up on the House side, where former Pennsylvania Congressman, Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, has announced he will fight to win back his seat from Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy. Murphy called Brown’s win “inspiring.”

Political analyst Stu Rothenberg says many potential GOP candidates were swayed off the fence and into the fray by Brown’s Bay State victory. “Everybody believes this is looking like a very good Republican cycle,” Rothenberg said, “even a political wave.” In recent weeks, Rothenberg has offered up a very promising outlook for Republicans, putting 58 Democratic House seats into the “competitive” category – and just 14 Republican seats. As for Senate races, Rothenberg puts 4 Democrat seats in the “Lean Takeover” category – and no Republican seats. It’s an environment Rothenberg says is perfect for GOP candidate recruiting, and one he predicts will lead to even more Democratic retirements.

Democrats say they’re having no difficulty recruiting, but concede they are likely to lose numerous seats in both the House and Senate. The man who twice chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, former Congressman Martin Frost, believes his party still has the key advantage: President Barack Obama. “He’s still personally popular,” Frost says. Of course, Obama’s name won’t be on the ballot this fall, but his policies (in essence) will be. That’s made some potential Democratic contenders think twice about wading into the midterm elections. However, Frost predicts Democrats can succeed if they make sure their candidates have the assurance of being well-financed and if they focus on “the economy and jobs.” In the meantime, Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is in charge of recruiting GOP candidates for House races, says the party has locked in 77 “top-tier” candidates, well on the way to the party’s goal of 80.

During last night’s State of the Union address the Executive and Judicial branches crashed head on. While six of the current Supreme Court Justices sat just feet away from President Obama, he called them out publicly. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. While many in the House Chamber cheered and stood to their feet, Justice Samuel Alito was clearly seen shaking his head and appeared to mouth the words, “not true.”

Last week’s landmark decision which lifted restrictions on corporate and union money flowing into elections was a 5-4 split, with plenty of strong words on both sides. It unquestionably changed campaign finance law, but it left untouched the provisions of U.S. law that currently ban “foreign nationals” from pouring money into our elections. The statute goes on to define those prohibited from giving as partnerships, associations, corporations or other groups organized under the laws of, or having their principal place of business in, a foreign country.

David Bossie, the plaintiff behind last week’s Supreme Court ruling, says he’s surprised that someone who claims to be a Constitutional scholar could misinterpret what the Supreme Court did. Of the President, Bossie told Fox News, “Some will call it a lie, others will call it political posturing, but I think it’s a fundamental error.” Others argue there is a possible loophole that would allow U.S. subsidiaries of foreign entities to contribute. Josh Israel of the Center for Public Integrity says, “It’s not inconceivable that you could see the CITGO corporation, which is an American operation but happens to be owned by the government of Venezuela, spending $25 million on [campaign] advertisements.”

Justice Alito isn’t publicly responding or commenting about last night’s speech, but it clearly served as the President’s warning shot that he supports legislation that will answer last week’s Supreme Court ruling. It’s something Democrats on Capitol Hill have been calling for, and they now have a very public ally moving forward.

As the star quarterback at the University of Florida, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow is used to being in the spotlight, but now he’s square in the middle of a growing controversy. His decision to participate in a pro-life Super Bowl commercial sponsored by Focus on the Family has angered pro-choice groups calling for CBS to yank the 30-second spot. It’s an ad no one has seen yet, so Focus on the Family president Jim Daly is a bit surprised at the backlash it’s generated. “You know,” Daly told Fox News today, “our message is all about family, and I’m excited that CBS agreed to do it.” Daly describes the ad, which reportedly outlines Pam Tebow’s decision not to get a recommended abortion while pregnant with Tim, as “uplifting.”

But a coalition of pro-choice groups has teamed up to demand that CBS pull the ad. They are angry about not only the ad, but also the group behind it. The National Organization for Women calls Focus on the Family “anti-woman.” The Women’s Media Center says it is also “anti-equality” and “homophobic.” Kierra Johnson, Executive Director of Choice USA says, “They’re known to spew hate.” As for placement of a pro-life ad on one of the most watched television events of the year Johnson adds, “This un-American hate doesn’t have a place in this all-American pastime.”

CBS is standing by its decision to air the spot. In a statement, the network said, “At CBS, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads — on all sides of an issue — are appropriate for air.” The network says it will continue to consider “responsibly produced” ads for all of the remaining time slots for this year’s big game. They come with a hefty price tag, estimated to run between $2.5 and 3 million.