KERRY LIES: According to the Annenberg Political Fact Check service at the University of Pennsylvania, a Kerry-Edwards ad attacking Vice President Cheney over Halliburton is false. "Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed," says FactCheck.org. Says the Kerry ad, "As Vice President, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no-bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200-billion bill for Iraq." FactCheck.org replies: "The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt. The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton 'as Vice President,' which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive." The group noted that paying executives long after they leave their jobs is common. "The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years," it said.
ANOTHER THING: FactCheck.org also reports that another Kerry ad is technically true-unlike the ad on Cheney-but gives a false impression. The other Kerry ad "says 'the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden.' True. But it's a smaller burden all around. And the richest still pay the most." It's true that the second 20% of income earners are paying two-tenths of one per cent more of America's federal tax burden, but the bottom 40% pay less (as do the top 20%). But all income groups are paying less of their income in taxes since Bush's tax cuts, says FactCheck.org.
HOUSE DEFEATS MARRIAGE: In a historic vote, the U.S. House failed to pass by the required two-thirds the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would write into the U.S. Constitution the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The vote came after supporters earlier this year obtained only 48 votes in the 100-member Senate to being the amendment to the floor. To become part of the Constitution, the amendment must garner two-thirds of both houses and then ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. The amendment became necessary after tyrannical judges began imposing same-sex "marriage" on America, beginning in Massachusetts. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) said that he expected the effort to protect marriage to take time and vowed to continue fighting. The September 30 vote was 227 to 186 in favor.
MARRIAGE IS POPULAR: As efforts to preserve marriage continue to burgeon around the country, a Kentucky initiative is drawing support across the board. The ballot initiative that will appear November 2 asks, "Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?" Reported the Cincinnati Enquirer on October 10, "[D]espite the region's heavy GOP leanings, support for the amendment cuts across party lines. 'I wish we, as Republicans, could take all the credit here on this issue,' said Lakeside Park resident Brian Richmond, who advises GOP candidates. 'But there will be a whole lot of Democrats and independents that vote with us because of a basic moral belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.'"
ANOTHER ADF WIN: The City of Tucson, Ariz., must pay the organizers of the National Day of Prayer $255,913 in attorney's fees for discrimination against people of faith, ruled a federal judge this month. "The city charged the organizers for the use of city facilities that non-religious groups had access to for free," reported the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull, lawyer for the plaintiffs in Gentala v. City of Tucson, "It's only proper that Tucson pay our clients' attorneys' fees for fending off the city's violation of their 1st Amendment rights." The lawsuit, first filed in 1997, ended in victory in November of last year, and now the plaintiffs have succeeded in obtaining attorney's fees as well.
