The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. It seems a no-brainer that South Carolina, by offering a license plate with a cross and the phrase "I Believe," is favoring Christianity. The State doesn't offer license plates with the religious symbols that represent other faiths, or a plate that says "I Don't Believe."

"The license plate was approved unanimously by the state’s Legislature earlier this year" because after all, what South Carolina legislator wants to vote against Jesus? South Carolina deserves the lawsuit (pdf) that Americans United for Separation of Church and State brought "on behalf of three Christian clergy members, a rabbi and a Hindu group from the state, arguing that the license plates violated the Constitution."

Approval of the plate “was a clear signal that Christianity is the preferred religion of South Carolina,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the group’s executive director and a United Church of Christ minister, “and obviously we don’t believe the Constitution allows this.”

Obviously.

The FISA debate (better known as Steny's Surrender) begins now. The rule is for a 1 hour debate and one motion to recommit. This is an outrageous rule.

The debate begins now on C-Span. Mike Arcuri (D-NY) will manage the surrender. I will live blog it below.

Hillary also suggested that she would soon be making public statements about the media coverage of the campaign, as well as the ways "women were discussed," saying that she would "be doing more on that as we go forward." . . . Hillary . . . suggested that she'd be making public statements soon about the media's treatment of her candidacy.

Speaking of the campaign, Hillary noted that "there were a lot of other aspects to it that people are asking about. A lot of real concerns about some of the ways we were portrayed in the media and the way women were discussed." "I will be doing more on that as we go forward," Hillary said.

I welcome Senator Clinton's contributions to this important discussion.

Speaking for me only

The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.

-Barack Obama

That would be a great line to use in a denunciation of the Steny Surrender on FISA.

What Obama has actually said about Steny's Surrender on FISA? This - _______________. We still hear the crickets. Not surprisingly, President Bush (pdf) strongly supports Steny's Surrender. Bush on TV now praising the just passed no strings Iraq War funding bill and the Steny Surrender bill. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski label this a "humiliating defeat" for the Democrats. They are right.

The House will be debating the Steny Surrender today. C-Span will cover it.

Speaking for me only

The AP reports:

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met Wednesday with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.

What Obama's committee is looking for:

"I asked them what type of person the senator is looking for? And they said in general someone who could help him rebuild the country ... talking about change. How we reinvest in America, get people back to work and reinforce our education system and bring the jobs back," she said.

More....

As the say in show business, the show must go on. NBC has chosen Brian Williams to guest host "Meet the Press" this week.

The guest will be:

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden, who were scheduled to be interviewed by Russert on “Meet the Press” last weekend, will be Williams’ guests on Sunday. It’s unclear who will host the program on June 29.

“Right now, we’re looking at it week by week,” Capus said. “Brian is enormously talented, and it seemed like a logical place to turn for this weekend. But I haven’t been able think beyond that.”

Who do you think should now be moderating Meet the Press?

Is there such a thing as overexposure? Barack Obama ads are everywhere on the internet. They'll be coming to tv in 18 states and who knows how many radio stations.

Now, Obama is considering taking out ads on NBC for the Olympic Games.

At some point, aren't voters likely to feel the ads are intrusive? Or at least start rolling their eyes?

I'm getting angry that every time I click on a news site, his face is staring at me from the top banner ad or some other prominent space on the site.

He doesn't need to do this. We all know who he is and that he stands for hope and change and bringing a new kind of politics to Washington.

Monks on the mountainside of Tibet know Obama's name and his face and his message. Toddlers could pick him out of a photo lineup. We get it. He's the Democratic nominee for President. He wants our vote. He has my vote.

Does this ad barrage bother anyone else? The last thing I want to see during the Olympic Games is ads for Barack Obama or any politician. Please, can we just have McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi and Burger King? Is nothing sacred?

At $1 million a mile, you'd think it would take Spiderman or the Incredible Hulk to make it over Homeland Security's new border fence with Mexico. A terrorist job stealer should need the resources of the Impossible Mission Force to thwart such an expensive barrier.

Here's how "a group of ordinary Mexicans--one a grandmotherly woman, another a 10-year-old boy"--did it:

First they tossed their day packs over the 12-ft. (3.7 m) barrier of steel mesh. They had chosen to cross at a spot where the fence made a small right-angle jog, because there was a supporting post extending about halfway up the angle. This gave them a foothold, and from there, the strongest members of the group boosted the others to the top.

[more ...]

Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace:

Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. . . . [It] is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. . . . So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support. I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.

(Emphasis supplied.) What a dishonest statement. The bill "empowers" the District Court to rubber stamp the fact that the President asked the telecoms to break the law. And Pelosi is proud of this. What a disgrace.

Speaking for me only

Retired Army Maj. General Antonio Taguba, author of a report on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, has accused the Bush administration of war crimes.

Writing the forward to a Physicians for Human Rights study of 11 former detainees who were apparently tortured by US military personnel and later released, Army Maj. General Antonio Taguba (Ret.) writes that "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Unfortunately, that question will likely be answered in the negative if it isn't ignored entirely.

Via mcjoan:

[Leahy]: I have said since the beginning of this debate that I would oppose a bill that did not provide accountability for this administration’s six years of illegal, warrantless wiretapping. This bill would dismiss ongoing cases against the telecommunications carriers that participated in that program without allowing a judicial review of the legality of the program.

[Feingold]: The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

Obama: crickets . . .

Now that a couple of ex-sex offenders have won the lottery -- not a very newsworthy event, despite this coverage -- expect "outraged" legislators to pursue laws prohibiting ex-sex offenders from buying lottery tickets.