WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) — Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., Wednesday introduced legislation in the House to impose a ban on all types of human cloning in the United States, while Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback said he plans to introduce similar legislation in the Senate soon. Although the House approved a total cloning ban last year, the Senate failed to follow suit and so the legislative process must be restarted during the new session of Congress. The announcement concerns the biomedical community, which fears a backlash over the claim last month by the Raelian sect that they had cloned two babies. The effort to ban all cloning stalled in Congress last year because some senators supported allowing therapeutic cloning, which uses the procedure to produce cells that could lead to treatments for disease. “It would be tragic if this bill passes,” said Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., which is developing therapeutic cloning technology as a medical treatment. “If Congress overreacts and passes this bill, it could be a death sentence for many patients,” Lanza told United Press International. “There are over 3,000 Americans who die every die from diseases that could be treated in the future with these new technologies. The medical and scientific community is unanimous in banning reproductive cloning but at the same time the medical and scientific community is also unanimous in its support of therapeutic cloning,” Lanza said. Brownback applauded Weldon’s bill, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. “There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans — whether for reproductive purposes or for destructive research purposes,” Brownback, who introduced a similar bill into the Senate last year, said in a written statement. Brownback’s bill, which could be introduced before the end of the month, probably would impose criminal penalties of up to 10 years prison time and at least $1 million in fines for anyone who creates a human clone, an aide to Brownback told UPI. The aide said the Raelians did not factor in Brownback’s decision to introduce the bill. “Brownback would’ve been pushing this legislation aggressively whether it had been for the Raelians or not,” the aide said. “The Raelians just made people more aware of the need to ban cloning.” “Scientists are extremely concerned about the backlash” to the Raelians’ claim, Lanza said. “The sad thing is that in the end there’s no evidence. No baby, no DNA tests and there shouldn’t have been a story,” he said, referring to the fact the Raelians have not yet offered any proof the babies are legitimate clones. A U.S. ban on cloning will do little to stop people in other countries from using the technology, Lanza added. “This research is going to proceed overseas in other countries regardless of what we do here in the U.S.,” he said. “In all likelihood these groups are going to operate overseas anyway.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Is there some secret FBI training facility where they teach agents how to lurk on the Internet, impersonating 13-year-old girls?

Hardly a day goes by that you don’t read about some 46-year-old insurance adjuster (they’re always in their 40s, and they’re always from the suburbs) getting busted for arranging a meeting with Tiffany the free-spirited eighth-grader, who turns out to be, alas, Walter the hatchet-faced special agent.

When did this become a full-time al Qaida-level sting operation? There must be a boiler room somewhere in Virginia with dozens of agents all logging on to the “Lolitas 4 U” Web site and getting in touch with their Inner Barbie. (Question: why do they never impersonate adolescent BOYS?)

Here’s what’s strange to me about the arrests, though. They’re almost always guys with no previous criminal record. I mean, it would be one thing if the agents were getting propositioned by hard-core child molesters with felony rap sheets. Instead, it’s usually some lonely guy who surfed in and thought he got lucky with a jailbait high school girl who turns out to be jail without the bait.

The official federal charge is “using the Internet to entice sex from a minor.” (Yes, that’s a crime all by itself. It’s a modern version of the old “crossing state lines for immoral purposes.” The difference in this case is that the guy is crossing imaginary lines with the equivalent of a blow-up party doll.)

But you have to ask yourself, after looking at the quality of these busts, whether the FBI might not be creating its own sex market here. I mean, I’m sure there’s ONE 13-year-old girl, somewhere, who’s trolling the net, searching for the 46-year-old married insurance adjuster of her dreams. Hopefully we’ll get her to therapy soon. But these guys who have this particular little-girl fetish must think they’ve stumbled into a paradise of sexual options normally not found outside Patpong Road in Bangkok.

“What! Seven oversexed teenage girls right here in my own neighborhood! How high school has changed!” Meanwhile, all seven are FBI agents.

So the guy chats for a while. Yeah, he loves Britney Spears. Yeah, he wants to hear all about how her social studies teacher is such a doofus. And then I would assume that the FBI agents are trained to throw in a few titillating enticements that fall just this side of entrapment. Stephanie talks about the sleepover pajama party with her girlfriends. Heather drops a line about how hot she thinks Tom Cruise is, because she likes older men. One foolproof technique is for Courtney to mention that she made the cheerleading squad. This could possibly avoid the sticky question of whether to send an e-mail photo or not — although they DO fake up photos.

In one recent case, the girl sounded too good to be true, so the potential felon-on-the-hook wrote, “Are you a police officer or do you work for any law enforcement agency?”

The FBI agent, Emily Vacher, flat out lied and said she wasn’t. (This would seem like a place where we ARE verging into entrapment.) Then the agent wrote: “they don’t let 9th graders in the CIA!!!!!”

The guy eventually got busted, of course. Married, two children, government job, life ruined. All because the agent knew how to use those pubescent exclamation points.

The other strange thing about all these busts is that the guys almost never go to trial. They all plead guilty. Since they say they’re guilty, I have to assume that they ARE guilty, but it raises the question of whether they plea out just to avoid having all their stupid late-night e-mail messages published in the newspaper, or having to register with the “Megan’s Law” authorities the rest of their lives.

After all, it would take quite a bit of evidence to PROVE that someone intended to have sex with an imaginary girl. He would probably have to send a message saying, “I think you really are 14 years old and I want sex with you anyway.” I would be surprised if any of them were that forward, even if they had it on their minds. And then you get into the question of how the idea got into their minds in the first place. Was it placed there by the girl — who is, of course, NOT a girl?

Look at it this way. In simpler times, the only guys arrested for POTENTIAL molestation were the ones who drove up to the schoolyard, opened the door of their car, and asked the little kids if they wanted candy. If the kid got in the car, they would usually be tried on kidnapping charges, not sex charges. In other words, they had to do some action that was, in and of itself, a crime against the child.

So the real-life equivalent to these Internet stings would be having an FBI agent who could pass for 13 years old — and then arresting the guy as soon as he said, “Would you like some candy?” The problem is, this is not a crime. As far as I know, it’s not a crime simply to MEET with a 13-year-old, or to offer candy to a 13-year-old, or to plan a meeting with a 13-year-old, so the real life version wouldn’t hold up in court.

The question in these Internet cases is: What is the actual criminal act? He’s talking to a cyber-fantasy person designed to catch him in the first place, and his imagination could be going in all kinds of directions, but we don’t really know what his intentions are unless he specifically says, “I want to take you to a motel room and have sex with you.” And even if he says that, there’s NO VICTIM. It’s a system set up to catch guys with way too much time on their hands. If you think about a bank robbery but never actually carry it out, should the full force of the law come down on you?

One reason they probably never go to trial is that they figure that, even if they didn’t cross the line into soliciting sex with a minor — or, in this case, an imaginary minor — the jury is going to be loaded up with alarmed parents who will think, “Well, he must have been up to SOMETHING.” It would be tough to get up on the stand and say, “Well, I was researching a book on cheerleaders.” Even if he was honest and said, “Well, I kind of got carried away by my fantasies — it was one of those Internet deals,” it’s unlikely that a middle-class jury would sympathize with THOSE particular fantasies.

In other words, he is going to be convicted because they’ll know he was thinking about it. But that’s the part that troubles me. Thinking about it is not doing it. Meeting with a girl is not going through with it. Even in prostitution stings, where you have a real live person involved, you have to do or say something indicating that you’re about to commit a criminal act IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. And those guys generally get sent to hookers-are-bad re-education classes, even when they’re guilty. These Internet guys, on the other hand, never recover.

They’re literally jailed for their thoughts. I believe there’s a word for that: Orwellian. They teach it in the eighth grade.

”’Joe Bob Briggs writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at”’ https://www.joebobbriggs.com ”’Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas, 75221.”’

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Is there some secret FBI training facility where they teach agents how to lurk on the Internet, impersonating 13-year-old girls?

Hardly a day goes by that you don’t read about some 46-year-old insurance adjuster (they’re always in their 40s, and they’re always from the suburbs) getting busted for arranging a meeting with Tiffany the free-spirited eighth-grader, who turns out to be, alas, Walter the hatchet-faced special agent.

When did this become a full-time al Qaida-level sting operation? There must be a boiler room somewhere in Virginia with dozens of agents all logging on to the “Lolitas 4 U” Web site and getting in touch with their Inner Barbie. (Question: why do they never impersonate adolescent BOYS?)

Here’s what’s strange to me about the arrests, though. They’re almost always guys with no previous criminal record. I mean, it would be one thing if the agents were getting propositioned by hard-core child molesters with felony rap sheets. Instead, it’s usually some lonely guy who surfed in and thought he got lucky with a jailbait high school girl who turns out to be jail without the bait.

The official federal charge is “using the Internet to entice sex from a minor.” (Yes, that’s a crime all by itself. It’s a modern version of the old “crossing state lines for immoral purposes.” The difference in this case is that the guy is crossing imaginary lines with the equivalent of a blow-up party doll.)

But you have to ask yourself, after looking at the quality of these busts, whether the FBI might not be creating its own sex market here. I mean, I’m sure there’s ONE 13-year-old girl, somewhere, who’s trolling the net, searching for the 46-year-old married insurance adjuster of her dreams. Hopefully we’ll get her to therapy soon. But these guys who have this particular little-girl fetish must think they’ve stumbled into a paradise of sexual options normally not found outside Patpong Road in Bangkok.

“What! Seven oversexed teenage girls right here in my own neighborhood! How high school has changed!” Meanwhile, all seven are FBI agents.

So the guy chats for a while. Yeah, he loves Britney Spears. Yeah, he wants to hear all about how her social studies teacher is such a doofus. And then I would assume that the FBI agents are trained to throw in a few titillating enticements that fall just this side of entrapment. Stephanie talks about the sleepover pajama party with her girlfriends. Heather drops a line about how hot she thinks Tom Cruise is, because she likes older men. One foolproof technique is for Courtney to mention that she made the cheerleading squad. This could possibly avoid the sticky question of whether to send an e-mail photo or not — although they DO fake up photos.

In one recent case, the girl sounded too good to be true, so the potential felon-on-the-hook wrote, “Are you a police officer or do you work for any law enforcement agency?”

The FBI agent, Emily Vacher, flat out lied and said she wasn’t. (This would seem like a place where we ARE verging into entrapment.) Then the agent wrote: “they don’t let 9th graders in the CIA!!!!!”

The guy eventually got busted, of course. Married, two children, government job, life ruined. All because the agent knew how to use those pubescent exclamation points.

The other strange thing about all these busts is that the guys almost never go to trial. They all plead guilty. Since they say they’re guilty, I have to assume that they ARE guilty, but it raises the question of whether they plea out just to avoid having all their stupid late-night e-mail messages published in the newspaper, or having to register with the “Megan’s Law” authorities the rest of their lives.

After all, it would take quite a bit of evidence to PROVE that someone intended to have sex with an imaginary girl. He would probably have to send a message saying, “I think you really are 14 years old and I want sex with you anyway.” I would be surprised if any of them were that forward, even if they had it on their minds. And then you get into the question of how the idea got into their minds in the first place. Was it placed there by the girl — who is, of course, NOT a girl?

Look at it this way. In simpler times, the only guys arrested for POTENTIAL molestation were the ones who drove up to the schoolyard, opened the door of their car, and asked the little kids if they wanted candy. If the kid got in the car, they would usually be tried on kidnapping charges, not sex charges. In other words, they had to do some action that was, in and of itself, a crime against the child.

So the real-life equivalent to these Internet stings would be having an FBI agent who could pass for 13 years old — and then arresting the guy as soon as he said, “Would you like some candy?” The problem is, this is not a crime. As far as I know, it’s not a crime simply to MEET with a 13-year-old, or to offer candy to a 13-year-old, or to plan a meeting with a 13-year-old, so the real life version wouldn’t hold up in court.

The question in these Internet cases is: What is the actual criminal act? He’s talking to a cyber-fantasy person designed to catch him in the first place, and his imagination could be going in all kinds of directions, but we don’t really know what his intentions are unless he specifically says, “I want to take you to a motel room and have sex with you.” And even if he says that, there’s NO VICTIM. It’s a system set up to catch guys with way too much time on their hands. If you think about a bank robbery but never actually carry it out, should the full force of the law come down on you?

One reason they probably never go to trial is that they figure that, even if they didn’t cross the line into soliciting sex with a minor — or, in this case, an imaginary minor — the jury is going to be loaded up with alarmed parents who will think, “Well, he must have been up to SOMETHING.” It would be tough to get up on the stand and say, “Well, I was researching a book on cheerleaders.” Even if he was honest and said, “Well, I kind of got carried away by my fantasies — it was one of those Internet deals,” it’s unlikely that a middle-class jury would sympathize with THOSE particular fantasies.

In other words, he is going to be convicted because they’ll know he was thinking about it. But that’s the part that troubles me. Thinking about it is not doing it. Meeting with a girl is not going through with it. Even in prostitution stings, where you have a real live person involved, you have to do or say something indicating that you’re about to commit a criminal act IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. And those guys generally get sent to hookers-are-bad re-education classes, even when they’re guilty. These Internet guys, on the other hand, never recover.

They’re literally jailed for their thoughts. I believe there’s a word for that: Orwellian. They teach it in the eighth grade.

”’Joe Bob Briggs writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at”’ https://www.joebobbriggs.com ”’Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas, 75221.”’

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Is there some secret FBI training facility where they teach agents how to lurk on the Internet, impersonating 13-year-old girls? Hardly a day goes by that you don’t read about some 46-year-old insurance adjuster (they’re always in their 40s, and they’re always from the suburbs) getting busted for arranging a meeting with Tiffany the free-spirited eighth-grader, who turns out to be, alas, Walter the hatchet-faced special agent. When did this become a full-time al Qaida-level sting operation? There must be a boiler room somewhere in Virginia with dozens of agents all logging on to the “Lolitas 4 U” Web site and getting in touch with their Inner Barbie. (Question: why do they never impersonate adolescent BOYS?) Here’s what’s strange to me about the arrests, though. They’re almost always guys with no previous criminal record. I mean, it would be one thing if the agents were getting propositioned by hard-core child molesters with felony rap sheets. Instead, it’s usually some lonely guy who surfed in and thought he got lucky with a jailbait high school girl who turns out to be jail without the bait. The official federal charge is “using the Internet to entice sex from a minor.” (Yes, that’s a crime all by itself. It’s a modern version of the old “crossing state lines for immoral purposes.” The difference in this case is that the guy is crossing imaginary lines with the equivalent of a blow-up party doll.) But you have to ask yourself, after looking at the quality of these busts, whether the FBI might not be creating its own sex market here. I mean, I’m sure there’s ONE 13-year-old girl, somewhere, who’s trolling the net, searching for the 46-year-old married insurance adjuster of her dreams. Hopefully we’ll get her to therapy soon. But these guys who have this particular little-girl fetish must think they’ve stumbled into a paradise of sexual options normally not found outside Patpong Road in Bangkok. “What! Seven oversexed teenage girls right here in my own neighborhood! How high school has changed!” Meanwhile, all seven are FBI agents. So the guy chats for a while. Yeah, he loves Britney Spears. Yeah, he wants to hear all about how her social studies teacher is such a doofus. And then I would assume that the FBI agents are trained to throw in a few titillating enticements that fall just this side of entrapment. Stephanie talks about the sleepover pajama party with her girlfriends. Heather drops a line about how hot she thinks Tom Cruise is, because she likes older men. One foolproof technique is for Courtney to mention that she made the cheerleading squad. This could possibly avoid the sticky question of whether to send an e-mail photo or not — although they DO fake up photos. In one recent case, the girl sounded too good to be true, so the potential felon-on-the-hook wrote, “Are you a police officer or do you work for any law enforcement agency?” The FBI agent, Emily Vacher, flat out lied and said she wasn’t. (This would seem like a place where we ARE verging into entrapment.) Then the agent wrote: “they don’t let 9th graders in the CIA!!!!!” The guy eventually got busted, of course. Married, two children, government job, life ruined. All because the agent knew how to use those pubescent exclamation points. The other strange thing about all these busts is that the guys almost never go to trial. They all plead guilty. Since they say they’re guilty, I have to assume that they ARE guilty, but it raises the question of whether they plea out just to avoid having all their stupid late-night e-mail messages published in the newspaper, or having to register with the “Megan’s Law” authorities the rest of their lives. After all, it would take quite a bit of evidence to PROVE that someone intended to have sex with an imaginary girl. He would probably have to send a message saying, “I think you really are 14 years old and I want sex with you anyway.” I would be surprised if any of them were that forward, even if they had it on their minds. And then you get into the question of how the idea got into their minds in the first place. Was it placed there by the girl — who is, of course, NOT a girl? Look at it this way. In simpler times, the only guys arrested for POTENTIAL molestation were the ones who drove up to the schoolyard, opened the door of their car, and asked the little kids if they wanted candy. If the kid got in the car, they would usually be tried on kidnapping charges, not sex charges. In other words, they had to do some action that was, in and of itself, a crime against the child. So the real-life equivalent to these Internet stings would be having an FBI agent who could pass for 13 years old — and then arresting the guy as soon as he said, “Would you like some candy?” The problem is, this is not a crime. As far as I know, it’s not a crime simply to MEET with a 13-year-old, or to offer candy to a 13-year-old, or to plan a meeting with a 13-year-old, so the real life version wouldn’t hold up in court. The question in these Internet cases is: What is the actual criminal act? He’s talking to a cyber-fantasy person designed to catch him in the first place, and his imagination could be going in all kinds of directions, but we don’t really know what his intentions are unless he specifically says, “I want to take you to a motel room and have sex with you.” And even if he says that, there’s NO VICTIM. It’s a system set up to catch guys with way too much time on their hands. If you think about a bank robbery but never actually carry it out, should the full force of the law come down on you? One reason they probably never go to trial is that they figure that, even if they didn’t cross the line into soliciting sex with a minor — or, in this case, an imaginary minor — the jury is going to be loaded up with alarmed parents who will think, “Well, he must have been up to SOMETHING.” It would be tough to get up on the stand and say, “Well, I was researching a book on cheerleaders.” Even if he was honest and said, “Well, I kind of got carried away by my fantasies — it was one of those Internet deals,” it’s unlikely that a middle-class jury would sympathize with THOSE particular fantasies. In other words, he is going to be convicted because they’ll know he was thinking about it. But that’s the part that troubles me. Thinking about it is not doing it. Meeting with a girl is not going through with it. Even in prostitution stings, where you have a real live person involved, you have to do or say something indicating that you’re about to commit a criminal act IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. And those guys generally get sent to hookers-are-bad re-education classes, even when they’re guilty. These Internet guys, on the other hand, never recover. They’re literally jailed for their thoughts. I believe there’s a word for that: Orwellian. They teach it in the eighth grade. ”Joe Bob Briggs writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at” https://www.joebobbriggs.com ”Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas, 75221.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Is there some secret FBI training facility where they teach agents how to lurk on the Internet, impersonating 13-year-old girls? Hardly a day goes by that you don’t read about some 46-year-old insurance adjuster (they’re always in their 40s, and they’re always from the suburbs) getting busted for arranging a meeting with Tiffany the free-spirited eighth-grader, who turns out to be, alas, Walter the hatchet-faced special agent. When did this become a full-time al Qaida-level sting operation? There must be a boiler room somewhere in Virginia with dozens of agents all logging on to the “Lolitas 4 U” Web site and getting in touch with their Inner Barbie. (Question: why do they never impersonate adolescent BOYS?) Here’s what’s strange to me about the arrests, though. They’re almost always guys with no previous criminal record. I mean, it would be one thing if the agents were getting propositioned by hard-core child molesters with felony rap sheets. Instead, it’s usually some lonely guy who surfed in and thought he got lucky with a jailbait high school girl who turns out to be jail without the bait. The official federal charge is “using the Internet to entice sex from a minor.” (Yes, that’s a crime all by itself. It’s a modern version of the old “crossing state lines for immoral purposes.” The difference in this case is that the guy is crossing imaginary lines with the equivalent of a blow-up party doll.) But you have to ask yourself, after looking at the quality of these busts, whether the FBI might not be creating its own sex market here. I mean, I’m sure there’s ONE 13-year-old girl, somewhere, who’s trolling the net, searching for the 46-year-old married insurance adjuster of her dreams. Hopefully we’ll get her to therapy soon. But these guys who have this particular little-girl fetish must think they’ve stumbled into a paradise of sexual options normally not found outside Patpong Road in Bangkok. “What! Seven oversexed teenage girls right here in my own neighborhood! How high school has changed!” Meanwhile, all seven are FBI agents. So the guy chats for a while. Yeah, he loves Britney Spears. Yeah, he wants to hear all about how her social studies teacher is such a doofus. And then I would assume that the FBI agents are trained to throw in a few titillating enticements that fall just this side of entrapment. Stephanie talks about the sleepover pajama party with her girlfriends. Heather drops a line about how hot she thinks Tom Cruise is, because she likes older men. One foolproof technique is for Courtney to mention that she made the cheerleading squad. This could possibly avoid the sticky question of whether to send an e-mail photo or not — although they DO fake up photos. In one recent case, the girl sounded too good to be true, so the potential felon-on-the-hook wrote, “Are you a police officer or do you work for any law enforcement agency?” The FBI agent, Emily Vacher, flat out lied and said she wasn’t. (This would seem like a place where we ARE verging into entrapment.) Then the agent wrote: “they don’t let 9th graders in the CIA!!!!!” The guy eventually got busted, of course. Married, two children, government job, life ruined. All because the agent knew how to use those pubescent exclamation points. The other strange thing about all these busts is that the guys almost never go to trial. They all plead guilty. Since they say they’re guilty, I have to assume that they ARE guilty, but it raises the question of whether they plea out just to avoid having all their stupid late-night e-mail messages published in the newspaper, or having to register with the “Megan’s Law” authorities the rest of their lives. After all, it would take quite a bit of evidence to PROVE that someone intended to have sex with an imaginary girl. He would probably have to send a message saying, “I think you really are 14 years old and I want sex with you anyway.” I would be surprised if any of them were that forward, even if they had it on their minds. And then you get into the question of how the idea got into their minds in the first place. Was it placed there by the girl — who is, of course, NOT a girl? Look at it this way. In simpler times, the only guys arrested for POTENTIAL molestation were the ones who drove up to the schoolyard, opened the door of their car, and asked the little kids if they wanted candy. If the kid got in the car, they would usually be tried on kidnapping charges, not sex charges. In other words, they had to do some action that was, in and of itself, a crime against the child. So the real-life equivalent to these Internet stings would be having an FBI agent who could pass for 13 years old — and then arresting the guy as soon as he said, “Would you like some candy?” The problem is, this is not a crime. As far as I know, it’s not a crime simply to MEET with a 13-year-old, or to offer candy to a 13-year-old, or to plan a meeting with a 13-year-old, so the real life version wouldn’t hold up in court. The question in these Internet cases is: What is the actual criminal act? He’s talking to a cyber-fantasy person designed to catch him in the first place, and his imagination could be going in all kinds of directions, but we don’t really know what his intentions are unless he specifically says, “I want to take you to a motel room and have sex with you.” And even if he says that, there’s NO VICTIM. It’s a system set up to catch guys with way too much time on their hands. If you think about a bank robbery but never actually carry it out, should the full force of the law come down on you? One reason they probably never go to trial is that they figure that, even if they didn’t cross the line into soliciting sex with a minor — or, in this case, an imaginary minor — the jury is going to be loaded up with alarmed parents who will think, “Well, he must have been up to SOMETHING.” It would be tough to get up on the stand and say, “Well, I was researching a book on cheerleaders.” Even if he was honest and said, “Well, I kind of got carried away by my fantasies — it was one of those Internet deals,” it’s unlikely that a middle-class jury would sympathize with THOSE particular fantasies. In other words, he is going to be convicted because they’ll know he was thinking about it. But that’s the part that troubles me. Thinking about it is not doing it. Meeting with a girl is not going through with it. Even in prostitution stings, where you have a real live person involved, you have to do or say something indicating that you’re about to commit a criminal act IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. And those guys generally get sent to hookers-are-bad re-education classes, even when they’re guilty. These Internet guys, on the other hand, never recover. They’re literally jailed for their thoughts. I believe there’s a word for that: Orwellian. They teach it in the eighth grade. ”Joe Bob Briggs writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at” https://www.joebobbriggs.com ”Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas, 75221.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

The IRS Tax Code (26 USC) is used to micromanage the economy it uses a small tax base and burdens the middle class with the lions share of taxes. There is a proposal that will broaden the tax base to the maximum thereby allowing for a minimum tax rate. The average tax payer must work over four months to meet their tax obligation to the federal, state and local tax collectors. This proposal uses the concept of the Tobin Tax but expands it to include all transactions having a monetary value. It would raise revenues from those who have not been paying a fair share or no taxes at all such as Enron, WorldCom and a host of others who have sales and cash flows in the billions and use the legal loopholes in the Tax Code to escape any obligation. This concept will derive revenues from the top echelon and would raise enough revenues to eliminate all other tax systems with a Single Tax. This is the proposal on the URL https://www.taxmoney-notpeople.com ”Paul R. Bottis Sr. is a resident of Worcester, MA and can be reached via email at:” mailto:pbottissr@aol.com

“Malia headshot Image”

”Duel Begins Opening Day of the Legislative Session Over Whether to Build a Light Rail or Rapid Transit System”

While Sen. President Robert Bunda, D-North Shore, says it is time to dust off proposals for mass transit and light rail in Hawaii, Sen. Minority Leader Fred Hemmings, R-Kailua, says there is no reason to spend $1 billion on the city’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit System. Both received applause after making their statements during the Opening of the 22nd State Legislative Session.

See the full text of their speeches at:
*Sen. President Robert Bunda at “Remarks by the Senate President”
*Sen. Minority Leader Fred Hemmings at “Remarks by Senate Minority Leader”

It is becoming clear the issue of whether to build a rapid transit or light rail system in Hawaii will be a major focus this year in both the Honolulu City Council and the state Legislature. The project now proposed by the city will cost $1 billion to start and be subsidized for hundreds of millions of dollars annually there after for operations and maintenance. It will also demand lanes on already busy city and state streets be closed to allow the light rail to move freely throughout the city, while cars, trucks and city buses will use the remaining lane in each direction.

“Cal Kawamoto Image”

To fund the billion dollar plus proposal, Sen. Cal Kawamoto, D-Waipahu, yesterday proposed a 2 cent per gallon increase on Hawaii’s gasoline taxes, which are already the highest in the nation at 56 cents per gallon. Ironically, Kawamoto signed a pledge with the Americans for Tax Reform that says he will not introduce, support or vote for a tax increase. See: https://www.atr.org/pdffiles/state_wide_signers2003.pdf

Supporters of rapid transit or light rail, which include many of Hawaii Democrat leaders, say the state needs to invest in such a system to alleviate traffic. What they don’t say is what the issue of building a rapid or light rail system is all about

“Malia headshot Image”

”Duel Begins Opening Day of the Legislative Session Over Whether to Build a Light Rail or Rapid Transit System”

While Sen. President Robert Bunda, D-North Shore, says it is time to dust off proposals for mass transit and light rail in Hawaii, Sen. Minority Leader Fred Hemmings, R-Kailua, says there is no reason to spend $1 billion on the city’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit System. Both received applause after making their statements during the Opening of the 22nd State Legislative Session.

See the full text of their speeches at:
*Sen. President Robert Bunda at “Remarks by the Senate President”
*Sen. Minority Leader Fred Hemmings at “Remarks by Senate Minority Leader”

It is becoming clear the issue of whether to build a rapid transit or light rail system in Hawaii will be a major focus this year in both the Honolulu City Council and the state Legislature. The project now proposed by the city will cost $1 billion to start and be subsidized for hundreds of millions of dollars annually there after for operations and maintenance. It will also demand lanes on already busy city and state streets be closed to allow the light rail to move freely throughout the city, while cars, trucks and city buses will use the remaining lane in each direction.

“Cal Kawamoto Image”

To fund the billion dollar plus proposal, Sen. Cal Kawamoto, D-Waipahu, yesterday proposed a 2 cent per gallon increase on Hawaii’s gasoline taxes, which are already the highest in the nation at 56 cents per gallon. Ironically, Kawamoto signed a pledge with the Americans for Tax Reform that says he will not introduce, support or vote for a tax increase. See: https://www.atr.org/pdffiles/state_wide_signers2003.pdf

Supporters of rapid transit or light rail, which include many of Hawaii Democrat leaders, say the state needs to invest in such a system to alleviate traffic. What they don’t say is what the issue of building a rapid or light rail system is all about

Here is a list of Gov. Linda Lingle’s new cabinet, their departments and how to contact them.

*”(DAGS) Department of Accounting and General Services”, (808) 586-0400, Comptroller Russ Saito, Deputy Comptroller Katherine Thomason

*”(DOA) Board of Agriculture”, (808) 973-9551, Chair Sandra Lee Kunimoto

*”(AG) Department of Attorney General”, (808) 586-1282, Attorney General Mark Bennett, First Deputy Attorney General Richard Bissen

*”(B&F) Budget and Finance”, (808) 586-1518, Director Georgina Kawamura, Acting Deputy Director Stanley Shiraki

*”(DBEDT) Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism,” (808) 586-2355, Director Ted Liu

*”(DCCA) Dept. of Commerce and Consumer Affairs,” (808)586-2850, Director Mark Recktenwald

*”(DOD) Department of Defense,” (808) 733-4246, Adjutant General Robert Lee, Deputy Adjutant General Gary Ishikawa

*”(DHHL) Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands,” (808) 586-3800; Chair Micah Kane

*”(DOH) Dept. of Health,” (808) 586-4410, Director Chiyome Fukino M.D., Deputy Director Jane Kadohiro, P.H., A.P.R.N., C.D.E.

*”(DHRD) Dept. of Human Resources Development,” (808) 587-1100, Director Kathleen Watanabe

*”(DHS) Dept. of Human Services,” (808) 586-4997, Director Lillian B. Koller

*”(DLIR) Dept. of Labor & Industrial Relations,” (808) 586-8844, Chair Nelson Befitel

*”(DLNR) Dept. of Land & Natural Resources” (808) 587-0400, Chair Peter Young

*”(DPS) Dept. of Public Safety,” (808) 587-1288, Interim Director James Propotnick

*”(DOTAX) Dept. of Taxation,” (808) 587-1510, Deputy Director Kurt Kawafuchi

*”(DOT) Dept. of Transportation,” (808) 587-2150, Director Rod Haraga

*”State