39E. ROBERTS AIDED SODOMITES

He's already said he'll uphold Roe vs. Wade as "the settled law of the land", and permit the slaughter of infants to continue. He's already shown he doesn't know America is a Republic. He's already shown that he endorsed dictatorial powers for the president. He's already taken the liberal side on welfare, the environment, private property, affirmative action, and prisoner's rights (howbeit he's also contradicted himself and taken the other side of some of those issues), the only thing left for him to take the liberal side on is sodomite rights.

Guess what? Yep, you got it on the first try! Not only did he defend the queers, he did it for FREE! And, the three conservative justices whom Roberts is most often compared to, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, all voted the other way. This again indicates that Roberts will vote with the frauds and liberals, like Souter.

Worst of all, that ruling forces PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS to be forced to rent their homes to queers and have queers work for them.

Who in the world could possibly mistake this guy for a "strict constitutionalist" or a "staunch conservative"? Are worshippers of Son Young Bush really that brainwashed?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/04/roberts_helped_gay_rights_activists_win_landmark_ruling/

Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling

Court nominee had background role in decision

By Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times August 4, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. The coalition won its case, 6 to 3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory.

The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts's role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.

The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them. Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday. (TG: Oops! He forgot!)

But Smith said yesterday that was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she came to Washington to prepare for the Supreme Court presentation and immediately was referred to Roberts. "Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to,"

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Activists across the country cheered the victory. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff attorney for Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians based in New York, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay-rights movement."

Thanks to MBD for finding this item.

39D. QUESTIONNAIRE ESPOSING ROBERTS AS WOLF

One of the most common excuses I've heard for people who want to close their eyes and pretend Judge John Roberts might be truly conservative is, "Well, we really won't know for sure his positions until he starts answering their questions and ruling on things. He may have said a few pro-choice type comments to appease the liberals, but when he's questioned and appointed, then we'll see where he stands NOW."

It's almost like they are hoping he lied to fool the liberals, but (wink, wink), he's really on our side - we hope.

NOPE. The first round of questioning came in, in the form of a 67 page questionnaire, and Roberts reiterated EXACTLY what I claimed in the first place. He is NOT a conservative at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the clothing fits so badly I can't believe how intelligent people can't see the wolf underneath unless they were willingly ignorant.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4801511/detail.html

Roberts Says He'll Respect Settled Law

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is pledging to respect settled law if confirmed. Roberts said precedent is important in "promoting the stability of the legal system." The comments were part of a questionnaire Roberts filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee released about 100 pages of his responses on Tuesday.

He even used the SAME TERM he used when he said earlier that Roe vs. Wade was the "SETTLED law of the land". Does he have to actually kill the babies himself before the Bush-bots will believe he's not conservative?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts-wealth_x.htm

In the questionnaire, Roberts wrote, "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges."

IOW, he admittedly does support ruling from the bench and is not a "strict constitutionalist". No matter how many times Bush and his robots parrot the line that Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist", they are lying.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts_x.htm

"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," Roberts stated.

Well, many of those decisions Roberts insists he'll respect as "settled law" were rendered to solve a supposed societal problem - Roe vs. Wade being the prominent example!

If both our "conservative Republican Christian" President, and his first Supreme Court judicial nominee say that they will do nothing to even attempt to quell abortion ("America is not ready", "It's not my job", or whatever excuse), who will? They are the LEADERS. If they won't turn the country toward righteousness, why should a Christian support them? What difference does it make if we have a "conservative Republican Christian" who does nothing to stop abortion, or a liberal Democrat feminist (Hillary?) who won't stop abortion (but at least agrees it's a tragic thing)?

42. LIBERAL ECO-WACKOS LAUD BUSH.

We already know that the historical temperature readings do NOT show global warming in the long run, and temperature changes are normal in the short run. No matter how many times the liberals make the same wild, irresponsible, unscientific claims, they are refuted by the same facts. There was more warming in the first 50 years of the 20th century than in the last 50, where fluorocarbons were in use. See http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_141.shtml and http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_464.shtml

Moreover, ozone holes simply mean there are no dangerous UV rays in the area. The *oxygen* breaks down the UV rays and the oxygen creates ozone in that process. That's why the alleged holes occur over the poles, which don't get much direct sunlight. More yet, an increase in CO2 (the "greenhouse effect") would be a good thing long before it was detrimental.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration admits that the Kyoto agenda would cost the U.S. $400 billion a year to possibly lower the temperature 0.07 degrees C, spread over the next 50 years (then the earth will probably spew a volcano to correct the fluctuation)! Yet, we're implementing much of it anyway.

The environmental panic scenarios (it was global cooling and a new ice age scare in the 1970's) are simply methods to frighten and control people. Yet the GOP is bragging on President Bush for taking the liberal position!

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/0803_global_warming.shtml

Group Applauds Bush, G8 on 'Global Warming'

By Monisha Bansal CNSNews.com Correspondent August 3, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- He may be disdainful of the Kyoto global warming treaty, but President Bush is nevertheless a "force to be reckoned with" when it comes to plotting the best way to cut the production of greenhouse gases, according to conservative climate change experts assembled by a Washington, D.C. think tank on Tuesday.

Last month's meeting among the leaders of the world's industrialized democracies proved that point, said Roger Bate, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "The G8 brought climate change discussions closer to current U.S. policy than European policy," Bate noted.

"The Bush administration already acknowledged as much about global warming in the past as the G8 did here," Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, added, pointing out the similarities between the president's policy briefing book from 2002 and the language in the Glenagles Communique on Climate Change, Energy and Sustainable Development, which the G8 leaders signed at their summit in Scotland in early July.

Lewis highlighted the following text of the Communique: "We know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow, and as the science justifies, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases." The text, he said, is almost identical to that of Bush's "Global Climate Change Policy Book," from February 2002.

8C. BUSH NAMES ANOTHER PRO-ABORT

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/014074.html

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=217&AMVIEWUSER=a3b2ba5f7638a6d5df2d16359f7238fe

Bush's New Education Secretary is Pro-Abortion, Not Worried About Decline Of Traditional American Family

The "Dallas Morning News" (9/2/01) once quoted self-described "earth-mother type of Republican" Margaret Spellings (then Margaret La Montagne) as having said: "I don't like to be in the limelight. I like to be under the radar." But, now the former Assistant To President Bush For Domestic Policy is in the limelight having been named Secretary Of Education.

So, what does Mrs. Spellings believe? Well, among other things, she's pro-abortion.

The interviewer, Joan Clayson, said she had spoken to President Bush "and he said to me it was unrealistic to change abortion policy in this country.

"The previously mentioned "Dallas Morning News" article says of Spellings and "her more liberal views" that columnist Robert Novak wrote this about her: "How much [she] is out of touch with Republican cultural values can be judged by her reaction, on C-SPAN last week, to census data showing a decline in the traditional family." About this data, she said: "So what?

"When asked about this reply by the "Dallas Morning News" reporter, she said: "I said, unfortunately, something like, 'So what?' We're here to develop policies for all American families, however they sort.

"In an interview on the "Cable News Network" (1/7/04), Spellings vigorously defended President Bush's guest-worker amnesty proposal which would allow millions of illegal aliens to stay in our country. Incredibly, she spoke of Mr. Bush's failure to enforce our immigration laws by saying that his amnesty scheme was needed because "we have to have laws and systems that reflect the reality of our country"!

Spellings was praised by Sen. Edward Kennedy who called her "a champion for public education." Spellings, also helped draft the "No Child Left Behind Act.

Another typical Bushite CON-servative RepubliCON.

39C. WHO'S FOR DICTATORSHIP?

On July 15th the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bush administration view of presidential military authority.

That view is akin to the authority Stalin or Hitler held. The Bush administration believes that the president has the right to designate ANY individual as an "enemy combatant", and that person can be detained indefinitely with no right to appeal, representation, evidence, trial, or presumption of innocence. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the decision.

The document specifies that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used, or the method, timing, or nature of the response."

A December, 2001 ruling that goes along with this states that no federal court could "properly entertain appeals from enemy aliens held in detention."

By being tagged as "enemy combatants", they are not treated as prisoners of war or criminals (those groups have more rights). The President can literally name ANYBODY (including YOU) an "enemy combatant" and that individual has NO recourse whatsoever. That is nothing short of Gestapo-KGB-dictatorial power, exceeding anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated.

As dangerous as such power is in the hands of a supposed conservative, Republican Christian, can you imagine that power in the hands of future President Hillary when she wants to eradicate "homophobes", anti-abortion zealots, those home schoolers who are in such rebellion to the gov't, or other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? In fact, Hillary's husband Bill was the one who originated this presidential war-power plan that George Bush currently enjoys enforcing.

Actually, it's not a matter of "when" some ambitious president will use this power to detain a foreigner or an American. It has already been done. Of course most of the people violated are "bad guys" like American citizen Jose Padilla. That way the public isn't so alarmed. But if they are truly such bad guys, they surely would be duly convicted in a legal trial.

But they are not all so repugnant. Canadian citizen Mahar Arar's experience proved that. He was detained under these regulations with no charges filed. He was not allowed to face his accusers not was he presented with any evidence. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured with rods and cables. He was forced to sign a bogus confession and then freed without ever being charged with anything by anybody.

Shipping these alleged "enemy combatants" to foreign countries that use heinous methods of torture is becoming common. Besides Syria, we've sent some to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan (along with sending their Karimov regime $500 billion for "security matters"), where they torture by boiling body parts, among other gruesome methods. Our President can order torture of the detainees as he (or she) sees fit, and the interrogators enjoy immunity from persecution.

Certainly no conservative could support such atrocities. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must be made up of typical liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench and force their socialist bent on America.

Oh, did I mention that one of the judges on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who endorsed these dictatorial presidential powers was JOHN ROBERTS?

(Information from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml)

41. BUSH IMITATES CLINTON

http://www.covenantnews.com/politics/

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050725/pl_nm/bush_bolton_dc_3

This tactic was decried as terribly wrong when Bill Clinton used it to temporarily force a queer (James Hormel) on us, after Congress REJECTED him. But now that Bush is doing THE EXACT SAME THING to put a supposed conservative (we long ago proved he wasn't) in the same position (ambassador fill-in), I bet most conservative Christians will suddenly think it's a wonderful tactic.

Bush may do another Clinton

May bypass Senate and appoint Bolton to UN

WASHINGTON -- The White House signaled on Monday that President Bush may bypass the Senate and appoint John Bolton, his embattled nominee for U.N. ambassador, to the post temporarily as hope faded for a Senate vote on the nomination. Congressional aides said a recess appointment could be announced as early as Friday night, immediately after the Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the month long August break. A recess appointment would allow Bolton to take up the U.N. post but he would serve only until January 2007.

40. BUSH TWISTS ARMS TO PASS CAFTA

If you liked NAFTA and the subsequent loss of jobs to Mexico, the harm to the American economy, and little resultant new markets for American producers, you'll love CAFTA.

CAFTA has been called "NAFTA on steroids". It expands our alleged free-trade area to even poorer countries who will take more of our jobs and buy less of our products.

BTW, why does it take several hundred pages of documents to make a "free trade" agreement? It's not free trade at all, it's controlled trade. American trade will be controlled by foreign bureaucrats who will not act in America's interest, and we will have no recourse when they screw America.

President Bush cajoled, convinced, and coerced just enough Representatives to pass CAFTA 217-215 (meaning if just ONE more "conservative Republican" voted it down, it would not have had the majority needed).

202 of the 231 (87%) of the *Republicans* supported CAFTA. How did it ever become the "conservative" position to vote away America's sovereignty, independence, jobs, and economy? Not only is that not conservative, that's not American or constitutional. It violates the oath every one of them took to uphold the constitution of the United States. Being that it takes wealth from American workers and ships it abroad, thereby potentially aiding and abetting our enemies, it can be construed as a treasonous action.

Here's an interesting prediction:

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-24-oppose_x.htm

Deal would favor select few

By Sherrod Brown

A prediction. If the House of Representatives passes the Central American Free Trade Agreement, it will take place in the middle of the night, the normal 15-minuteroll call will be extended to about three hours so that House leaders can twist arms, and the legislation will pass by one or two votes.

Here's the reality:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/27/national/w210903D64.DTL

It took personal visits from the president and vice president, along with strenuous arm-twisting from Republican leaders, before the House passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday by a two-vote margin, 217-215.

Sherrod Brown could put the Psychic Network out of business.

See http://www.stopcafta.com/ for more. Also see http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ for what will be "CAFTA on steroids".

28B. PATRIOT ACT MADE PERMANENT

For those of you who really thought the attack on Iraq was legit to get Saddam, get the WMDs, spread freedom, help Israel, or whatever - IT WASN'T! It was to enforce UN resolutions, make the UN the authority, take away constitutional liberties, and subvert America deeper into the New World Order.

If the "war on terror" was legitimate, and suspending American's rights for even one second had any value, certainly the Patriot Act would only be a temporary measure, to be rescinded immediately upon completion of the alleged mission. But if the war was intended to be a PERMANENT way to merge America into the UN/NWO, and control American citizens, then they'd have to make the Patriot Act permanent. Guess what?

I still can't believe intelligent, conservative, American Christians didn't see this coming from the beginning. I tried to tell everybody then, but some of you won't believe it until they affix the literal shackles. Adolph Hitler never had it so easy fooling his citizens.

Bush sang praises. The Republican speaker of the House cast a tiebreaking vote that allowed the bill to move onward past the time limit. Supposed staunch conservative Sensenbrenner 'shepherded' the bill.

Yet some dupes really think Bush would name a true conservative to the Supreme Court? If you haven't actually had a lobotomy and you believe that - you NEED a lobotomy.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_16

House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 22

WASHINGTON - The House voted to extend indefinitely the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act, while limiting to 10 years two provisions of the law that have become linchpins in the ongoing congressional debate: allowing federal agents to use roving wiretaps and to search library and medical records.

By a 257-171 margin, lawmakers who earlier Thursday had watched reports of attempted terrorist bombings in London, agreed to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year.

Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in passing the bill, which dropped 14 of 16 expiration dates on provisions initially drafted into the law shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hours earlier, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own general extension of the law, but it called for Congress to re-examine the wiretap and library provisions after another four-year time period. The full Senate likely will vote on the bill this fall, before the competing measures are reconciled in a conference committee.

President Bush cheered the House vote. "The Patriot Act is a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people, and the Congress needs to send me a bill soon that renews the act without weakening our ability to fight terror," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

Despite more than nine hours of passionate debate, the House nearly one-upped the Senate in a surprise revolt at the conclusion of its deliberations. Nine Republicans broke ranks and voted with a united Democratic bloc on a last-ditch effort to make all 16 of the Patriot Act's most sensitive provisions subject to an additional four-year "sunset" period."

It is not a Republican vote; it is not a Democrat vote," said one of the rogue Republicans, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California. Instead, he cast it as an attempt to adhere to the limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the House, shook his head in disgust — while House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., came to the floor and cast a rare vote of his own — as a designated 15-minute voting period on the Democratic proposal ended in a 205-205 tie. Late-arriving members continued to vote, eventually defeating it by a margin of 218-209.

"Good oversight is done by congressional leadership, not by sunsets," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who shepherded the bill through the chamber as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The roving wiretap provision, Section 206, allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect's phone conversations or Internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect. The records provision, Section 215, authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" such as business, library and medical records.Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.

One amendment, passed 402-26, would require the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records. Another successful amendment calls for a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment — with the possibility of the death penalty — if anyone is killed in such an attack.

Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the Sept. 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law.

"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?"

39 B. THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST ROBERTS

This Supreme Court nomination is supposed to be President Bush's best shot, the most conservative guy he has yet offered. One who will probably to allow him to nominate a liberal like Gonzales to replace Rehnquist in the future.

Well, if Judge John Roberts is the best and most conservative Bush can do, we'd be better off with JFK nominees like Byron White.

FOGGY FOGEY

At BEST, Roberts has a very ambiguous record and has opposed himself several times - not good qualities for a Supreme Court *Judge* who needs to be decisive. He has made conflicting comments on abortion. He's taken opposing cases on environmentalism. He's been inconsistent on government rights as opposed to the rights of the citizens.

ABORTION DISTORTION

On abortion, Roberts once said on behalf of a client "that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.", but he explained that was not his own personal opinion.

His other comments on abortion indicated that indeed, his personal opinion was much different:

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill."

If Hillary Clinton said something like this, Christians and conservatives would skewer her. The same groups defend and excuse Roberts.

CON CON

Conservative Christians, swooning for Bush & Roberts like teenybopper girls at a Beatles concert, insist that Roberts is a strict constitutionalist. How can that be when he doesn't even know that Roe vs. Wade is not a LAW at all - it's a court decision? The constitution is the "settled law of the land".

This also indicates that Roberts has no aversion to courts legislating from the bench, a destructively unconstitutional practice.

Moreover, in his acceptance speech, Roberts twice referred to America as a "democracy" rather than the Republic we are supposed to be. A democracy is mob rule of the people over law, where the passion of the herd can usurp other's rights. Our Republic is a representative government where we have inalienable rights that cannot be abrogated even by unanimous vote, and law rules over people.

Article Four, Section Four, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state a Republican form of government." The local town clerk should know what kind of government America has, much less a Supreme Court justice.

CONTRADICTION AND CONFUSION

Roberts also defended a case that supports the welfare state. So supportive was he, that he didn't charge for his efforts: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

Roberts thereby showed that he likely would've voted with the majority in the Kelo case, which allows localities to forcefully acquire private property to sell to other private investors, if they feel it's good for "economic development". For example, they might replace a church, which has no tax liability, with a casino, a bar, or a strip joint, that pays lots of taxes.

In the case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Roberts represented a government agency against property owners. He won 6-3, but it was the three conservative members of the Court (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) who dissented. That indicated he will be more of a 'moderate/swing vote' (read: liberal) like Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor (except that O'Connor was with the conservatives on Kelo).

They say we don't know much about Roberts (this article proves that's debatable), but the more we do learn, the worse it gets. Here is some of his testimony when confirmed as an appellate judge in Washington D.C.: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8198

{{ My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I have argued in favor of affirmative action. I’ve argued in favor of prisoners’ rights under the 8th Amendment. }}

Environmentalism? Against private property? Affirmative action? Prisoner's rights? Upholding Roe vs. Wade as "settled law of the land"? Supports the welfare state? America is a democracy rather than a Republic?

Bill Clinton could've nominated this guy and nobody would've thought he was out-of-place.

STRANGE SILENCE AND SUPPORT

Conservatives are doing all they can to hide and shield Roberts from scrutiny. Why would that be if he is a legitimate conservative? What are they afraid of?

Ken Starr is already parroting the claim that Robert's personal views should not even be questioned (NewsMax.com update).

The Bush administration is hiding Roberts' paper record, while the cooperative media is pretending like he doesn't have a paper trail - just like they did with David Souter, despite the fact that Constitution party presidnetial candidate Howard Phillips exposed to Congress that Souter had a clear pro-abortion record with two hospitals. WorldNetDaily reported on an AP release that said, "Material that would come under attorney-client privilege to be withheld" ABC News also covered it with, "Bush Administration Unwilling to Release All Documents Written by Roberts During White House Tenure" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=972422)

Roberts himself is disassociating himself from anything that appears remotely conservative. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201_pf.htmlwashingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201_pf.html)

But amidst all this hush-hush stuff from conservatives comes some interesting shows of support: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html)

{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}

(Liberal democrat Sen. Joe) Lieberman says he's encouraged following meeting with Roberts (http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-26014414.apds.m0721.bc-ct--robejul26,0,7375629.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

(Liberal democrat Sen. Dianne) Feinstein calls Roberts 'impressive' (http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2981142,00.html)

(Liberal columnist) Susan Ager: "Roberts seems nice, ordinary" (Ager lauds the possibility Roberts and his wife may have committed fornication due to marriage at 41, that they may have considered abortion in the past, and that Roberts played a female character in a play. She considered obedient children as 'henpecked' and praises Roberts' son for being unruly.) (http://www.freep.com/features/living/ager26e_20050726.htm)

Key Democrat upbeat over Roberts (http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/013445.html)

This key democrat was Richard Durbin, the same one who questioned Roberts on Roe vs. Wade. But here's the kicker:

Hillary Clinton To Support Roberts (http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/013445.html)
Do we need anything more to know we are dealing with another wolf in sheep's clothes? What else should we expect from George W. Bush?

39. BUSH NAMES ANOTHER JELLYFISH JUSTICE

Judge John Roberts is another guy who SAYS he is pro-life, but when in office will BE pro-abortion. He has liberal admirers and he's trying to keep his record hidden like Souter did. He doesn't know the difference between a "settled law of the land" and a court decision. Maybe worst of all, he doesn't even know what kind of government America has. The town clerk should know these things, much less a Supreme Court justice.

Here's the preliminary rundown on Roberts, beginning with his pro-Roe stance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5152927,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html

{{ In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." }}

{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}

What difference will it make to keep nominating guys who TALK conservative but admit they will ACT liberal?

All the national Christian conservative celebrities will worship this guy like a rock star or a professional athlete, but he will RULE liberal like rest of the Court with their 7-2 Republican majority.

Not only that, but Roe v. Wade is NOT A LAW at all, much less the "settled law of the land". Roe is a court decision, not a law. The settled law of the land is the U.S. constitution. Do we want another justice who believes in legislating from the bench? Do we want another SC justice who doesn't know the difference between a law and a court decision, a Republic or a democracy, or who doesn't know what the law of the land is?

{{ Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. }}

{{The reality, however, is that nobody really knows what Judge Roberts believes, because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views. His judicial work has been, generally speaking, careful and has given little away about the attitudes of the man who wrote it. So sphinx-like has he been that some conservatives have suggested he might have a "Souter problem" -- that is, not be a real conservative at all. ... But Judge Roberts's law practice was not ideologically driven }}

Sounds just like Souter, except we all know that the "Souter problem" was contrived. Howard Phillips addressed Congress and gave them the information that Souter was on the board of two hospitals where he oversaw their transformation from no abortion to abortion on demand. Before they confirmed him, Congress KNEW Souter was a pro-abortion liberal, they just PRETENDED they didn't, and the liberal media covered for them.

Roberts also supports the welfare state:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

In the speech that the new Supreme Court nominee gave after Bush introduced him, Roberts called America a "constitutional democracy".

A man who doesn't know what kind of government we have has no business being on the Supreme Court. America is not a democracy, America is a REPUBLIC! Our pledge of allegiance to the flag makes this clear:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ..."

And ultimately our Constitution specifies in Article 4 Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a REPUBLICAN form of government."

A democracy is pure mob rule, where everything is decided by the momentary passion of the majority (which can change with the wind or be manipulated). Our Republic allows for inalienable rights (life, religion, speech, arms, etc.) that cannot be abrogated (legally) by a majority vote, or even a unanimous vote.

A republic morphs into a democracy when the people realize they can vote themselves ever increasing largesse off the backs of those who work for a living. Of course that puts both classes under the jackboot of the gov't. The welfare class owes their living to the gov't and the working class has their earnings forcefully confiscated by the gov't. Obviously as the welfare class votes themselves more and more of the provisions of the working class, the society breaks down.

Under a republic, man is subject to the law, under a democracy, the law is subject to the whims of men. I can't think of a better illustration of a godly society as opposed to a secular one.

Alexander Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Samuel Adams warned: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, who was charged with drawing up our Constitution which "guarantees to every State a Republican form of government", wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." George Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government." Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government he did not use the word "democracy" a single time.

Of course the majority of Christians will fawn over Roberts, and will be misled by idiot Christian leaders like these:

{{There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council }}

{{The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, described Roberts as an "all-star" on key social issues such as abortion ... }}

{{"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. }}

38. BUSH JUDGES: Talk Well, DO EVIL.

That's not my opinion, that's what Bush judicial nominee Bill Pryor is professing.

Pryor, you may remember, is the judge who ran Roy Moore out of office for standing for the ten commandments, so Pryor's conservative and Christian credentials are already highly suspect.

His latest comments remove any lingering doubt as to his illegitimacy. Pryor, like so many other phonies, sys although he believes abortion is evil, he will rule in favor of it anyway.

What difference does it make if Bush nominates supposedly 'conservative' judges, if they profess ahead of time that they will DO the SAME things as liberals? Are we supposed to feel good because guys like Pryor at least SAY they are on our side, while they stab us in the backs? Are the babies supposed to feel better that their torture and death warrants will be signed by a man who SAYS he's against it?

11th Circuit's Pryor Calls Abortion 'Evil' but Says He'll Follow Laws

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050624/c18f0b1f93979450d1be5aed690c14e7.html?.v=1

Friday June 24 Eliott C. McLaughlin and Jonathan Ringel, Fulton County Daily Report

Federal appeals Judge William H. Pryor Jr., whose fierce opposition to abortion prompted a two-year fight over his Senate confirmation, said Wednesday that "it'd certainly be wrong for a Catholic lawyer or judge to do something to advance a grave evil like abortion."

TG: Well, that's EXACTLY what he's planning to do. He's confessing his sins ahead of time - and some ignorant conservatives and Christians will support him (and his boss) anyway.

Pryor emphasized that as an appeals court judge he would uphold abortion laws.

TG: It is kind of refreshing that Pryor ADMITS he's a phony,but that makes it all the more frustrating that constitutional conservatives think his kind are any more worth supporting than admitted liberals.

Pryor's announced topic at the meeting was "The Duty of a Catholic Lawyer or Judge to Avoid Evil." But when he reached the podium, he said he had chosen a different topic, and he drew laughs when he said that one of the benefits of life tenure is the freedom to change his mind.

TG: No doubt all the babies on Pryor's death-row though tthat was quite humorous. His jest about life tenure also hints that he has a despotic mind-frame.

After the speech, Pryor took questions, which is when Roe v. Wade came up. Pryor's statement that he would follow the 1973 decision, which he previously has called "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," reflected his promise at his Senate confirmation hearing two years ago to adhere to all decisions of the Supreme Court, whether or not he agreed with them.

TG: So he would've enforced slavery when it was legal? He would've enforced killing Jews if this was a Nazi German court?

Along with abortion rights supporters, other liberal groups had vigorously opposed Pryor's nomination for the past two years. They hounded him with reminders that he once ended a speech praying for "no more Souters." That was a reference to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, whose votes to uphold Roe have disappointed many conservatives.

TG: He is setting himself up to be a greater compromiser than Souter ever has been.

Becky Rafter, the executive director of the local chapter of the pro-abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she was concerned particularly about Pryor because, as a judge on a federal appeals court, he will deal with abortion only in the most delicate and complex situations, such as when a girl or woman has been the victim of rape or incest. "His personal beliefs are going to affect his rulings. He is going to look at that lawyer as advancing an evil," she said.

TG: A supposed pro-lifer's views will affect his rulings, so all judges must be pro-abortion because that WON'T affect a judge's rulings? Did Rafter have her brain aborted? She can at least take comfort in knowing that Pryor has gone on the record as being a wimpy compromiser and promising that his pro-life beliefs, as shallow as they are, WON'T affect his rulings.

Pryor Calls Evil Good

Federal Judge Bill Pryor to Uphold 'Evil' Abortion Law, But Says Upholding Evil Doesn't Make Him Evil

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/

DOUBLED MINDED -- Federal appeals Judge William H. Pryor Jr., emphasized that as an appeals court judge he would uphold abortion laws. "The law does not empower you to stop someone else from doing evil," he said.[?] (Jer.22:3; Gen.9:6; Rom.13:1-4) Upholding a law "does not make you a formal cooperator with the evil act," Pryor says.[?] (Rom.6:15-16; Jas.1:5-8; Isa.5:20; Rom.2:12-13; Pss.2:10-12)

6E. ANOTHER ANTI-AMERICAN LEADER in MIDDLE EAST.

It seems every leader chosen in the Middle East is anti-American.

http://www.conservativenews.org/ForeignBureaus/archive/200506/FOR20050627a.html

New Iranian Leader Sees No Need for US

By Patrick Goodenough CNSNews.com International Editor June 27, 2005 (CNSNews.com) -

Iran does not need America, Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Sunday."Our nation is continuing on the path of progress and has no significant need for the United States," said Ahmadinejad, the fundamentalist Tehran mayor who came from nowhere in opinion polls two weeks ago to grab a decisive victory in Friday's election runoff.

Addressing his first press conference since his surprise win, the 48-year-old former officer in the Revolutionary Guard said he would consider establishing ties with any country that was not hostile to the Islamic Republic.

Ahmadinejad promised a government based on "religious democracy," saying domestic policies would be based on moderation, with "no room for radicalism."

He also vowed that Iran would press ahead with its nuclear program, saying the country needed peaceful nuclear technology for medical, engineering and scientific purposes.

The U.S. and Israel suspect the program is a cover for an effort to build nuclear weapons.

In Friday's election, Ahmadinejad defeated former president and wealthy mullah Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The U.S. was critical throughout of the electoral process. Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad were two of only eight men permitted to run by a religious-legal body appointed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

More than one thousand other would-be candidates were disqualified, including all 89 female hopefuls.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed what he called "mock" elections, saying on Sunday that Ahmadinejad was "no friend of democracy.""

He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs, who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives," Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday.

"My guess is, over time, the young people and the women will find him -- as well as his masters -- unacceptable."Tehran's foreign ministry spokesman said the U.S. should "respect the Iranian nation's choice and stop intervening in Iran's internal affairs.

The election of Ahmadinejad, who succeeds Khatami in August, means that "hardliners" once again control all levers of Iran's government - executive, legislative and judiciary.

37. BUSH Supreme KANGAROO COURT A & B.

Hollywood comedy writers no longer need to come up with new material. They simply have to observe the Bush administration to find all the comedy they need.

First, many conservative Christians voiced that they felt the most important reason to support Bush over Kerry was to get better Supreme Court nominees. Why, Kerry might give us *liberals* and *pro-aborters*!

(Aside: This is certainly not an endorsement of Kerry, who consorted with the Communist Vietnamese enemy while he was a uniformed American military officer. Such action is treason and worthy of the death penalty. And he is a flaming liberal as well.)

Well, Bush is giving us liberals in federal courts. ALL of those he has nominated have professed that they will make no attempt to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision which has been used to murder tens of millions of innocent infants since 1973. And now even his front-runner for a Supreme Court position has more baggage than Samsonite. It is Alberto Gonzales - not only is he pro-abortion, but he is the judge responsible for not even allowing parents to be notified when their minor daughters have abortions in Texas. He supported the torture and abuse of prisoners, which in the post 9-11 era could apply to political prisoners. He is also an advocate of illegal alien benefits. He further supports the banning of constitutionally protected semi-automatic arms. But what got Alberto the job was when as Bush’s general counsel in 1996, Gonzo got the then Texas Governor out of jury duty which kept him from having to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving.

If Gonzo is an example of a Bush appointed 'conservative', we might truly have been better off with judges appointed by John Kerry (after all, it was the Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer who cast the deciding vote to allow the Ten Commandments in Texas).

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL ...

If you read the last article posted here, you'll see that Att'y Gen. Gonzalez, because he already is serving as a gov't employee where he has faced many related cases, will have to recuse himself from such cases. Gonzo will in effect be a mannequin on the court. He won't be able to participate or rule in significant cases.

Judge Wapner would still be on the air if he had this kind of material for his TV court show.

Pro-Abort for Top Court Rankles Right

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013297.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

It was not merely a leak from the normally leak-proof Bush White House. For more than a week, a veritable torrent has tipped Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as President Bush's first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has sent the conservative movement into spasms of fear and loathing. Gonzales long has been unacceptable to anti-abortion activists because of his record as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Beyond pro-lifers, he is opposed by organized conservative lawyers. Ironically, the same Bush supporters who have been raising money and devising tactics for the mother of all judicial confirmation fights are in a panic that Gonzales will be named. With the president's popularity falling among his conservative base as well as the general populace, a politically disastrous moment may be at hand.

Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?

Related http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin050310.htm

President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Gonzalez and the Recusal Problem

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/013296.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11098

If President Bush nominates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, he won't be naming a new justice. He'll be naming something more like a new half-justice. A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from cases dealing with a wide range of issues — from the Patriot Act to partial-birth abortion — because of his high-level service in the Bush administration.

Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.
The administration's legal positions could therefore lose ground precisely because one of their architects would be on the Court.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to provide constitutional protection for partial-birth abortion. If Gonzales replaces Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, that becomes a 4-4 split that leaves the lower courts' judgment in place — which almost certainly means that partial-birth abortion continues without restriction. If Gonzales replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, who dissented, there's a 5-3 majority for keeping the procedure legal.

Gonzales might be compromised on campaign finance, on Patriot, on affirmative action, on military tribunals for terrorists, and on the disclosure of executive-branch documents. Maybe the Bush administration isn't deeply interested in all of these issues, but it surely wants to maximize its odds of prevailing on some of them. And nobody can know what other issues demanding recusal might come before the Court — or rather, before eight of its justices.

8B. BUSH AGAIN SUPPORTS PRO-ABORTER.

Our supposedly pro-life president is once again contributing to the campaign of a pro-abortion, liberal Republican, just like he did for Arlen Specter.

Someone please remind me, why was it so important to vote for Bush instead of Kerry? Weren't things like abortion and sodomy supposed to be important distinctions? Don't those things matter to Christians anymore?

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062305/bush.html

Bush Raises Money For Pro-Aborts

Bush shakes money tree for Chafee while stupid Christians look onSome of President Bush’s biggest donors are hosting an event next week for Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), a centrist Republican who has frequently opposed Bush’s top priorities. Bush and the Republican establishment in Washington have previously supported centrist GOP candidates over the objections of social-conservative activists. Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) worked hard to reelect Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) when he ran against conservative Rep. Pat Toomey in a GOP primary in 2004.

19E. ANOTHER QUEEN IN BUSH COURT.

There are now at least a dozen open homosexuals in the Bush administration. We are so fortunate that "Brother" Bush is a conservative Christian! Imagine what would happen if some LIBERAL (like AlGore or John Kerry) was in office? Well, when liberal Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, he was able to get ONLY ONE avowed sodomite confirmed by Congress because the Republicans in Congress OPPOSED such perversion. However, now with one of their own in the Oval Office, the GOP votes party over principle and SUPPORTS the SAME things they once opposed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/322031p-275336c.html

Out of the closet & into sub-Cabinet?

President Bush isn't letting potential howls from the Christian right stop him from nominating an openly gay man as assistant secretary of commerce.

Just in time for Pride Week, Bush has tapped longtime aide Israel Hernandez for the post, which also carries the title of director general of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service. The 35-year-old Republican go-getter has been a Bush acolyte since the President's 1994 campaign for governor of Texas. (Among Hernandez's duties was supplying the candidate with breath mints, prompting Dubya to dub him "Altoid Boy.")

Most recently, the graduate of Texas A&M's George H.W. Bush School of Government served as aide-de-camp to senior White House adviser Karl Rove.

One source tells us Hernandez waited until Bush was sworn in for a second term to formally tell him he is gay. By then, says a source, he'd brought his partner to several official events.

36. Bush Supports Continued UN Funding.

Wasn't Bush the big, bad cowboy who told the UN to lump it when he attacked Iraq? That gave him the IMAGE of being a pro-America, anti-UN crusader. Once again we see it's a FALSE image. His administration supports full funding of the UN, no matter how badly they behave.

http://www.covenantnews.com/politics/archives/013027.html

http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050616-113652-7271r

The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com

White House hits bill to hold U.N. dues

By David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES June 17, 2005

The Bush administration warned Congress yesterday to drop a threat to withhold dues to the United Nations as a way to spur reform of the world body, saying the tactic would prove counterproductive.

The bill -- co-sponsored by House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican -- would hold up to half of the U.S. annual payment to the world body if more than three dozen administrative and management reforms are not adopted.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns called the provision "unacceptable." "It would diminish our effectiveness and not allow us to play the leading role that we need to play on reform," he said.

The United States is the largest single contributor to the United Nations, paying nearly a quarter of the world body's $2 billion regular operating budget and 27 percent of its peacekeeping costs.

Supporters of the Hyde bill argued on the House floor yesterday that the dues threat was the only way to get the United Nations' attention in the wake of scandals such as the Iraq oil-for-food program and abuses by U.N. peacekeeping troops. "Yes, this is radical surgery, but sometimes it is the only way to save the patient," Mr. Hyde said.

35. Muslim Unitarianism.

...President Bush has declared that he believes in a god who speaks to different religions.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/142005h.asp

While many Evangelicals believe the president has accepted Christ as his Savior, some have been somewhat disturbed by such things as the White House celebration each year of Ramadan. The president may have added to those Evangelicals' concerns yesterday (June 13) when he told a group of international exchange students that he believes in a god who is not confined to one religion.

"I believe there's an almighty god who speaks to different faiths -- and I believe freedom is a gift from that almighty," the president said.

At the White House ceremony, President Bush went on to praise the exchange students for teaching their American classmates about Islam, and noted how one Muslim exchange student helped his Michigan high school classmates learn about the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Quoting the student, Bush said, "When I got to one of my classes on the first day of Ramadan, I was totally amazed. There were signs everywhere in the class saying 'Happy Ramadan, Abdul.'" The apparent celebration of Ramadan at the Michigan school seems in sharp contrast to the increasing hostility towards Christianity in many public school systems around the U.S. [Fred Jackson]

34. Bush Supports MAJOR Pro-Abortionist.

Bush supporting another MAJOR pro-Abortionist. I'm SHOCKED! She's a pro-aborter (in fact raises money for other fake Republicans who support baby-killing), an ungodly feminist, and an anti-American one-worlder (read: traitor).

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/012746.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050609/ap_on_go_co/brownback_nomination_2

Spat Over Pro-Abort Nomination

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Sam Brownback has put a hold on President Bush's nomination of a prominent abortion-rights supporter, Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Finley, a longtime feminist Bush supporter and Republican fundraiser, is a founding member of the WISH list, a political action committee that raises money for female Republican candidates who support abortion rights (read: baby murder). Finley is also a trustee and treasurer for a one-world government organization National Endowment for Democracy.

(Editor's note: To see how evil it is for Bush to nominate Julie Finley, think of it as equivalent to the president nominating someone from International Planned Parenthood Federation, and then you'll begin to get the picture.)

33. Bush Supports Abortion in War on Terror.

How intelligent people (conservatives & Christians) can't see how phony the war and this president are boggles my mind.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, abortion was ILLEGAL before our war on terror rained on them. Now they both allow infant-killing and have Planned Barrenhood abortion chambers operating.

Wasn't this war support to get the tyrannical killers OUT?

Here is the documentation on Afghanistan. Iraq has followed their lead:

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/mos_09afghanistan.html

Project Afghanistan

Steve Mosher President, Population Research Institute

The Population Research Institute is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Afghanistan ... to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.

The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst for Project Afghanistan. Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Muslim press has already begun expressing concerns about the UNFPA's promotion of chemicals and equipment for first-trimester manual suction abortions to NGOs who specialize in performing abortions.

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), have made no secret of their desire to bring abortion to the longsuffering women of Afghanistan. The international death peddlers equate shedding the burka of Taliban oppression with abortion. The Feminist Majority Foundation has flaunted abortion as the way to crush the "gender apartheid" of the Taliban.

Abortion cannot be a remedy for the Taliban's enslavement of women.

The United States is committed to sending about $400 million in aid to Afghanistan. Since none of this aid is classified under "family planning," any amount of it can be used to promote abortion. This would circumvent current laws prohibiting family planning funds from going to groups that counsel or lobby for abortion.

The real needs of Afghan women must be promoted, defended and demanded in Afghanistan. At PRI, we're committed fighting the abortion agenda of the Culture of Death, and to promoting life-saving basics.

Here, there, or in the air!

Teno Groppi
God & Country Center
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

Updates: 18B and 18C Mrs. Bush to Honor Islam.

For the updates 18B. Mrs. Bush to Honor Islam and 18C. Bush Again Aids Islam Terrorists,

Please click here.

Thank you.

Updates: 7B and 7C

For the updates 7B. Porn Star to Dine With Bush, and 7C. Bush Nominee Adulterer Who Forcefully Sodomized Wife.

Please click here.

Thank you.

Update: Bolton Bared.

To read the latest update:

29 B. Bolton Bared.

Please click here.

Thank you.

Update: Patriot Act Made More Oppressive (and Unconsitutional).

To read the latest update:

28. C Patriot Act Made More Oppressive (and Unconstitutional).

Please click here.

Thank you.

Baldwin Summary

TG: Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the V.P. candidate for the Constitution Party in 2004, might not have had the Bush Scoreboard in mind when he wrote this (from an article by Howard Phillips, CP presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000), but he could have. This is an excellent summary of what the Bush Scorecard has been trying to establish.

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?

By Chuck Baldwin

May 4, 2005

My friend Howard Phillips recently wrote a column outlining the philosophy and historical track record of the Republican Party since George W. Bush became President. Sad to say, even a cursory review of this record reveals the fact that the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has become little more than a carbon copy of the Democratic Party.

Phillips writes, "Sadly, the GOP's elected and appointed officials conform themselves almost without exception to that which Mr. Bush espouses, including:

a. an expanded Federal role in education,

b. record setting subsidies for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations,

c. increased funding for the United Nations,

d. the attempted extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban (blocked in Congress),

e. social Security benefits for illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico,

f. the ongoing reduction of the U.S. Navy (which now stands at 289 ships, compared to 600 under Ronald Reagan),

g. amnesty for illegal aliens,

h. nominees for the Federal judiciary and the Office of Attorney General who espouse the doctrine that Roe v. Wade is 'settled law',

i. support for Food and Drug Administration policies approving the abortion 'pill', RU-486, which has been used to kill scores of thousands of unborn children,

j. overturning Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw from UNESCO,

k. increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,

l. multi-billion dollar support for the Federal Legal Services Corporation and its 25,000 left-wing legal activists,

m. murder-abetting assistance to the Communist government in Angola,

n. historically high multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits and trade deficits,

o. a multi-trillion dollar Medicare entitlement program,

p. a $20 million 'New Freedom' program to evaluate the mental health of 53 million students in the government schools.

q. enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation law which criminalizes free speech,

r. support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) which President Reagan rejected,

s. endorsement of homosexual 'civil unions',

t. promotion of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO,

u. a too broadly drawn Patriot Act with its outrageous 'sneak and peek' provisions,

and many more things, a significant proportion of which would have been blocked by a Republican Congress had a Democrat President proposed them."

Of course, most conservatives have chosen to ignore or even deny these facts. The only answer they seem to come up with is, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge."

However, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

© Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Here, there, or in the air!

Teno Groppi

God & Country Center

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

32. Bush Supported LOST Treaty Written by Marxist.

What a surprise! After 150 entries in the Bush Scorecards, who would've dreamed he'd support a Marxist, socialist, New World Order program? [sarcasm off]

This treaty hinders the US militarily, hampers American exploration and science, hamstrings U.S. businesses, and gives the Marxist United Nations control of 70% of the planet.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44085

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

Socialist was behind U.N. sea treaty

Author of Bush-supported pact that cedes U.S. sovereignty

May 3, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

One of the main authors of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order, according to a new report.

Supporters of LOST – now before the U.S. Senate and backed by the Bush Administration – depict it as a pact that merely guarantees freedom of navigation on the high seas. But a new report issued by Cliff Kincaid of the public policy group America's Survival Inc. identifies Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, as having played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST.

Borgese openly favored world government, wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was a member of a "Committee to Frame a World Constitution." She served as director of the International Center for Ocean Development and chairman of the International Oceans Institute at Dalhousie University in Canada.

President Reagan rejected the [LOST] pact, and his ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, said it was viewed as the cornerstone of a New International Economic Order that would transfer money and technology from the U.S. and other developed countries to the Third World.

Kincaid says that at a time when the U.N. is under fire for mismanagement, corruption and scandal, LOST establishes a new international legal regime, including an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to govern activities on, over and under the world's oceans.

The treaty explicitly governs seven-tenths of the world's surface and permits international rules and regulations concerning economic and industrial activities on the land area of the world in order to combat global warming and other perceived pollution dangers.

In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."

Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."

She argued that LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.

31. Aussie Officer Says War on Terror is Fraud.

Put this guy in charge - he's got a clue! The rest of the guys running the thing either don't have a clue, or they are treacherous killers.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8690.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/
Brigadier-shocks-and-awes-there-is-no-war-on-terrorism/2005/04/26/1114462041971.html?oneclick=true

Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism

By Cynthia Banham
Defense Reporter
04/27/05 -

- The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fueled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfare, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ...

"The brigadier said populations were being cut off from their traditional roots, giving them "aspirations that cannot be immediately met", and fueling a search for identity.Terrorists were exploiting local issues - such as ethnic wars - to pursue global ends. From a military point of view, the job was now one of counter-insurgency, he said.

As a result, Australia's future soldiers would fight increasingly close to populations, with the enemy "continuing to retreat into complex terrain".

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.The war of the future would be "out of human control". There was "no alternative" but to engage the population and "convince them of your rightness".

"Our proximity to populations enables us to influence and control the populations, [it] enables us to dominate the environment, generate intelligence and eventually bring the conflict to a resolution," the brigadier told the conference last week.To fight such a war, a new kind of soldier was needed - one not only proficient in the latest technologies, but who had been educated in "cultural understanding" and sensitivity.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behavior and allegiances of human population groups".

He said he found it interesting that "if you take out violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

30. Bush Pentagon Proposes Legalizing Sodomy for Military.

The move from "Don't ask, don't tell", to ALLOWING sodomy in the military, is about to take place under the watch of our conservative, Republican, Christian President, "Brother" George W. Bush.

Can anyone still defend this reprobate with a clear conscience?

At least homosexual rape of minors is still illegal, so Catholic priest military chaplains are not yet off the hook - but Bush still has nearly four years to work on that.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/
Pentagon_proposes_shift_in_sodomy_laws_04_21_2005_0159am.html

http://news.yahoo.com/newstmpl=story&cid=669&u=/usnw/20050421/pl_usnw/
sdln__pentagon_recommends_repeal_of_consensual_sodomy_ban001_xml&printer=1

http://www.aboms.com/

Bush Pentagon Proposes Legalizing Sodomy for Military

The office of the general counsel at the Pentagon has proposed decriminalizing sodomy among adults according to a memorandum sent to Congress, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

Under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a crime to engage in "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex."

The changes proposed by the Pentagon's lawyers would narrow the definition to prohibit acts of sodomy with a person under age 16 or acts "committed by force." Their memorandum says this would "conform more closely to other federal laws and regulations."

The United States Queer Military

SDLN: Pentagon Recommends Repeal of Consensual Sodomy Ban

WASHINGTON -- As reported in this morning's New York Times, the Pentagon has recommended repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military's ban on consensual sodomy. The Pentagon's recommendation has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee and is based on guidance from the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice (JSC), a panel of attorneys from each military service that annually suggests changes to the military's criminal code.

29. Bolton: Biggest Phony of All, for UN.

John Bolton is being cast as some kind of anti-UN patriot. As soon as I learned he was a CFR member, I knew that couldn't be true. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Bush would never nominate someone who is truly anti-UN/NWO. This is (Big) "Brother" Bush at his best, painting a staunch New World Order lackey as an anti-UN zealot. And Conservatives will swallow it readily.

Maybe he once was genuine, but if he was, certainly now he's aboard the Bush train heading America towards the cliff.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050412/ts_alt_afp/usunboltonpolitics_050412082307

Bolton vows 'close partnership' at UN, says it plays 'critical role'

Tue Apr 12, 4:23 AM ET

U.S. National - AFP WASHINGTON (AFP) - Under fire from Democratic lawmakers, John Bolton, the controversial nominee to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations, pledged at his confirmation hearing here to strengthen US relations with the world body.

"If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the president's vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations," said Bolton, who was nominated last month by President George W. Bush to succeed John Negroponte.

TG: He says he wants to work closely with the UN, not to eradicate the UN.

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams, the hope and aspiration of its original promise," said Bolton, who faced tough questioning from Democrats over his past scornful statements about the world body.

TG: The UN MUST play a critical role, he says? Remember, The UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-American, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

"The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy," Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

TG: We must be committed to the SUCCESS of the UN? Read the above again to see what would be "success" for the UN.

"If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership," he added.

TG: A STRONGER relationship with an anti-American group we should get out of altogether?

Bolton told US lawmakers that he had received words of support for his candidacy from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. "He said, 'get yourself confirmed quickly'," Bolton told the committee summing up a brief recent phone conversation with Annan.

TG: Why would Kofi Annan want Bolton confirmed quickly if he is really anti-UN? If Bush and Kofi both recommend him, he MUST be a New Worlder. How can Republican, conservatives, and Christians be so stupid to ignore that?

Considered by supporters to be a brilliant policy analyst, Bolton's hawkish leanings and past criticism of the United Nations have led critics to say he is ill-suited for the UN job.

"Frankly, I'm surprised that the nominee wants the job, given all the negative things you've said about it," said the panel's top Democrat, Senator Joe Biden. "Some have said that sending you to the UN would be like sending Nixon to China. I'm afraid it would be more like sending a bull into a china shop," Biden added, referring to former president Richard Nixon.

Senator John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential hopeful, had equally harsh words for the nominee. "John Bolton is the wrong choice to serve as America's voice at the United Nations," Kerry said in a statement. "Mr. Bolton's diplomatic tin ear and penchant for hostile rhetoric have hurt America's interests. "His hostility to the UN itself makes him an unlikely person to lead the strong alliances the White House now says we need to address our common threats," he said.

The rough treatment of Bolton by Democrats was in keeping with the grillings endured by other Bush nominees in his second term, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But the questioning was decidedly tougher at Bolton's hearing, with all of the panel's Democratic members expected to vote against him. Because of the Republican majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bolton is nevertheless expected to win its endorsement and his nomination sent to the floor of the Republican-majority Senate for approval.

In some of the toughest questioning, liberal Democrat Barbara Boxer threw Bolton's own words back at him, playing a video of a conference more than a decade ago at which he said that if the UN headquarters in New York "lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"This nominee can do lots of other things for President Bush and do them really well," Boxer said. "I just don't see this. It just doesn't make sense."

Bolton, 56, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs for the past four years, has repeatedly said the UN is corrupt and ineffective. But at Monday's hearing he insisted the statements did not fully portray his views.

"A lot of those statements are not accurate reflections of what I said ... I was quoted out of context," he said.

As Bush's pointman on arms control, Bolton has been a sharp critic of North Korea and other hardline regimes.

He was a strong advocate of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Last month some 60 former US diplomats sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposing Bolton's nomination.

But five Republican former US secretaries of state this month lobbied on his behalf, urging the Senate to confirm him. The signatories of that letter were James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz (TG: ALL CFR members). Notably absent was Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who was Bolton's boss.

The hearing was briefly interrupted by demonstrators denouncing Bolton's nomination. They were quickly escorted from the hearing room.

-------------------------------------

29 B. Bolton Bared.

Why should we be committed to the success of a Communist infested, anti-gun, anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-queer, New World Order organization?

But Bolton continues:

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise."

Remember, the UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

Bolton wants to "strengthen" the UN and make it "more efficient". A stronger, more efficient organization that opposes everything America has traditionally stood for.

How did this guy ever get a reputation as an anti-UN crusader? Conservatives are so gullible and naive to accept anyone who calls himself a Republican.

Teno Groppi - Country Celebration

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/country.0

Update: Patriot Act Misused

Please click on this link for the update:

28B. Patriot Act Misused


Thank you.

Update: Bush Covers Up for Slick Indiscretions.

Please click on this link for the update:

25 B. Carter Not Brought to Pope's Funeral.

Thank you, ed.

28. Bush Officials urge renewal of Patriot Act.

While Americans were concerned with the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II, the Bush administration used the opportunity to press for more Gestapo/KGB police state powers for our military and law enforcement agencies.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2285718p-10471388c.html

Officials urge renewal of Patriot Act

By MARK SHERMAN,
Associated Press Writer

April 5, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's two top law enforcement officials on Tuesday urged Congress to renew every provision of the anti-terror Patriot Act. FBI Director Robert Mueller also asked lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge.

"Now is not the time for us to be engaging in unilateral disarmament" on the legal weapons now available for fighting terrorism, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. He said that some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have proven invaluable in fighting terrorism and aiding other investigations.

He also asked Congress to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.

The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress.

"Cooler heads can now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast and that it must be brought back in line with the Constitution," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

Among the controversial provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations. That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

Gonzales already has agreed to two minor changes to the provision. Neither change addresses the central concern of opponents, which is that it allows the government to seize records of people who are not suspected terrorists or spies. The Justice Department counters that no Patriot Act-related civil rights abuses have been proven.

TG: The claim that they haven't been "proven" doesn't mean they haven't occurred. Notice that careful distinction in their denial.

Just in case, Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants - which will not expire in December - allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later.

The Justice Department said federal prosecutors have asked for 155 such warrants since 2001.

Gonzales also notes that the law has been used in non-terrorism cases. For example, federal officials used it to track over the Internet a woman who ultimately confessed to strangling an 8-months-pregnant woman and cutting the fetus from her womb.

TG: Whether a 'good' reason or not, it's not right to use the law for non-terrorism. Moreover, if that baby had been killed by a state licensed doctor, it would have been totally legal, even though the same result would have occurred.


-----------------------------------------------------

28B. Patriot Act Misused.

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/

Patriot Act MisusedFreedom of Speech

· Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Misused
· Random Searches, Invasions of Privacy
· Google Big Brother Satellite Mapping
· Scientist Calls For World DNA Database
· From Tea Leaves to reading DNA
· 'Big Brother' Becomes Big Business

http://sacunion.com/pages/nation/articles/3796

Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Misused

By Rukmini Callimachi, The Associated Press

Published: April 6, 2005

PORTLAND, Ore.—Ever since the FBI admitted it wrongly arrested him in connection with the Madrid train bombings, Brandon Mayfield has contended the government used the Patriot Act to search his home and gather personal information to portray him as a Muslim militant.

The Justice Department denied Mayfield’s claims—until Tuesday.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that provisions of the controversial act were used to investigate Mayfield, a Muslim convert.

Mayfield was arrested May 6 after the FBI claimed his fingerprint matched a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators near the scene of the Madrid train bombings, in which 191 people were killed. He was freed two weeks later after the FBI admitted the fingerprints were not his.

At the congressional hearing Tuesday on whether 15 sections of the law set to expire at year’s end should be renewed, Gonzales at first denied the FBI used the Patriot Act while investigating Mayfield.

“Senator, I think we have said publicly—if not, I guess I’m saying it publicly—that the Patriot Act was not used in connection with the Brandon Mayfield case,” he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

But later, after Feinstein asked him a different question, Gonzales corrected himself: “You asked me specifically about the Mayfield case and I’m advised that there were certain provisions of the Patriot Act that apparently were used,” he said.

Gonzales said one code from the act that was used deals with extending the duration of electronic surveillance. Another makes it easier to obtain warrants to search the private residences of U.S. citizens—a provision that has raised concerns about constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mayfield’s attorneys and some legal experts believe the Justice Department has been reluctant to admit that the Patriot Act was used in the case for fear it would taint the image of the 2001 law as its provisions come up for reauthorization.

“This administration is more concerned with public relations than an honest scrutiny of the Patriot Act—a law which is the most dangerous attack on civil liberties since the McCarthy era,” said Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield.

------------------------------------

28C. Patriot Act Made More Oppressive (and Unconstitutional).

How many Amendments can the Patriot act violate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050519/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_1

GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Wed May 18, 8:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury. But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Here, there, or in the air!
Teno Groppi
God & Country Center

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

27. While We Were Watching Terri Die...

Defense spending is one of the few things our gov't is supposed to spend our money on according to the Constitution. That's not the beef with this. The problem is with it being used for the unconstitutional and unnecessary so-called war on terror. The fact that it was passed while everyone is preoccupied with the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II is also quite interesting.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3711

$400 Billion Defense Budget Unnecessary to Fight War on Terrorism

by Charles V. Peña,
director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

-----------------------------

Executive Summary

President Bush signed a $417.5 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 on August 5,2004. With the addition of an $82 billion supplemental for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in real terms U.S. military spending will be at a level exceeded only by that of the waning years of World War II and the height of the Korean War. The Defense Department had requested $401.7 billion, which was a 7 percent increase over the FY04 defense budget. The recently submitted FY06 Pentagon budget is $419.3 billion (not including funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). The administration argues that increased military spending is a necessary part of the war on terrorism.

Those budgets assumed that the war on terrorism is primarily a military war to be fought by the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The reality is that large conventional military operations will be the exception rather than the rule in the war on terrorism. Although President Bush claims Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, the truth is that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime did not eliminate an Al Qaeda sanctuary or a primary source of support for the terrorist group.

The military's role in the war on terrorism will mainly involve special operations forces in discrete missions against specific targets, not conventional warfare aimed at overthrowing entire regimes. The rest of the war aimed at dismantling and degrading the Al Qaeda terrorist network will require unprecedented international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, not expensive new planes, helicopters, and warships.Therefore, an increasingly large defense budget (DoD projects that the budget will grow to more than $487 billion by FY09) is not necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Nor is it necessary to protect America from traditional nation-state military threats.

26. Does Bush Really Care About Schiavo? No.

President Bush has been receiving fawning accolades from his star-struck supporters for cutting short his vacation to sign a bill that ostensively would help the Schindler family save the life of their daughter Terri (Schindler) Schiavo. My first thought was that "Bro." Bush was trying again to consolidate authority at the federal level. Even if the bill was limited, it would set a precedent that would surely be appealed to in the future, perhaps to get the opposite result.

Either Bush, U.S. President George, or Florida Governor Jeb, could have saved Terri Schiavo's life had they really wanted to. When Slick Clinton and Butch Reno wanted to send Elian Gonzales back to oppression in Cuba, they did it. This time everybody is going to drag their feet and take baby steps that won't accomplish anything, but will give them an opportunity to cover their keesters and blame somebody else.

Constitution party Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka observed in an open letter to the Bush brothers:

--- You, Mr. President, could order Federal marshals to be sent to guard Terri Schiavo, have her feeding tube reinserted, and arrest anyone who attempted her murder by removing this tube. If her case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ruling there is to take her feeding tube out, ignore this ruling and leave the Federal marshals there as long as is necessary to keep her from being murdered. Any court ruling that orders murder is illegal and binds nobody.

--- You, Governor Bush, could do, basically, the same thing --- order your relevant law enforcement personnel to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody; order her feeding tube to be reinserted; and arrest anyone who attempts to murder her be removing this feeding tube. And if any court, at any level, orders her feeding tube to be removed, ignore this order because no court order that orders the murder of anybody has any validity.

But it gets worse. The Shiavo case is now apparently headed to the 11th Circuit Court of appeals where Judge Bill Pryor sits. Remember, Pryor is the one who ran Judge Roy Moore out of office. That means in a few days you'll probably be seeing an update exposing the "conservative Republican" Pryor for another ungodly act.

But it gets worse! Bush, the president, is contradicting his own position as governor of Texas, when he supported euthanasia. That tells us his current position is simply political posturing.

Here is the article from Liberty Post, the Yahoo article is no longer a live link.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=88973&Disp=0

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050322/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamage


By William Douglas, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.

In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.

Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.

"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.

While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.

"The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction."

Brody said that, in taking up the Schiavo case, Bush and Congress had shattered a body of bioethics law and practice.

"This is crazy. It's political grandstanding," he said.

Bush's apparent shift on right-to-die decisions wasn't lost on Democrats. During heated debate on the Schiavo case, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., accused Bush of hypocrisy.

"It appears that President Bush felt, as governor, that there was a point which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objection of family members," Wasserman Schultz said. "There is an obvious conflict here between the president's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of Texas."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan termed Wasserman Schultz's remarks "uninformed accusations" and denied that there was any conflict in Bush's positions on the two laws.

"The legislation he signed (early Monday) is consistent with his views," McClellan said. "The (1999) legislation he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients ... prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections."

Wasserman Schultz stuck by her remarks when told of McClellan's comments.

"It's a fact in black and white," she said. "It's a direct conflict on the position he has in the Schiavo case."

Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University Law School associate professor who helped draft the Texas law, said he saw no inconsistency in Bush's stands.

"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."

Bush himself framed the Schiavo decision this way Monday.

"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life," the president said during a Social Security event in Tucson, Ariz. He didn't mention the 1999 Texas law.

For my position, Terri Schiavo is not on life support, she's not a "vegetable", she's not comatose, she's simply handicapped. There is no evidence she ever expressed a desire to die under tough circumstances. No one, not even a husband, has the right to kill someone for being handicapped. The only issue here is removing her source of food, which would kill ANYBODY. They refuse to feed her normally because of potential liability, but it's entirely possible she could eat and drink normally. To withhold her food and drink is cruel as well as murder.

25. Bush Covers Up for Slick Indiscretions.

They are supposed to be on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, aren't they? Clinton was an immoral, perverted, lawless skunk, was he not? Then why is the Bush administration covering up his heinous actions?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150896,00.html

Bush Administration Blacks Out Clinton Docs

Saturday, March 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration blacked out almost all the information in hundreds of documents before releasing them to a conservative organization looking into President Clinton's controversial pardons four years ago on his last day in office.

The only items not deleted from the material are the names of the person who wrote the document and the person it was sent to.

The government accountability group Judicial Watch said Friday that it received the Justice Department documents following a court battle that featured a Republican administration fighting to keep secret documents generated by its Democratic predecessor.

The Bush White House has argued that releasing pardon-related documents would have a chilling effect on internal discussions leading up to presidential action on such requests.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called it an instance of the Bush administration covering up a Clinton administration scandal. The group plans to return to court to challenge the deletions, which cover nearly everything that is written on a total of 915 pages.

A federal appeals court ruled a year ago in the case that the White House can't claim Justice Department records are covered by a special exemption from the law reserved for presidential communications.

Among the 140 people Clinton pardoned on Jan. 20, 2001 was fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich's wife, a Democratic fund-raiser, contributed $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library foundation and more than $100,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign. Rich's name does not appear on any of the 915 pages.

The department invoked exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act that allow deletions for reasons such as documents being part of internal deliberations or containing personal information.


------------------------------------------------

25 B. Carter Not Brought to Pope's Funeral.

Why would Carter have wanted to go so badly in the first place? I thought he was a Baptist Sunday school teacher?

Maybe more importantly, why once again, is George Bush being so chummy with immoral liberal Slick Willy? See several items from Scorecard 1, #61, #41, #33, #4, and especially #55.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jcp.htm

BUSH PASSED OVER CARTER IN POPE FUNERAL PICK

President Bush selected his father and Bill Clinton over Jimmy Carter for the official delegation attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the Carter Center claimed Late Tuesday.

"President Carter expressed to the White House a desire to attend the Pope's funeral," an official said.

Carter "was informed that the official delegation would be limited to just five people, and there were also others who were eager to attend."

"The Carters always relish the memories of Pope John Paul II being a delightful personal guest at the White House in 1979, on a pope's only visit to our nation's capital city. Subsequently, they visited with His Holiness in the Vatican."

One senior GOP official said that Carter wanted to take his wife Rosalynn along, but was informed that would be impossible.

It was unclear if Clinton asked to take along his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Update: Queers in Bush Administration

Please click on this link for the update:

19D. Queer Karl Rove Outed.


Thank you.

24. Al-Qaida threatening at borders, says Rice.

Then beef up our borders! How many brains does that take to figure out? Stop offering ILLEGAL aliens amnesty!

If the Bush administration KNOWS and ADMITS the leaky borders are a terrorist risk, and that ILLEGALS are especially dangerous - why are they doing the opposite of what is necessary to fix the problem? It's almost as if they want a terror problem to continue. Then they can have more targets for war and more excuses to take rights away from American citizens.

BTW, how can al-Qaida still be a problem? Haven't we been fighting this war on terror for some four years now? And we haven't even halted terror enemy #1 (AKA #9-11)?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43240

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Al-Qaida threatening at borders, says Rice

Terrorists determined to infiltrate into U.S. through Mexico, Canada

March 10, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are determined to infiltrate into the United States by using the porous and insecure borders of both Canada and Mexico, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her first trip south of the border since assuming her new post.

Rice today echoed warnings made by FBI Director Robert Mueller to a congressional panel earlier this week about the continuing threat al-Qaida poses at the borders.

"Indeed we have from time to time had reports about al-Qaida trying to use our southern border but also trying to use our northern border," Rice told reporters. "There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this country and into other countries by any means they possibly can."

She also suggested she believes al-Qaida has been successful in the past at penetrating the borders. "That's how they managed to do it before and they will do everything that they can to cross the borders," she said.

Recent intelligence from current investigations, detentions and other sources suggests that al-Qaida has considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the United States, according to testimony from a top Homeland Security Department official last month before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons," James Loy, deputy secretary at the time, said in his testimony.

Rice said progress has been made in securing the border since Sept. 11, 2001. But she also said the United States is obligated to alert its citizens of concerns.

While Rice made no mention of any specific efforts to enlist the help of the Mexican government in deterring terrorists, she did announce on her one-day trip to meet with President Vicente Fox and Derbez that the two countries had settled a decades-old, cross-water debt.

Mexico will transfer enough water to the United States to cover a debt that Texas has claimed that Mexico has owed under a 1944 treaty. That water-sharing pact requires Mexico to send the United States an average of 350,000 acre-feet of water annually from six Rio Grande tributaries. The United States in return must send Mexico 1.5 million acre feet from the Colorado River.

TG: Oh, that's a good trade. To get what we're owed, we must give up four times that amount.

Rice also was announcing a $10 million grant to support the expansion of a Mexican program that provides citizens with banking services and small business loans.

TG: Giving Mexico $10 million of our tax dollars is good for America in what way?

23. Bush Pushing New World Order.

Here we have two articles attesting to George Bush's pro-New World Order beliefs. A man who believes international law trumps U.S. law and that international socialist organizations like the E.U. are a good thing has no business being president of the *United States*. He held his hand on a Bible and vowed to obey the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES - not the charter of the United Nations or the constitution of the European Union (or an international court).

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_798.shtml

Bush Promoting EU Constitution

by William Norman Grigg
March 8, 2005

"President George W. Bush's newfound enthusiasm for working with a 'strong and united' European Union could help the campaign to ratify the new EU constitution," reported the February 24 Financial Times of London, citing supporters of the ratification campaign.

The first stop on Mr. Bush’s European tour, significantly, was Brussels, capital city of the embryonic EU mega-state, which former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev called the “new European soviet.”

“I’m looking forward to meeting with the EU,” the president stated during a February 18 roundtable discussion in the White House with representatives of European print media.

Asked by one reporter, “What is your view of the proposed EU Constitution?” Mr. Bush replied: “You know … we want the EU to be successful. The European Union is a significant partner in many things, particularly trade.”

He also said that he is “fascinated to see how the British culture and the French culture and the sovereignty of the nations, long-standing traditional sovereignty can be integrated into the larger whole in the modern era. And progress is being made and I’m hopeful it works....”

Interestingly, he referred to the EU — rather than any of its constituent nations — as “a strong partner” in the trans-Atlantic alliance with the United States.

In her February 8 speech before the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conferred an unqualified benediction on the EU.

“The agenda of U.S.-E.U. cooperation is wider than ever, and still growing, along with the European Union itself,” stated Rice. “[T]he United States, above all, welcomes the growing unity of Europe.”

The unspoken but crucial subtext of these remarks is the drive by the Bush administration to consolidate the nations of the Western Hemisphere into an EU-style soviet through the so-called “Free Trade Area of the Americas.”

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3075660

Bush orders hearings for Mexican nationals

The directive in death row cases sparks challenge from Texas officials

By MIKE TOLSON and ROSANNA RUIZ

In a move that could spawn a fight over presidential powers, the Bush administration has ordered Texas and other states to conduct hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row who claim their rights were violated when local consulates were not notified of their arrests.

The directive came after years of criticism from foreign governments and an adverse decision last year by the International Court of Justice, which decreed that U.S. courts should provide "effective review" of each case to determine whether the lack of consular assistance could have affected the outcome.

Houston lawyer Danalynn Recer, who represents Mexican nationals in capital murder cases on behalf of the Mexican government, said Bush's order was significant because it recognizes the importance of U.S. courts complying with established international rights."

(Jose) Medellin voluntarily confessed to the brutal gang rape and murder of two teenage girls," Abbott said. "He was convicted after a fair trial, applying U.S. and Texas law. The state of Texas believes no international court supersedes the laws of Texas or the laws of the United States."

TG: Too bad the former Governor of Texas, and current President of the United States, doesn't agree. He things international law (read: New World Order) supercedes America.

22. The Best Enemy Money Can Buy.

A British company is going to build five nuclear reactors in Communist China (who openly declares the U.S. as their #1 enemy) - and the U.S. gov't is paying them $5 billion of our tax dollars to do it (unconstitutionally, of course). You'd almost think the Bush administration was trying to build up our avowed enemy on purpose.

We've been doing similar things to build up Russia for the past few decades, now it's time to send our resources to China so they can take our markets, our technology, our jobs, and consume resources so our costs will have to be greatly increased. This decision greatly benefits China, obviously. It will also benefit Britain, sine American taxpayers will shoulder the risks instead of them.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/28/business/nuke.html

U.S. backing bid for China reactors

By Matthew L. Wald

The New York Times
March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON Westinghouse Electric was to present a bid to China on Monday for building four large nuclear reactors, backed by a pledge of nearly $5 billion in financial assistance from the U.S. government that Washington hopes will give the company an edge over competitors from France, Germany and other countries.

The French nuclear energy group Areva has joined a three-way bidding contest to build the four nuclear reactors for China. A spokesman for Areva, Charles Hufnagel, confirmed on Monday that Areva had lodged its bid in Beijing.

AtomStroyExport of Russia was also expected to meet a deadline Monday to make bids with China National Nuclear.

The deal, approved on a preliminary basis by the Export-Import Bank on Feb. 18, is almost three times larger than anything the bank has offered before. And while it would stimulate employment in the United States, the price would amount to about $1 million per job, raising objections from some critics.

TG: It would have to create some incredibly high paying jobs just to offset the cost. That's not considering the fact that we're still helping strengthen our enemy.

The deal also appears to benefit the British government, which owns Westinghouse through BNFL, formerly known as British Nuclear Fuels.

"If the risk were not falling on the Ex-Im bank, it would be falling on the British government," said Peter Bradford, a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1977 to 1982. Bradford said he opposed what he called a subsidy to a foreign company and what he said was support by the commission for Westinghouse's sales efforts.

"Jobs really aren't what this is about," he said. "What it's about is protecting the investors in the company making the bid, and here, there is only one investor."

TG: Why is the U.S protecting a foreign investor that is investing in aiding our enemies?

Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio who is a frequent critic of the bank, said: "The bank is funded by U.S. tax dollars. They should be supporting U.S. companies. I'm not against U.S. jobs, but shouldn't we be for U.S. companies?"

Kucinich said the deal could also eventually hurt the export of technology from the United States because China had said it wanted to build many more plants and take over the manufacture of plant components, many of which are now made in the United States.

TG: A liberal Democrat is the one who speaks out in favor of protecting America? Where are all the patriotic conservative Republicans?

BNFL's other business enterprises in the United States have met with mixed success. The company had a contract in the mid-1990s with the Energy Department to build a factory in Washington State to solidify liquid nuclear wastes in glass, but the two entities had a falling out over costs and other factors.

This month, BNFL and the Energy Department settled a long dispute over BNFL's performance in cleaning up former nuclear weapons sites in Tennessee and Idaho.

A spokesman for Westinghouse, Vaughn Gilbert, said by telephone from the company's headquarters, near Pittsburgh, that the proposal to build the Chinese reactors represented about 5,000 jobs in the United States because components, including the instrumentation and control systems, would be manufactured there. The reactor vessel and the steam generators, the largest parts, would come from other countries.

21. Bush Administration Reneges on Abortion and Empowers UN.

Just a few days ago the Bush administration was posturing by talking tough against the UN policy of considering abortion to be a woman's right But talk is cheap, and when push came to shove, the Bush administration rolled over like obedient puppies.

This accomplished two things that would please any godless Communist. First, it allowed for more babies to be killed while giving lip service that will be swallowed by suckers who want to pretend Bush is pro-life. Second, it was another instance of the US backing down to the UN, and empowering the UN on a vital issue.

If Bush will back down on killing babies, he will back down on ANYTHING. He cannot be trusted to do right on matters great or small.

http://www.reuters.co.in/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp%3B:422656f1:ccbf594d78b23d89?type=worldNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=7790379

U.S. to drop insistence on anti-abortion plank at U.N.

Thu March 3, 2005
5:07 AM GMT+05:30

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States plans to drop its insistence that a U.N. document on women's equality make clear that abortion is not a fundamental right, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The Bush administration had demanded that a final draft document include an anti-abortion statement, a proposal that plunged into controversy a two-week review session of the landmark 1995 women's conference in Beijing.

"Our original goal was to make sure that everyone involved knew what the original intent of the Beijing document was," said Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

In Beijing, abortion was treated as a health issue, with the 150-page platform saying it should be safe where it was legal and criminal action should not be taken against women who had abortions.

Numerous delegates, especially from Europe, questioned why the United States was bringing up the issue.

But Sauerbrey said earlier that the U.S. position needed to be clarified because women's advocate groups were trying to "hijack" the abortion plank. She did not name the groups.

20. Illegal Aliens Love Bush's Illegal Alien Amnesty Program And Bush Revamps the Dictionary

It's certainly no surprise that illegal aliens would support Bush's proposed illegal alien amnesty. What does raise eyebrows though, is the Bush administration's imitation of Bill Clinton in attempting to redefine words. They will not call it an illegal alien amnesty plan, which it IS, they call it more harmless sounding things like a "temporary guest worker plan". They are no longer called illegal aliens, but more innocuous terms like "undocumented workers".

Whatever the program is called, it rewards criminals for breaking our laws. They want to become *permanent* residents of this country, not temporary, as the bill alludes. Fully 40% of the illegal aliens who are currently in America, have come during the Bush presidency. Lawbreakers know a friend when they see one.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11031438.htm

Undocumented immigrants willing to join temporary guest worker program

By Dave Montgomery
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Wed, Mar. 02, 2005

WASHINGTON – A new survey of undocumented immigrants from Mexico shows that most want to become permanent residents of the United States but would participate in a temporary guest worker program envisioned by President Bush.

The study by the Pew Hispanic Center, released Wednesday and based on nearly 5,000 interviews, also offers a first-of-a-kind statistical snapshot of illegal immigrants.

More than 40 percent came to the United States within the last five years, according to the survey, and as many as one-half say they have children in U.S. schools. They tend to be young, predominately male, struggle with the English language and gravitate toward jobs in construction, manufacturing, and the hospitality industry. Their yearly income ranges from $5,200 to $26,000. They are better educated than their counterparts in Mexico, but poorly educated by U.S. standards.

The six-month-long study, completed in January and released Wednesday, surveyed 4,836 Mexican adults in seven U.S. cities with large or growing Hispanic populations: Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Raleigh, N.C., and Fresno, Calif.

The participants were not asked about their U.S. immigration status, but more than half – 2,566 – said they did not have any form of identification issued by the U.S. government.

The interviews were conducted through questionnaires while the participants were at Mexican consulates applying for Mexican identification documents.

Bush has made immigration reform a high priority of his second term and is asking Congress to create a temporary guest worker program that would allow immigrants to stay in the country up to six years, filling jobs that Americans don’t want. They would be required to return home after completing the program.

Under the Republican president’s initiative, those now living illegally in the United States – as many as 10 million, including up to a million in Texas – would be eligible to participate.

TG: There are 10 million jobs Americans don't want? That would give our prison population something to do to earn their keep.

The Pew Center’s Survey of Mexican Migrants shows that the Bush proposal has overwhelming support among its intended beneficiaries. By a four-to-one margin - 71 percent to 18 percent - immigrants said they would participate in a program that would allow them to work in the United States but require their eventual return to Mexico.

By a similar margin, 72 per cent to 17 percent, the participants supported permanent legalization for migrants who have lived in the United States for five years, held a steady job and avoided entanglements with the law.

19E. ANOTHER QUEER IN BUSH COURT

19E. ANOTHER QUEER IN BUSH COURT

There are now at least a dozen open homosexuals in the Bush administration. We are so fortunate that "Brother" Bush is a conservative Christian! Imagine what would happen if some LIBERAL (like AlGore or John Kerry) was in office?

Well, when liberal Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, he was able to get ONLY ONE avowed sodomite confirmed by Congress because the Republicans in Congress OPPOSED such perversion. However, now with one of their own in the Oval Office, the GOP votes party over principle and SUPPORTS the SAME things they once opposed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/322031p-275336c.html

Out of the closet & into sub-Cabinet?

President Bush isn't letting potential howls from the Christian right stop him from nominating an openly gay man as assistant secretary of commerce.

Just in time for Pride Week, Bush has tapped longtime aide Israel Hernandez for the post, which also carries the title of director general of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service.

The 35-year-old Republican go-getter has been a Bush acolyte since the President's 1994 campaign for governor of Texas. (Among Hernandez's duties was supplying the candidate with breath mints, prompting Dubya to dub him "Altoid Boy.")

Most recently, the graduate of Texas A&M's George H.W. Bush School of Government served as aide-de-camp to senior White House adviser Karl Rove.

One source tells us Hernandez waited until Bush was sworn in for a second term to formally tell him he is gay. By then, says a source, he'd brought his partner to several official events.


19. SODOMITES IN BUSH ADMINISTRATION.


It has been previously documented that President Bush has named at LEAST nine known sodomites to important government positions, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would make #10, (see #9 BSI). Several sources suggest he has named over a dozen more to lower positions. Several other probable "Log Cabin" sodomites in the Bush administration are named at http://www.daveblackonline.com/george_bush_on_sodomy.htm.

Remember, Bill Clinton only named ONE sodomite to his administration, and her to an undersecretary position (Roberta Achtenberg) - and that was the first one ever. No doubt there are some homosexuals in both administrations who are still in the closet (Janet Reno?), but next to Bush, Clinton seems to be a "homophobe".

When 'Slick' tried to name another (James Hormel), he was soundly REJECTED by the Republican-controlled Congress. Yet this SAME Republican-controlled Congress simply "rubber stamps" Bush when he does the SAME ABOMINABLE THINGS they rejected from Clinton.

This is not just out of ignorance on Bush's part. It is calculated and intentional. An article from Concerned Women of America (http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3266&department=CFI&categoryid=papers), linked on BushRevealed.com demonstrates that in one of the cases Bush first nominated a fundamental Christian, Jerry Thacker, a Bob Jones Alum who has a ministry to AIDS sufferers (the Scepter Institute), to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. Ralph Ovadal covers the incident at http://www.wcuweb.com/Documents/homo-fascismwatch/2003,1-31DecisionbyGeorgeBush.htm.

Thacker, whose family contracted AIDS through his wife's blood transfusion, believes homosexuality is a sin, like any Christian should (and Bro. Bush IS a Christian, isn't he?). He believes the solution to sodomy and its inherent diseases is for sodomites to receive Jesus Christ as Saviour.

Of course the Lavender Lobby howled. So Bro. Bush promptly dumped the Christian and replaced him with a homosexual.

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said of Thacker, "The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes."

They ARE? I thought Bush was a conservative Christian?

This time the development is that a homosexual prostitute, using an alias, had been given press credentials by the White House, and routinely called on by Bush's Press Secretary McClellan. This has also spurred some homosexual groups to threaten to 'out' the homosexuals in the Bush administration. Given that this article documents ten, with the likelihood of another dozen, who will be left for the queer groups to 'out'?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42954

Homosexual press hot to 'out' Bush figures

Gannon-gate leads to charges about top Republican officials

February 21, 2005 By Joseph Farah

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

---------------------------------------------------------
19B. Bush Adm. Knew Who Queer Male Harlot Was.

He provided them with his real name, so any security check would've determined that reporter Jeff Guckert (AKA Gannon) was a homosexual male prostitute. And Congress confirms he was properly approved. That means the Bush administration okayed him with both eyes open, it was not an oversight.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=161

Secret Service responds on Gannon inquiry

says ‘no deviation’ from ‘proper procedures’

Secret Service says Gannon approved appropriately

By John Byrne RAW STORY
Editor

The Secret Service has responded to a request from House Democrats to investigate the approval of discredited White House correspondent ‘Jeff Gannon’ and says there was “no deviation” from “proper procedures,” RAW STORY can reveal.

The Service, which responded in a letter to Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Louise Slaughter on Monday, asserts that Gannon was approved appropriately.

“Please be advised that our Office of Protective Operations has looked into this matter and has determined that there was no deviation from Secret Service standards and procedures as your letter suggests,” wrote Secret Service Deputy Assistant Director Conrad A. Everett.

Mr. Guckert provided the Secret Service with his legal name, rather than his ‘pen name,’ and was assessed using the same criteria applied to all individuals seeking access to White House briefings.

“We would note,” Everett added, “that members of the press who are afforded access to the White House may utilize professional names that differ from their legal names. The Secret Service, however, requires that legal names be provided to enable the screening processes to work effectively.”

Rep. Slaughter, in a statement to be included with the Secret Service letter shortly, thanked the Service for their response but said it only raised more questions.

“While I appreciate the Secret Service’s response to some of our questions, the bigger picture remains,” Slaughter said in a statement to RAW STORY. “The relationship between this Administration and Jeff Gannon was anything but typical and the American people deserve the full, unvarnished truth.”

“Who at the White House was responsible for submitting Mr. Guckert’s name for clearance?” Slaughter added. “How often was he cleared? One what days did he receive a day pass? We deserve answers.”

Rep. Conyers will say the Service’s response dodged the issue.

“I thank the Secret Service for its partial response,” Conyers said, “but I am disappointed that it dodged the heart of the issue: who at the White House paved the way for Mr. Guckert to have repeated and staged access to the President.”

AmericaBLOG’s John Aravosis, who dug up indiscreet photos of Gannon selling his own escort services, says that a bigger unanswered question remains: If Gannon’s day pass was effectively equivalent to a “hard pass” given to long-term White House reporters, why didn’t Gannon get a more thorough background check?“Why do reporters with hard passes have to get three month background checks?” Aravosis asked. “The answer has to be [because of] their ongoing unfettered access to the White House.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

19C. Queer Male Harlot Was Denied for Being Conservative.

Now here is a real interesting development. Gannon-Guckert was denied a press pass to Congress because of his associations with an ultra-conservative faction of the Republican party - but he was given a press pass to the White House without any trouble.

http://www.fcnp.com/450/besen.htm

Interestingly, Guckert was denied Capitol Hill press passes because Talon News was considered an illegitimate right wing propaganda service run by Republican rabble-rouser Bobby Eberle. Yet, he somehow got into the White House. At the heart of the scandal are a couple of crucial questions: Was Guckert simply an ambitious prostitute or a propitious presidential plant? If he was a plant, exactly who greased the wheels that got him past tight security? The vulgar scandal has revived Washington whispers that the supposedly anti-gay Republican Party is really nothing less than a gay affirmative action program.

----------------------------------------
19D. Queer Karl Rove Outed.

Yet another key member of the Bush administration turns out to be a sodomite. That makes at least 11. Karl Rove is the one who shaped Bush's reelection strategy. Ironically, he's the one who pushed Bush's campaign as a "morality" candidacy.

One queer after another keeps appearing in Bush's wake. Pretty soon it'll be hard to find someone in the Bush administration who isn't queer.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=65&contentid=1997

Karl Rove Seen at Homosexual Orgies in Washington

by TOM FLOCCO

Walter Storch, editor of the Barnes Review News reported three weeks ago that "Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year." [2004]

A Barnes reporter told Storch that "Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities."

Storch wrote, "Karl used to hang out a JR’s, which is on 17th between P & S streets, before he became so well-known. This is a respectable gay bar for discreet people...," adding, "there is an expensive apartment...over near Dupont Circle that certain powerful senators take turns visiting with their pickups."

"Bush, via Karl Rove, was projected as a moral man who would return a hedonistic America to the simpler virtues of a bygone era. A large part of the American public, unhappy with what they saw as debilitating liberalism, abortion on demand, gay marriage and other forms of moral decay, put Bush back in office," said the Barnes editor.

18A, 18B, & 18C. Bush Middle East Inconsistencies.

President Bush continues to make confusing and conflicting statements pertaining to peace in the Middle East. Recall that Bush insisted he will bring peace to the Middle East this term (#28 BSI). He has also increased funding to Muslim terrorist groups (#17 BSI, #1 BSII).

Here he calls for a "contiguous Palestine" on Israeli land. No country of Palestine has ever existed. Palestinians are largely an outgrowth of Jordan, but nobody is asking Jordan (or any of the two dozen Arabic countries) to forfeit any of their land for their own people.

If it is such an imperative to have a "contiguous Palestine" can we assume that he also wants a "contiguous Israel"? That would mean Israel gets all of Jerusalem and they can remove that silly Islamic Dome of the Rock and begin to rebuild the Jewish Temple there. A good deal of Bible prophecy rests on how that will come about.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050221/D88D0NN02.html

Bush Calls for 'Contiguous' Palestine

Feb 21, 11:26 AM (ET)

By TOM RAUMBRUSSELS, Belgium

(AP) - President Bush on Monday laid out a checklist for Israel and Palestine to achieve peace with two independent states, including an insistence that the Palestinians get contiguous land in the West Bank.

"A state on scattered territories will not work," Bush said during a speech in the first overseas trip of his second term.

Bush pressed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be forthcoming on giving up Israeli settlements in the West Bank when peace negotiations on a Palestinian state reach their final stage. On Sunday, Israel's cabinet agreed for the first time since capturing the West Bank and Gaza 38 years ago to dismantle some of the dozens of Jewish settlements it has built there.

Bush said Israel must freeze settlement activity and help Palestinians build their economy for the peace process to work. For the Palestinians' part, Bush said their leaders must confront and dismantle terrorist groups, fight corruption, encourage free enterprise and give authority with the people in democracy.

Bush outlined the steps during a wide-ranging speech designed to repair strained relationships with Europe. Bush put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of a list of common goals between the U.S. and its allies.

"Our greatest opportunity and immediate goal is peace in the Middle East," Bush said.

Bush pledged U.S. and European support to help implement a U.S. backed schedule for achieving peace and an independent Palestinian state and help the Palestinians build their economic, political and security institutions.

He said he hoped Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will lay out a plan for reform at a conference in London next month hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bush said he's sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "to convey America's strong support for the Palestinian people as they build a democratic state."

------------------------------------

18B. Mrs. Bush to Honor Islam.

The Jew haters will again pretend like this stuff isn't happening, but once again the Bush's are lending their support to Islam.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44389

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Bush Temple Mount visit fuels Jewish group's anger

First lady's ascent to holy site called measure 'to honor Islam'

May 21, 2005

By Aaron Klein

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – A group that led a Jewish protest at the Temple Mount last month in hopes of reclaiming the site from its Islamic custodians has expressed disappointment that U.S. First Lady Laura Bush, who arrives here tomorrow, plans to visit the Mount to honor Muslim tradition.

Bush, touring Jordan today, arrives in Israel tomorrow as part of a wider Middle East tour aimed at advancing regional peace and encouraging Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in accordance with the U.S.-backed road map.

According to Israeli media reports, the First Lady will visit the Temple Mount, among other religious sites.

U.S. officials said Bush had requested activities to honor Israel's three religions during her Israel visit. She will tour the Western Wall to pay respects to Judaism, visit a church in Jericho to honor Christianity, and ascend the Temple Mount to express good will toward Islam, said an official.

But David Ha'ivri, director of Revava, a Jewish Temple Mount activist group, said he is concerned Bush's visit will be perceived as official American recognition of Islamic control of the Mount.

"It's a major misconception," Ha'ivri told WND. "Many think the Temple Mount is the holy place of Muslims and the Kotel (Western Wall) is the holy place for Jews. No, the Kotel is only holy because it's part of a retaining wall for the Temple Mount, which itself is the holiest place for Jews. It was the location of our first and second Temples, and will be the site of our third." Ha'ivri continued: "On her visit to the most holy place on earth for Jews – the Temple Mount – we are calling on Mrs. Bush to demand freedom of access to Jewish worshipers and open a dialogue to return the Temple Mount to its rightful owners, the Jews."

Ha'ivri last month sparked international dialogue when he announced plans to bring 10,000 Jews to the Temple Mount, prompting Muslims throughout the Middle East to hold demonstrations against Jewish claims to the site. On the protest day, only about 200 Jewish protesters were allowed past intense security, which included over 3,500 Israeli police stationed at checkpoints and entrances throughout the Old City, the walled section of Jerusalem that encompasses the Temple Mount.

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their planned intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area. Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It is still open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount.

During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site.

Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

"The situation is simply intolerable," said Ha'ivri, who promised future protests. "This is a Jewish state. The Temple Mount is the most holy Jewish site. We're not going away until Jews can once again pray there unrestricted."

--------------------------------------
18C. Bush Again Aids Islam Terrorists.

By gov't standards, $50 million might not be a lot of money (then give it to me!), but giving more money to the Muslim terrorists will do nothing to bring peace into the area, nor anything for the cause of Christ, the interest of America, or the cause of conservatism.

Bush wants to take land away from Israel and keep them from expanding in their OWN country, to comply with his arbitrary "roadmap", while he praises the Arabs for rejecting terror. Is he sane? The Palestinian Authority he is giving our money to ARE terrorists. They were Arafat's group!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3DA32TSUZTD4LNACRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=8618342

Bush pledges $50 million in aid for Palestinians

May 26, 2005

By Wafa Amr and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush pledged $50 million in aid for the Palestinians Thursday and urged Israel to stop settlement expansion and other activities that could prejudice negotiations on a final peace deal.

Standing with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a White House Rose Garden news conference, Bush also said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to Jerusalem and Ramallah to consult with Israeli and Palestinian leaders about Israel's planned August pullout from the Gaza Strip.

Abbas, the first Palestinian president to visit Washington since peace talks collapsed in 2000, complained of Israeli settlement activity and said "time is becoming our greatest enemy."

"We must end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before it is too late," Abbas said.

Bush's announcement of U.S. aid to the Palestinians for Gaza Strip projects was a symbolic gesture of support for Abbas, who has sought money to be channeled directly to the Palestinian Authority instead of through third parties.

"To help ensure that the Gaza disengagement is a success, the United States will provide the Palestinian Authority $50 million to be used for new housing and infrastructure projects in the Gaza," Bush said. The United States each year provides Israel more than $2 billion.

Washington, eager to embark on the stalled peace "road map," has welcomed Abbas' vow to seek statehood by peaceful means as well as a cease-fire he declared with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in February and persuaded militants to accept.

Sharon has demanded, however, that Abbas do more to bring a complete halt to militant violence, which has broken out again from time to time despite the truce. Sharon is grappling with rightist protests against the planned Gaza pullout while Palestinians worry that the unilateral withdrawal will divert attention from Israel's settlement expansions in the West Bank, while keeping the small strip of land isolated.

Bush's pressure on Israel to stop settlement expansion and other activities was a nod to another main Abbas concern. "Israel should not undertake any activities that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion," Bush said.

The U.S. president also raised questions about a barrier that Israel is building in the name of security but which Palestinians call a disguised annexation of land. "The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security rather than political barrier and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities," he said.

Bush also said the Palestinians have work to do to help jump-start the peace process, such as fighting corruption and reforming Palestinian security services. "The United States and the international community applaud your rejection of terrorism," he told Abbas.

"All who engage in terror are the enemies of a Palestinian state and must be held to account," Bush said.

Scorecard Updates: # 6, 10, and 11

Please click on these links for updates to :

• # 6 A, B, C and D
• # 10 A & B
• # 11 A, B, and C

Thank you, ed.

17. Bush Pushes Expensive "Free" Trade.

It doesn't matter what side of the free-trade vs. fair-trade argument you are on - we are being sold an expensive bill of goods by President Bush.

His previous "free" trade efforts, such as NAFTA, GATT, and WTO have cost America millions of jobs and moved markets to countries where nobody has any money. We have shipped out our high-tech and industrial jobs overseas and replaced some of them with entry-level service jobs to keep the numbers from appearing as bad as they actually are (Would you like to "super-size" that order?).

Bush would like to super-size the damage caused by these New World Order trade agreements. He wants to expand the devastation caused by NAFTA with CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) and FTAA (Free Trade of the Americas Agreement). Now besides losing jobs to Mexico, we'll lose them to Honduras, Venezuela, and other countries south of Mexico, many of which have become Communist in recent years. Mexico will also lose some of the jobs they stole from us to the same nations.

NAFTA contained some 2,000 pages. Can someone tell me how a FREE trade agreement can contain 2,000 pages of trade REGULATIONS?

Apparently the modern definitions are that anything that hurts America is considered "free trade" and anything that helps America is considered "fair trade". But why do the conservative Republicans continue to support the type of trade that harms America? It's almost as if they weren't on our side.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=509736

Bush Economic Report Pushes Free Trade

Bush's Economic Report Argues the Benefits of Free and Fair Trade Despite Criticisms

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Feb 17, 2005 — Contending that Americans benefit from free trade, President Bush said Thursday he would keep pursuing liberalization agreements around the world, even as critics say his policies have resulted in record trade deficits and millions of lost jobs.

Bush's pledge came in his annual economic report to Congress, a 438-page document that argued that his economic policies, ranging from making his first-term tax cuts permanent to overhauling Social Security, will lead to greater prosperity.

TG: Wait a minute. Make the tax CUTS permanent while overhauling Social Security, which he has already proposed tax HIKES to accomplish? Whoever is working Puppet Bush's marionette strings is truly a master puppeteer. He made the guy say two *opposite* things at the same time, out of the same mouth. That's impressive.

"I believe that Americans benefit from open markets and free and fair trade and I am working to open up markets around the world and make sure that the playing field is level for our workers, farmers, manufacturers and other job creators," Bush said in his message to Congress.

The administration devoted an entire chapter to extolling the benefits of free trade and seeking to answer critics who contend the country's soaring trade deficits, which last year hit a record of $617.7 billion, were costing millions of jobs.

However, the report did not repeat an argument made last year that critics viewed as endorsing the idea that the "outsourcing" of American jobs to lower-wage countries represented a benefit to the U.S. economy.

TG: He couldn't make that insane argument again. Some of us catch on after getting burnt a few times.

16. The Fuhrer Selects Herr Negroponte.

President Bush selected John Negroponte to be America's first National Intelligence director.

If you recall, this was the American version of the Gestapo or KGB, when 14 U.S. intelligence agencies were combined into one powerful federal leviathan (see #23 on Scorecard I).

Negroponte is certainly qualified when it comes to being oppressive on the federal level (or higher). He was the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. (that alone is socialistic enough) responsible for pushing the U.N. resolutions that became the excuse to invade Iraq, even though the image was that "Cowboy" Bush bucked the U.N. The fact is, the U.S. was doing the U.N.'s dirty work, and taking all the heat for it.

He was most recently our Ambassador to Iraq, and we all see how well that's going.

Administration sources say some other candidates declined the post because the legislation creating the intel job was too vague in describing its authority. Well, someone seeking *unconstitutional* authority would not be bothered by vague laws. The vagueness makes them easier to apply as desired and harder for citizens to defend against.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050217/D88AC8RO1.html

Bush Nominates Negroponte As Intel Chief

Feb 17, 11:20 AM (ET)

By KATHERINE SHRADER

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Thursday named John Negroponte, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and currently the administration's top representative in Iraq, to be America's first national intelligence director.

Announcing the move, Bush said that Negroponte understands global intelligence needs because he's had a long career in the foreign service.

Bush also said that Negroponte will make decisions on the budgets for the various intelligence agencies.

"John will make sure that those whose duty it is to defend America have the information we need to make the right decisions," the president said.

TG: Yes, Big Brother will have all he needs to know about us. He will be reading this rebuttal on the internet faster than you are right now. In fact, I think I hear someone knocking at my door right now ...

Bush named Lt. Gen. Mike Hayden, who has served as director of the National Security Agency since March 1999, as Negroponte's deputy. He is the longest serving director of the secretive codebreaking agency and has pushed for changes, such as asking longtime agency veterans to retire and increasing reliance on technology contractors.

TG: Ah yes, get rid of all those old timers who still might remember that we have a Constitution we're supposed to operate under.

Discussing the authority that Negroponte will have, Bush said that "people who control the money, people who have access to the president generally have a lot of influence. And that's why John Negroponte is going to have a lot of influence. He will set the budgets."

TG: He will set the budgets? Why, according to the Constitution (the WHAT?) that's only the job of Congress. All legislative powers are vested in Congress, and all revenue bills must originate in the House.

Bush said he had not received any preliminary findings from the commission that's investigating failures of prewar intelligence - headed by former Sen. Chuck Robb, R-Va., and Republican Laurence Silberman - which is expected to issue a final report next month.

Negroponte, 65, was at the United Nations when he was tapped to take on the delicate job of transforming the U.S. presence in Iraq from that of an occupier to that of an adviser. Bush chose him for the job last April and he went to Baghdad hours after the handover of sovereignty to Iraq's interim government.

TG: Being that Negroponte was our Ambassador to the U.N. and to Iraq during these "failures of prewar intelligence", you don't think he might be somewhat responsible for ... oh, no, of course not.

According to one well-informed administration official, former CIA director Robert Gates was Bush's first choice but Gates and some other candidates declined the post.

They worried that the legislation establishing the intelligence job was too vague in outlining its authority, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington were the impetus for legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush, creating the new position.

The bill represented the most sweeping intelligence legislation in over 50 years. The director of national intelligence will hold a pre-eminent role in U.S. national security affairs and coordinate the work of all 15 U.S. intelligence agencies.

Spokeswoman Sarah Little said Negroponte told the senator he would need to return to Iraq to tie up issues there. Little said the confirmation may be weeks away.

TG: That's probably an optimistic prediction. It will take years to tie up issues in Iraq.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Negroponte helped win unanimous approval of a Security Council resolution that demanded Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein comply with U.N. mandates to disarm.

Negroponte worked to expand the role for international security forces in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban government.

Negroponte's confirmation to the United Nations post was delayed a half-year mostly because of criticism of his record as the U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.

In Honduras, he played a prominent role in assisting the Contras in Nicaragua in their war with the left-wing Sandinista government. Human rights groups alleged that Negroponte acquiesced in human rights abuses by Honduran death squads funded and partly trained by the CIA.

Negroponte testified during the hearings for the U.N. post that he did not believe death squads were operating in Honduras.

TG: He didn't believe any death squads existed there, but he did believe WMDs existed in Iraq. And this guy is now in charge of all U.S. intelligence?

In the past year, the intelligence community has been faced with a series of negative reports, including the work of the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry on the flawed Iraq intelligence.

TG: Flawed what in the past year? And Negroponte has been working where for the past year?

15. Bush Administration Fights Former American POWs.

Why in the world would the Bush administration fight against our POWs? These are the guinea pigs the Bush administration sent to fight this futile, fraudulent war on terror. Even more, these suffered as prisoners of war, undergoing torture. Of all the people for Bush to stab in the back, he picked the ones he should reward. But our POWs have been shafted in every war since WWII, so it's no surprise that Bush continues the abuse of America's finest.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-pow15feb15.story

White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs

Gulf War pilots tortured by Iraqis fight the Bush administration in trying to collect compensation.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.

TG: The Iraqis get the money instead of our POWs? Abominable.

The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.

Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.

TG: And the Iraqi victims get money too. Everybody but our POWs.

But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.

"It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this," said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs.

The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. government. The picture changed, however, when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years ago.

On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush administration intervened to argue that their claims should be dismissed.

"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.

Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on "no amount of money" going to the Gulf War POWs. "These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq," McClellan said.

TG: More money goes to rebuilding Iraq, but none to our POWs. Pitiful.

On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq. Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of Iraq's frozen assets.

No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq, which was now under U.S. occupation.

Already frustrated by the turn of events, the former POWs were startled when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.

TG: Rumsfield and Bush are tag team partners vying against our POWs. What a travesty.

"I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the right thing to do," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee last year.

14. Bush already violating his "tight" budget.

The ink isn't even dry on the budget that Bush is crowing about and already he is violating it by adding $billions for the war on terror that are NOT included in his budget. His increases on spending for public relations and faith-control initiatives are odious enough, but at least they were included in the budget. No doubt this is only the beginning, showing that his budget isn't worth the paper it's printed on (then again, a $2.6 TRILLION budget takes a LOT of paper).

Remember, this is the unconstitutional war that was supposed to pay for itself with the oil we gained.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050214/D888CR4G0.html

Bush Wants $82B More for Iraq, Afgan Costs

Feb 14, 11:10 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush was poised to officially ask Congress Monday for an estimated $82 billion in additional funds to cover the costs of continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House was to send the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill late Monday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.

Last Monday, Bush submitted an overall $2.5 trillion budget for Fiscal 2006. That document called for restraining spending across a wide swath of government programs from popular farm subsidies to poor people's health programs.

Spending on the military, the biggest part of discretionary spending, would rise by 4.8 percent in 2006 to $419.3 billion. But this figure does not include the estimated $82 billion that the administration wants to pay for the ongoing military expenses in Iraq and the Middle East.

Administration officials, who discussed this special request late last month on grounds of anonymity, had said that $75 billion of it would be for U.S. military costs, with the rest including funds to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces, aid the new Palestinian leadership, build an embassy in Baghdad and help victims of warfare in Sudan's Darfur province.

Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a written statement on this issue earlier, President Bush had said the special appropriation would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights."

13. Bush Supports Liberal Restrictions on Free Speech

This bill exposed a lot of phonies in Washington. Without question it is a liberal Democrat bill that restricts free speech in violation of the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It's not to surprising that overtly liberal Republican joined with ultra-liberal Russ Feingold, but it was a bit surprising that the Republican-majority Congress blew their pseudo-conservative cover and passed the bill, and the Republican-majority Supreme Court upheld it. It shouldn't have been surprising to anyone who pays attention to what's going on that fake conservative Republican President George Bush signed it.

It's amazing how conservative Christians can't see through these fakers, when they hardly even make a pretense at being Constitutional conservative Americans anymore. At least there are a few conservatives who are trying to rescind this abomination.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200502\\POL20050209b.html

McCain-Feingold 'Antidote' Re-Introduced in House

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com
Morning Editor
February 09, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Those who believe that campaign finance "reform" didn't reform anything are rallying behind a newly re-introduced bill called the First Amendment Restoration Act.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), is intended to overturn portions of the McCain-Feingold law that prevent advocacy groups from running certain political ads in the days leading up to an election.

Free speech advocates describe Bartlett's bill as an antidote to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which they see as an effort to protect incumbent politicians from criticism.

"Passing the First Amendment Restoration Act will be a good and necessary first step toward repairing the damage done to Americans' constitutional rights by so-called 'campaign finance reform,' said the Center for Individual Freedom."

Right now, those 'reforms' prevent voters from talking about their elected representatives just when other citizens are most likely to be listening -- before elections.

The First Amendment Restoration Act will begin to give Americans back their free speech rights, said Reid Cox, the Center's general counsel.

Under McCain-Feingold, advocacy groups may not buy broadcast ads naming a specific candidate ("Vote for Joe", "Defeat Sam") within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

To the surprise of many McCain-Feingold opponents, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld key elements of the law that Congress passed and President Bush signed.

"Our leaders should be listening carefully to what the American people have to say, especially during elections, rather than trying to ban them from saying anything at all," Cox said in a press release."The First Amendment Restoration Act will help ensure that our elected representatives hear from their constituents 365 days a year. Surely all Americans can agree that our government should not be limiting political speech in the days, weeks and months before we decide who should lead us next."

Despite the law intended to curb campaign spending, the 2004 presidential election was the most expensive in history.

Sen. McCain is now proposing a crackdown on 527 groups -- which accounted for much of the political spending in 2004. Those 527 groups, named after a section of the tax code, are exempt from "soft money" limits imposed on political parties

12. U.S. Refuses One-On-One North Korea Talks.

WHAT? The U.S. is refusing to have talks with North Korea? Why those intolerant war mongers! North Korea ought to nuke 'em if they don't want to use diplomacy and negotiation. Here's North Korea making an effort at diplomacy and peace, and the U.S. is spurning their efforts.

If the U.S. demanded one-on-one talks, and North Korea refused, no doubt Bush would call them "evil" and use that to justify attacking them. Even if they are evil (which they are), that doesn't give the U.S. the right to be hypocrites.

Wasn't that part of the U.S. excuse to attack Saddam? He refused diplomacy?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050211/D886D24G0.html

U.S. Refuses One-On-One North Korea Talks

Feb 11, 10:36 AM (ET)

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Friday that it wasn't interested in one-on-one talks with North Korea about its nuclear programs outside the six-party negotiations involving the communist nation's neighbors.

"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And it's an issue that impacts all of its neighbors."

North Korea has plenty of opportunity to talk to the United States within six-party talks, McClellan said.

TG: But I thought the Bush administration didn't care about the UN community? I thought the cowboy was going to do what's right even if the "world community" didn't follow?

In an interview with a South Korean newspaper Friday, North Korea's U.N. envoy demanded bilateral talks with the United States.

"We will return to the six-nation talks when we see a reason to do so and the conditions are ripe," Han Sung Ryol told Seoul's Hankyoreh newspaper in an interview published Friday.

"If the United States moves to have direct dialogue with us, we can take that as a signal that the United States is changing its hostile policy toward us."

11A, 11B and 11C. Homeland Czar can "suspend all laws".

An obscure portion of the "REAL ID Act of 2005" dealing with securing our borders gives the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to "waive all laws" as he determines necessary for construction of roads and barriers, and they are not subject to any judicial review. That's more power than some kings and dictators have. It may have been meant for a limited purpose, but no limitations are in the law. They can twist that law to apply to almost anything under the realm of "Homeland Security" and "protecting our borders". That certainly explains why the votes on some of these Homeland security bills were taken before the bills were even written and issued. Otherwise they would never have passed even our liberal Congress.

That ability would be dangerous enough in the hands of a trustworthy, loyal, constitutional American - but remember who the nominee for Homeland Czar is. Peter Chertoff, the lone Clinton holdover lawyer who covered up the suspicious death of Vince Foster and has defended the interests of Osama bin Laden! (see #'s 61 & 97 [Link to Bush Scorecard ]).

We won't have to worry about Hillary becoming president in 2008 - she'll already be in total control through Chertoff as Homeland Czar and Bill Clinton at the UN. And some of you thought you were voting for Bush. You didn't know you were REALLY voting for Hillary!

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42787

ON CAPITOL HILL

Homeland chief to 'waive all laws'?Security provision in REAL ID Act gives feds broad powers at border

February 10, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Opposition to a homeland-security bill brought to the floor of Congress yesterday largely has centered on fears it would lead to a national ID, but some critics point to an overlooked section that apparently gives the White House sweeping powers to suspend laws for the purpose of protecting U.S. borders.

Section 102 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 seeks to expedite the building of a three-mile fence at the border near San Diego to staunch the flood of illegal aliens that travel through an area known as "smuggler's gulch."

Environmental laws have been the project's chief roadblock, but the bill's language appears to provide an unlimited scope, reading, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

Significantly, it also says courts are prohibited from reviewing the secretary's decision.

"Taking judicial review away is quite dramatic," [Cato Institute's Jim Harper] told WND. "The secretary, under a strict reading, could waive any law and conceivably detain people, wiretap -- the list would go on and on of the laws that could be waived."

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

(c) Waiver-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

• (A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
• (B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., says the main purpose is to "prevent another 9-11 attack by disrupting terrorist travel."

TG: Do you see that? This bill's chief sponsor is a supposed ultra-conservative Republican who was vocally against some of the earlier Homeland legislation because it violated American liberty. Now here he is, after building that trust, supporting a potentially worse Homeland bill than what he criticized!

"The ostensible purpose is to allow the Homeland Security secretary to operate in that one area -- but 'all laws'? Would that include the Posse Comitatus Act?" Jeff Deist, spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul asked, referring to the measure passed in 1878 that bars the Army, and now the Air Force also, from executing laws except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Paul contends that despite Sensenbrenners' denials, the REAL ID Act moves the country toward creation of a national ID card.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

11B. Friend of Bill and Osama Confirmed as HS Czar.

Congress confirmed Peter Chertoff as Homeland Security Chief today (2-15-05). There are some odd things about Chertoff that make him the last guy who should be in charge of Homeland Security.

When Bill Clinton took office, he shocked Washington by firing all the U.S. attorneys - except ONE. Guess who that one was?

Chertoff also covered up the suspicious death of Vince Foster, but that's not all. He has defended the interests of Osama bin Laden! (see #'s 61 & 97 Bush Scorecard). It was expected that would hinder his confirmation, after all, bin Laden is the main terrorist the Homeland Security department is supposed to be protecting us from. Having the guy who defended Osama's financiers in charge of Homeland Security is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. But Congress approved him anyway. Are they that stupid, or are they complicit in the undermining of America? I can't believe they are that stupid.

Since this is related to #11, I'll be generous and not even make this another item, but attach it as 11B. That way no one can accuse me of stretching the case against Bush and his administration.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050215/2005-02-15T212427Z_01_N15487355_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-CHERTOFF-DC.html

Senate Confirms New Homeland Security Chief

Feb 15, 4:24 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal judge Michael Chertoff, who testified against torture and preached the need to protect civil liberties, won Senate confirmation on Tuesday to head the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

TG: Oh look at this spin! They paint him as a concerned good-guy and conveniently omit the things I mentioned above.

The Senate approved President Bush's nomination of the former U.S. assistant attorney general to succeed Tom Ridge as secretary of the department created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The vote completed Senate action on Bush's second-term cabinet, though he still must fill some key, non-cabinet jobs -- like the newly created post of director of national intelligence.

Democrats and Republicans praised Chertoff for agreeing to give up a lifetime job as a federal appeals court judge to accept the tough task of bolstering national security.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, noted that Chertoff explained his reason why at a confirmation hearing earlier this month before her homeland security committee."The call to serve in helping protect America was the one call I could not decline," Collins quoted Chertoff as saying.

TG: Yes, what a statesman! Too bad it's not in favor of the American state.

----------------------------------------------------------

11C. Chertoff Covered Up Everything.

The article at the URL below is lengthy, but it shows just why Chertoff should be the last guy in charge of Homeland Security. He was involved in sweeping things under the rug in virtually every incident of terrorism in America. President Bush cannot possibly be so ignorant of these things, but the only alternative is that he supports the Gestapo/KGB tactics of the man he nominated.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick4.htm

This report presents a study of Michael Chertoff’s role in the 1993 WTC bombing, the OKC bombing and the 9-11 terrorist attacks as well as Chertoff’s coverup of FBI and DOJ foreknowledge and provocation of these attacks. The information in the report strongly implicates Chertoff in intentionally helping create and provoke these terrorist acts and terror funding in order to provide a pretext for much of the controversial police state provisions in laws which Chertoff has helped write. Chertoff’s unethical and criminal roles and conduct revealed in this report raises grave concerns that Chertoff, as head of Homeland Security, would further attempt to impose a US police state and continue to use illegal, unconstitutional and immoral tactics against the America people.

10A and 10B. Bush to Increase Gov't Control of Churches

"Brother" Bush calls this control his "faith-based initiative". When it comes to gov't subsidized programs, there are always string attached - sometimes ropes and cables. Anything the gov't funds, the gov't controls. The initiative has already been used to prevent churches from "injecting religion" into their programs (see #'s 48 & 70).

The religion injected included encouraging people to witness their faith, read the scriptures, and attend church services. Those are among the most basic things a church is SUPPOSED to do. Therefore (Big) "Brother" Bush, the wonderful, conservative, Christian President, is actively hindering Christian churches from performing their most basic ministry activities under his own program. He can't blame this on his aides, congress, or the courts - this was his brainchild.

Not only that, but despite Bush's self-professed "lean" budget (see previous item #9), calling for alleged tightening, it's more than curious that he decided to increase funding for this intrusive program by more than 60%. It must be a real priority for "Bro." Bush to put the handcuffs and leg irons on Christian churches.

http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2913663


Bush budget boosts funding for faith-based initiatives


WHITE HOUSE While President Bush is proposing budget cuts to many domestic programs, he's seeking more funding for his faith-based initiatives.

Jim Towey (TOO'-ee), who heads the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says Bush has asked for an additional 150 (m) million dollars -- a 63-percent increase -- for five programs.

The money would be used for maternity group homes and programs for drug treatment, prisoner re-entry into society, mentoring the children of prisoners and the Capital Compassion Fund.

Towey says the increases reflect Bush's belief that the initiatives -- many of them in partnership with religious charities -- provide effective service and more options to those in need.

-------------------------------------

10B. Sellouts and Thieves.

It's already been shown that Christian ministries will be forced to compromise their scriptural responsibilities if they accept a Bush faith-based initiative grant. Here is a list of some Christian ministries that have accepted or applied for faith-bash grants. They either already have, or are willing to, compromise their ministries for a few bucks.

Not only are they sellouts, they are thieves. The money they seek is forcefully taken from taxpayers, largely against their will. Taking money from someone else without their permission is stealing, even if it's used for a religious cause. If someone breaks into my house during the night to steal my money, they're going to get shot, even if they are stealing the money to give it to a worthy cause like "Jerry's kids". It's my decision which ministries I contribute to, it's not for some thief to determine. It's no less stealing even if it's a gov't taking it out of my paycheck before I get to see it, and they intend to give some to charity.

The ministries below are complicit in the thievery:

http://mattchancey.blogspot.com/2005/02/faith-based-in-big-government.html

The Bush administration, through its Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has doled out millions of dollars to conservative Christian organizations. Pat Robertson received $1.5 million. Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries was one of four groups selected to receive a $22.5 million grant. Catholic Relief Services, World Vision and the Salvation Army have all received pork from Uncle Sam; and Campus Crusade for Christ, Samaritan’s Purse (Billy Graham’s son’s ministry), and other evangelical organizations have applied for access to the government trough.

Reading the list of grant reviewers is like reading off a list of “who’s who in the Religious Right.” Summit Ministries, Turning Point, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation, are all gate-keepers in President Bush’s faith-based welfare program.

Christian conservative organizations fighting for so-called “individual liberty and personal responsibility” disgrace their charters by taking welfare from the Bush Administration. Paul Weyrich, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Beverly LaHaye, Lou Sheldon, and Franklin Graham have all read the Constitution and should know better. Government money always comes with strings attached.

9. Bush PR spending up 80%.

While bragging about how tight his new budget is (a $2.57 TRILLION budget that increases the deficit by $42 billion - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050208/D884313O0.html ), President Bush has increased spending on his public relations by 80% since taking office.

Never mind the burden the war on terror has added to the budget, Bush's IMAGE has to be maintained. It takes a lot of money to fool people who should know better, into believing he is a good Christian and conservative.

Recently it was uncovered that the Bush administration has been paying at least two media personnel to report favorably on his programs, and at least one of them was a homosexual (#'s 52, 80, & 98). On the day Bush ordered his aides to stop the payoffs, the second offense was discovered.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7fd51392-791f-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html

US government ratchets up PR budget

By Holly Yeager in Washington :

February 7 2005

But the costs [of PR] have been creeping upward - a sign that politics is being conducted in a new way, in which the message of the day can be delivered by ever-increasing means.

The federal government spent $88.2m on contracts with public relations agencies last year, according to a report last month by congressional Democrats. That is up from $39m in 2000.

The payments have drawn criticism since the disclosure that Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, had received $241,000 from the Department of Education to promote the administration's "No Child Left Behind" initiative in television and radio appearances.

Other such payments have recently come to light, including $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services to a syndicated columnist to promote the president's pro-marriage proposals.

8. Bush ' 05 budget is record for abortion spending.

Bush is pro-life, is he? Well the current budget as shown on a 2-7-05 Columbia Christians for Life press release shows that spending for Title X (funding source for Planned Parenthood, the largest aborter in America) is currently the highest it's ever been.

Yes, George Bush is allocating more of YOUR money to kill babies than any previous president, including Bill Clinton (by over $30 million). That's not even counting the abortions that will be done by the 'birth-control' (abortifacient) pills (which Bush became the first to authorize), which may dwarf abortions done by surgical methods.

http://www.lefemineforlife.net/

http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/ (you have to search for bill 4818 of the 108th Congress)

Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $288,283,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects

The Republican-majority U.S. House approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 344 to 51, on 11-20-04 (Roll Call Number: 542).[Republicans 183 Yea, 27 Nay; Democrats 160 Yea, 24 Nay; 1 Independent Yea]

The Republican-majority U.S. Senate approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 65 to 30, on 11-20-04 (Record Vote Number: 215)[Republicans 42 Yea, 6 Nay; Democrats 23 Yea, 23 Nay; 1 Independent Nay]

The Republican President signed H.R. 4818 into law, authorizing the highest ever spending level for Title X in the history of the program,on 12-8-04. It became Public Law No. 108-447.

Neither the president nor congress have any constitutional right to spend one penny of our tax money on abortion. It is unconstitutional as well as heinous.

7A, 7B, and 7C. Bush recommends "booze and sex" novel.

This might not seem important enough to make the Scorecard, but it is another glaring example that the wholesome, Bible-reading, praying, Christian image of George W. Bush is fabricated. The first lady, Laura Bush, showed more of the same by inviting the author of the "beer and sex" novel her husband is recommending to the White House last year. In a similar vein, Tex Marrs reported that V.P Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, has authored "steamy lesbian sex novels". Birds of a feather.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/news/letter.html

White House Letter: Why is Bush reading Tom Wolfe? Don't ask

Elisabeth Bumiller

International Herald Tribune

Monday, February 7, 2005

WASHINGTON If you ask the White House what President George W. Bush is reading these days, the press office will call back with the official list: "His Excellency: George Washington," by Joseph J. Ellis, "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow and, not least, the Bible.

What the official list omits is Tom Wolfe's racy new beer-and sex-soaked novel, "I Am Charlotte Simmons." The president, a Wolfe fan, has not only read the book but is enthusiastically recommending it to friends.

It is unclear exactly what Bush liked so much about the book, which is told from the point of view of a young woman from the God-fearing backwoods of North Carolina, Charlotte Simmons, the first in her family to go to college.

Charlotte, who is at first shocked by the booze and debauchery she encounters at Wolfe's Dupont University, modeled on Duke among others, eventually succumbs in a chapter-long deflowering scene at the hands of a drunken fraternity rat. Then she sinks into depression.

Bush, who was the hard-drinking, hard-partying president of the jock fraternity at Yale, Delta Kappa Epsilon, is also the father of two partying twins, Jenna and Barbara.

Jenna graduated last year from the University of Texas and Barbara from Yale, and on neither campus is the milieu of Charlotte Simmons entirely foreign.

Does Bush like the book because it is a journey back to his keg nights at Deke, or because it offers a glimpse into the world of his daughters' generation? Or does he like the writing? Or is it all of the above? The White House won't say.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, did not respond to phone calls or e-mail messages last week asking about Bush's interest in Wolfe's book.

So perhaps Wolfe had some thoughts. In relatively short order he was located last Friday at a conference at his alma mater in Lexington, Virginia, Washington and Lee University. He was asked if he thought it unusual that a 58-year-old man, that is, the president, had so embraced his book.

"Well, a 74-year-old man wrote it," Wolfe replied.

He said he had no idea why Bush liked it. "I imagine he responded to the blinding talent," Wolfe added, chuckling, "but beyond that, I'm just not sure."

Wolfe, who voted for Bush and was invited by the first lady to the White House last year to speak at a salute to the authors Eudora Welty, Flannery O'Connor and Truman Capote, said he had not talked to the president about his book. But he said that Bush's father once told him how much he liked "The Bonfire of the Vanities," Wolfe's novel about New York City bond traders and racial politics during the excesses of the 1980s.

Friends note that the current President Bush has read every one of Wolfe's books, including "A Man in Full," the behemoth about real estate and social change in Atlanta in the 1990s.

--------------------------------
7B. Porn Star to Dine With Bush.

Every time I post something like this I get accused of having my mind in the gutter, but I can't help it if President Bush, his daughters, and sometimes his wife, are so often involved in such racy matters. I'll place this along with the last Bush family obscenity, rather than making it a new item.

Porn star to dine with Bush

Ex-candidate for governor sees it as 'great networking opportunity'

May 20, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A porn star who unsuccessfully ran for California governor will be among the guests who will dine with President Bush at an upcoming fund-raiser.

According to Counterpunch, the National Republican Congressional Committee is hosting a dinner June 14, and among those in attendance will be the buxom Marey Carey, and her boss, Mark Kulkis.

"I'm hoping to run as lieutenant governor of California next year," Carey said. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."

"I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove," Carey added. "Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he's against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn't so bad!"

Carey lost to Schwarzenegger in the 2003 California recall election. Her platform included: taxing breast enhancements, making lap dances tax deductible, recruiting porn stars as "ambassadors of good will," and putting Web cams up in every room of the governor's mansion.

Just last weekend, Carey, whose real name is Mary Cook, was among five people arrested at a new strip club in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash. All were accused of violating the local adult-cabaret ordinance, some by getting too close to customers and others – including Carey – by touching themselves in a sexual manner, according to the Associated Press.

The inclusion of porn-industry representatives at a Republican event is shocking many Bush supporters.

"The Republican Party has been hijacked," said a caller on Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily Radioactive program. "[Bush] is Clinton all over again! Only he doesn't have someone under his desk."

"I'm honored to be invited to this event," said Kulkis, who heads Kick A-- Pictures. "Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won't find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year."

Kulkis is currently an honorary chairman on the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire business entrepreneurs who advocate a robust "pro-business agenda."

----------------------------------

7C. Bush Nominee Adulterer Who Forcefully Sodomized Wife.

Another Bush connection with perversion. Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.

These clips are rather vulgar, but there's no way to avoid the unpleasant truth.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050512/cm_thenation/20050530mcgarvey/nc:742

Dr. Hager's Family Values

According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent.

Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Back in Lexington, where the couple continued to live, Linda Hager, as she was still known at the time, was sinking into a deep depression, she says. Though her marriage had been dead for nearly a decade, she could not see her way clear to divorce; she had no money of her own and few marketable skills. But life with David Hager had grown unbearable. As his public profile increased, so did the tension in their home, which she says periodically triggered episodes of abuse.

"I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off.... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.''

"Sometime between the births of Neal and Jonathan, Hager embarked on an affair with a Bible-study classmate who was a friend of Davis's.

A close friend of Davis's remembers her calling long distance when she found out: "She was angry and distraught, like any woman with two children would be. But she was committed to working it out.

" Sex was always a source of conflict in the marriage. Though it wasn't emotionally satisfying for her, Davis says she soon learned that sex could "buy" peace with Hager after a long day of arguing, or insure his forgiveness after she spent too much money.

"Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said. Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'"

6A, 6B, 6C and 6D. The attack on Iraq accomplished just what? They can vote?

Let's see, we sacrificed the lives of a few thousand Americans to rid Iraq of a Muslim fundamentalist who despises Americans, Christians, and Jews to replace him with a Muslim fundamentalist who despises Americans, Christians, and Jews, who is beating the secular, 'moderate' candidate backed by the U.S.

We gave them free elections and they put back into power almost what we removed from power, the only difference being the sect of Islam. Well, that's not the only difference. The new guy is an Ayatollah from IRAN (haven't we had trouble with them before?).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

U.S. 'in for a shock'

In early election results, Shiite cleric's alliance trouncing Washington's favorite

Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle Foreign Service

Friday, February 4, 2005

Baghdad -- Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government.

The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime.

More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.

The alliance "is a very diverse group of people, from Westernized independents to Sunni sheikhs to people who really believe in an Islamic state, " one Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said of the alliance on Wednesday. "It will be hard to maintain unity."

TG: No unity? What good is this doing them?

-----------------------------------------------

6B. Free Elections in Iraq?

This point is stunning enough that it certainly could stand on it's own, but since it's related to #6 on Scorecard II, I'll label it 6B so no one can claim I'm 'milking' any of these.

This further information comes from the 2-21-05 New American magazine article, "Who 'Won' in Iraq's Elections?", p. 5.

Remember when all the conservatives who only see the veneer got so giddy because of the "free" elections in Iraq? It was such a great thing to see so many Iraqis flock to the polling places at great risk. Regardless of the problems with the attack on Iraq - at least THIS was a good thing. Wasn't it?

In point #6 we saw that Bush's candidates were getting trounced by one of the bad guys, Iranian-born Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Well, that's the *good* news - it gets much worse.

The facts present a very disturbing truth, so those of you who want to keep your eyes, ears, hearts, and minds closed to reality can return to your television sets now. Better to waste your time filling your mind with sewage than be disturbed by the truth (that's sarcasm).

Originally, the Bush administration wanted their hand-picked coalition gov't and constitution to be installed. That's no surprise, although it was surprising that the coalition gov't included several of Saddam's Generals mixed with a few Communists, and the constitution removed the rights of Iraqi citizens to bear arms and practice religious freedom.

But al-Sistani insisted on democratic elections. Knowing that his Shiite Muslims held a majority gave him a good chance to win, unless there was too much rebellion among the Shiite citizens. But the Ayatollah had an ace up his sleeve.

Of course Bush had to go along with the free elections, after all, we were forcing freedom on the people we attacked. We had to pretend like we wanted them all along. Bush probably thought his puppets had a reasonable change to win among the Iraqis who embraced our invading soldiers with open arms (the election showed that there may have not as been as many Iraqis who were happy we're occupying their country as the Bush administration has claimed).

But then Ayatollah al-Sistani played his final card. He issued a "fatwa", a Muslim religious order, commanding the Shiites to go to the polls and support the Shiite slate of al-Sistani. So those multitudes flocking to the polls were not exercising newly given freedom, they were obeying a decree of their "Pope", with the risk of hell if they disobeyed. So now Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is Iraq's "freely and democratically elected" dictator!

Who knows who those people would've really voted for had they actually been voting freely? In any case, the fact is (I warned you to go back to your television while you had the chance), 1,500 Americans have died, 10,000 more have been wounded, and over $100 Billion of taxpayer's money has been spent to install an Ayatollah in Iraq similar to the one in Iran who gave us such trouble the past few decades.

Come to think of it, the Iranian Ayatollah despotism is giving us some trouble right now, so much that they are our probable next target in the war on terror. So the most ironic thing about this is we are about to fight another war because they have the SAME kind of government in Iran that we just installed in Iraq (Don't forget, we installed Saddam in Iraq in the first place as well as deposing the Shah of Iran which brought on Ayatollah Khomeini.)

We'll never have to worry about running out of enemies to fight in this fraudulent war on terror if we keep creating them as we go along.

-------------------------------------------------

6C. Iraqi Election Fraud

It's hardly surprising that substantial charges of fraud have been brought up pertaining to the recent Iraqi elections. With the Shiite Muslims running the elections it's not difficult to believe that other groups and religions would be discriminated against.

Assist News is reporting that of the 1.4 million Assyrian Iraqi Christians, only 32,000 were recorded as having voted. That's a turnout of a whopping 2.3% in an election being hailed for high turnouts. A radical Muslim Ayatollah dictatorship that discriminates against Christians. That's what our men fought and died for to install in Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------

6D. Another American-backed Candidate Withdraws.

The elections in Iraq have turned out to be a total disaster for America. First, Iranian-born Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared a "fatwa", ordering the majority Shiite Muslims to vote for him over the American-backed Ayad Allawi. Then we saw that only 2.3% of the Assyrian Iraqi Christians registered votes, though the Bush administration was lauding the high turnout of the elections. Now we have another American-backed candidate pulling out.

Ahmad Chalabi was a front-runner for the prime minister position, but the United Iraqi Alliance, the winning Shiite organization of al-Sistani, pressured Chalabi to withdraw in favor of UIA candidate Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim V.P. His only opposition for the slot will come from Allawi, who has already been beaten back by the UIA.

These elections are beginning to look like Communist elections where favorite candidates are threatened by opponents and withdraw meekly. Those who resist are often found dead.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050222/D88DJJ8O0.html

Shiites Pick al-Jaafari As Iraq PM Nominee

Feb 22, 8:54 AM (ET)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Interim Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari was chosen as his Shiite ticket's candidate for prime minister Tuesday after Ahmad Chalabi dropped his bid, senior alliance officials said.

Pressure from within the ranks of the United Iraqi Alliance, which won Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 election, forced the withdrawal of Chalabi, a one-time Pentagon favorite, said Hussein al-Moussawi from the Shiite Political Council, an umbrella group for 38 Shiite parties.

"They wanted him to withdraw. They didn't want to push the vote to a secret ballot," al-Moussawi said. The office of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, confirmed that Chalabi had withdrawn his bid to be prime minister.

"Chalabi announced his withdrawal and everyone agreed on al-Jaafari. Then Chalabi declared his support to al-Jaafari," said Haytham al Husaini, a top al-Hakim aide. SCIRI, the main group making up the alliance, tried for days to persuade Chalabi to quit the race, some of its senior officials said. Al-Jaafari's only other likely opponent for the post would be interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who was nominated for the job by his group.

The Iraqi List got only 14 percent of the vote - or 40 seats - in the election.

The conservative Al-Jaafari, a 58-year-old family doctor, is the main spokesman for the Islamic Dawa Party, which waged a bloody campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime in the late 1970s. Saddam crushed the campaign in 1982 and Dawa based itself in Iran.

TG: On what grounds do they call this killer a 'conservative'? Is that just another way to give the word conservative a bad connotation by association? Notice too his connections with Iran, just like Ayatollah al-Sistani.

5. Bush admits his plan doesn't fix Social Security.

Social Security is going to go broke in a few years so Bush is coming up with a plan that will cut benefits, allow a forced investment into stocks and bonds (rather than privatize the whole system and let people freely provide for their own future), yet he admits this won't fix the problem.

How encouraging.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6906269/

Bush admits his plan doesn't fix Social Security

President on five-state tour to sell proposal for private accounts

The Associated Press
Feb. 4, 2005

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - President Bush, on a road trip to promote private Social Security accounts, acknowledged Friday that his proposal would not by itself fix the future financial problems of the retirement program.

Though many in his own party are wary of tampering with a beloved domestic program, the president said he would push ahead.... his idea for letting younger workers put up to two-thirds of their Social Security tax contributions in accounts invested in stocks and bonds. In return, those workers would see an unspecified reduction in their traditional Social Security benefit...

The president has not spelled out the size of benefit cuts that would go along with the private accounts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908534/

Retirees would lose some profits from accounts

What Bush did not detail is how contributions in the account would reduce workers' monthly Social Security checks.

Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.

http://backwaterreport.com/index.php?p=306

“Fixing” Social Security

4. Alberto Gonzales Confirmed as Attorney General

What kind of judges will President Bush nominate? His choice for Attorney General to replace Herr Ashcroft is a good indicator (see #5 at http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com ).

Gonzales is not only pro-abortion, he cast the deciding vote denying parental consent when their minor daughters kill their babies. He supports the torture and abuse of prisoners, which in the post 9-11 era could apply to political prisoners. He is also an advocate of illegal alien benefits. He further supports the banning of constitutionally protected semi-automatic arms.

But what got Alberto the job was when as Bush’s general counsel in 1996, Gonzo got the then Texas Governor out of jury duty which kept him from having to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving.

If this is an example of the conservative judges Bush wants to put on the Supreme Court, we are in trouble. And if this is the kind of "extremist" conservative that Arlen Specter would nix, we're in bigger trouble.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2005/feb/03/020302103.html

(2-3-05)

Senate OKs Gonzales As Attorney General

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - Alberto Gonzales won Senate confirmation Thursday as attorney general despite Democratic accusations that he helped formulate White House policies that led to overseas prisoner abuse and was too beholden to President Bush to be the nation's top law enforcement official.

The Senate voted 60-36 to put the first Hispanic ever into the job, with all of the "no" votes coming from Democrats.

Gonzales will replace John Ashcroft, who four years ago won confirmation by an even smaller margin, 58-42.

Democrats praised Gonzales as well, but many said they couldn't look past his participation in administration policies they said had led to abuses that occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They also complained that he refused to answer their questions on how those policies were created inside the White House.

But some Democrats turned against him after he sidestepped questions on what advice he gave Bush and other administration officials on the interrogation methods that could be used on suspected terrorists or witnesses.

"He was so circumspect in his answers, so allied with the president's position on every single issue, " said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

TG: He was allied with the president on every single issue? That tells us a lot about where the president stands.

3. Specter Already Reneging

Despite the fact that Arlen Specter is a liberal RINO and was running against a conservative Republican in Pat Toomey, G.W. Bush flew to Pennsylvania to campaign on his behalf (see #2 on http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com/). He then became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he has much power over the president's judicial nominees.

Then Specter mentioned that he would block any "extremist" (read: conservative) judicial nominees. The Democrats have been getting blamed for blocking Bush's nominees (and rightly so), but now Bush's own man was going to be the one responsible for the blockage (and be able to divert the blame).

Once wind of this started circulating Specter promised he'd be a good boy and not behave like a 'bcc' of a liberal Democrat. Few true conservatives believed him (though most Republicans held their breath in hope). The true conservatives were right again. Specter has wasted no time at all in following his boss' lead in biting the hand that fed him. Specter's first two staff hires were not conservative Republicans. They were not moderate Republicans. They were not even liberal Republicans. They were LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

http://www.gopwing.com/modules.php?sid=668

(2-3-05)

Specter adds more fuel to the fire

By Alexander Bolton

In less than a month, new Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has already exasperated social conservatives and frightened members of the business community with controversial staff hires, statements and policy positions.

The start of Specter's tenure as chairman, following a blow-up last year over public comments he made questioning the confirmation of anti-abortion-rights judicial nominees, may augur a rocky future for Specter, whom many conservatives dislike for being too centrist.

TG: I wish they were "centrist". Let's call a liberal a liberal.

Activists on the right are buzzing about two recent controversial hires by Specter: Hannibal Kemerer, a former assistant general counsel with the NAACP, and Carolyn Short, who is married to Joe Torsella, who ran as a Democrat in Pennsylvania for Congress. Specter hired both to serve as counsels on the committee.

Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign.And many conservatives view the NAACP as overtly partisan. Departing from the tradition of past presidents, Bush had refused to meet with the group because of its ties to Democrats.

TG: Bush reversed this policy of avoiding liberal Democrat racists. See #33.

Activists on the right are suspicious of the NAACP because of the apparent attempt by a lobbyist with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to influence a 6th Circuit appellate decision on affirmative action by delaying the confirmation of conservative Julia Gibbons to that circuit court.

"The senator thinks it's a complement to have a diverse staff, " the spokesman said.

TG: Although an appointee of a supposedly conservative Republican president should appoint others of that ilk, it would be an improvement for Specter to have a diverse staff. So far they're all left-wing socialists.

2. Bush Speaks Out of Both Sides of Mouth at Same Time!

Most politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth, but George W. Bush has actually accomplished this feat simultaneously - twice in one speech!

In his State of the Union address, he urged us to close our border to drug dealers and terrorists, while at the same time opening them to illegal aliens in his "guest worker" program.

Then he said he doesn't want marriage defined by activist judges, but he does want a Federal amendment that would give the Fedgov the power to define marriage! That was actually triple-talk because just the other day he said because we had DOMA, we didn't need an amendment after all ( #76 ). I thought John Kerry was the flip-flopper? If Bush is already hitting on triple-flips, he will easily win the gold medal in ice dancing in next year's winter Olympics.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42697

THE STATE OF THE UNION

Bush urges: Close border to drug dealers, terrorists

President also pushes guest-worker plan

February 2, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

In his first State of the Union speech of his second term, President Bush tonight urged Congress to make reforms on a wide variety of issues – from Social Security and the federal tax code, to immigration policy designed to stop "chaos at our border."

"We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border," Bush told the nation. "It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."

The president, however, offered no specifics on how he planned to prevent drug dealers and terrorists from entering the country illegally.

TG: He can't offer any specifics, because such a thing is impossible. If you open the borders wide, the thugs get in. It's like trying to pass gun restrictions and hoping they only affect criminals.

He said he would listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer.

Bush reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, saying it was for the good of families, children, and society. "Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges," he said.

1. Bush Proposes New Aid for Palestinians

Our "Christian" president, (Big) "Brother" Bush once again is bending over backwards to help Muslims, including potential terrorists. He funded them in #9 [BUSH SCORECARD TOP 25], but now that Arafat is dead he wants to impress the new PLO leaders, particularly Mahmoud Abbas.

It is, of course, unconstitutional to send foreign aid to a foreign country - much less a terrorist group that isn't even a country. It is not our place to help the Muslims create yet another Islamic nation within Israel, and many Christians believe that violates God's covenant with Abraham in Gen. 12.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050202/2005-02-02T210550Z_01_N02486836_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-MIDEAST-DC.html

Bush Expected to Propose New Aid for Palestinians

Feb 2, 4:05 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush plans in his State of the Union address on Wednesday to pledge greater assistance for the Palestinians, including a financial aid package that could total nearly $350 million to bolster development and security, sources familiar with the plan said.

The announcement would highlight Bush's support for Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, elected last month to replace Yasser Arafat, whom Bush shunned as an obstacle to peace until his death.

Sources said U.S. aid would help the Palestinians prepare for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza later this year, and is expected to be tied to Palestinian efforts in stopping violence and carrying out reforms.Most of the money is expected to flow through nongovernmental organizations because key U.S. lawmakers are wary of providing direct aid to the Palestinians.

Following Arafat's death, Bush provided $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority, but on condition that the money be used to pay Israeli utility bills.

Preface to Bush Second Term Scoreboard

This tally looks at George W. Bush’s record in light of Christian, constitutional principles. We’ll be more selective and thorough than in the Bush Scorecard of his 100 ungodly and liberal actions between the election and the inauguration.

You can find the original, as well as the Bush Christian Scorecard, the Bush Abortion Scorecard, and the Bush Sodomite Scorecard, at http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com/.

The purpose of these Scorecards is to get Constitutional, Christian, conservative Americans to see just how ungodly the Republicans have become, that they are not a viable alternative to a Christian (but for a few exceptions such as Rep. Ron Paul-TX) and that we’d be NO worse off with a Democrat in the White House. We do not support Democrats - except to the extent that a Democrat President would cause a Republican Congress to oppose him (or her - Hillary!) rather than rubber-stamping the SAME agenda when a member of their own party proposes it.

A Christian needs to support godly candidates, and leave the results up to God. The Constitution party runs such candidates. We cannot continue to settle for GOP “lesser evils” that are really equal evils, and are taking the country in the same direction as Democrats and socialists. Even if a Constitution party candidate doesn’t win, if enough conservatives refuse to support these Republi-CON wolves in sheep’s clothing, it will force the GOP to run a godly candidate if they want to win. If we keep supporting the wolves, that’s all they will ever give us.

I’d rather lose doing right than “win” doing wrong. But we can win doing right. We certainly can't if we don't even try.

Teno Groppi - Country Celebration
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/country.0

Constitution Party - Past WI District & County Rep.

Democrats and Republicans are two wings of a bird flying the WRONG way!

If we are not "One Nation Under God", we'll just be "one nation under".

Bush Scorecard: http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com/