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.