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. }}