Thursday, August 04, 2005


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?

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.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005


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.

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?

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.

"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)?


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 and

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!

Group Applauds Bush, G8 on 'Global Warming'

By Monisha Bansal Correspondent August 3, 2005

( -- 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.


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.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005


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

Saturday, July 30, 2005


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.

Thursday, July 28, 2005


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:

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:

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 for more. Also see for what will be "CAFTA on steroids".

Tuesday, July 26, 2005


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.

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?"

Monday, July 25, 2005


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.


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.


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.


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.


Roberts also defended a case that supports the welfare state. So supportive was he, that he didn't charge for his efforts:

“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.:

{{ 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.


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 ( 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" (

Roberts himself is disassociating himself from anything that appears remotely conservative. (

But amidst all this hush-hush stuff from conservatives comes some interesting shows of support: (,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 (,0,7375629.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

(Liberal democrat Sen. Dianne) Feinstein calls Roberts 'impressive' (,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.) (

Key Democrat upbeat over Roberts (

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 (
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?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


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:,1280,-5152927,00.html,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:

“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. }}

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

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

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

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)


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

New Iranian Leader Sees No Need for US

By Patrick Goodenough International Editor June 27, 2005 ( -

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.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005


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).


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

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?


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

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.


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?

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.


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.

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.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

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.

The Washington Times

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.

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]

Friday, June 10, 2005

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).

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.)

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

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:

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

Monday, May 23, 2005

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.

Friday, May 20, 2005

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.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

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

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

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.


Socialist was behind U.N. sea treaty

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

May 3, 2005
© 2005

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.

Friday, April 29, 2005

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.

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".

Friday, April 22, 2005

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.

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.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

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.

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