Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Congress doing it's job ???


The scope of the "sensitive security information" (SSI) control
category that prevents disclosure of certain kinds of
transportation security-related information would be significantly
curtailed by the House version of the 2007 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act.

The House bill would mandate automatic disclosure of SSI when it
becomes three years old if it is not part of an active security
plan and unless a written determination is made by the Secretary
that it must be withheld.

It would also require DHS to revise its written policy on SSI to
provide common representative examples of what constitutes SSI,
and it would make it easier for parties in litigation to gain
access to SSI. See the SSI provision in the 2007 Homeland
Security Appropriations bill, which awaits final action on the
House floor, here:

The White House denounced the House measure.

"The Administration strongly opposes Section 525 [the SSI
provision], which would jeopardize an important program that
protects Sensitive Security Information (SSI) from public release
by deeming it automatically releasable in three years...,"

according to a May 25 Statement of Administration Policy.

"This provision would require the Secretary to undertake an
ongoing, burdensome review process to protect this secure
sensitive information that would otherwise remain appropriately
protected by regulation
," the White House said. See (at page 4):

And see, relatedly, "Homeland Security Department: FY2007
Appropriations," Congressional Research Service, May 10, 2006:

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Disclosure from this Bunch....ahahahahaha


Public disclosure of intelligence budget data would be required under a
provision of the 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act that was reported
by the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday and disclosed today.

The total amounts authorized and appropriated for the National
Intelligence Program would be publicly disclosed each year starting in
2007, the Senate bill states.

After 2007, the bill would also require the President to disclose the
aggregate amount requested each year for national intelligence.

The budget disclosure provision was proposed by Senator Ron Wyden
(D-OR) and approved yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee on a
9-6 vote. All Democrats on the Committee supported the move, as did
Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Chuck Hagel
(R-Nebraska). Other Republicans, including Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS),
opposed it.

Beyond aggregate budget disclosure, the bill would also require the
Director of National Intelligence to conduct a study on the advisability
of disclosing the budget of each individual element of the intelligence

The disclosure requirement (Section 107 of S. 3237) generally
corresponds to a bipartisan recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
A similar measure was approved by the Senate in October 2004, but
opposed by the White House and blocked in the House.

"The public ought to know how much money the government is spending on
intelligence activities and the Senate has long sought this sensible
Senator Jay Rockefeller and other Democratic Senators wrote in
a Statement appended to the Report.

"We believe declassifying the aggregate amount of money the nation
spends on intelligence would not harm the nation's security."

The new Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2007 includes numerous other significant and
interesting provisions including: a requirement for a DNI report on
treatment of detainees (section 313); a requirement for a report on
alleged clandestine detention facilities (section 314); establishment of
a National Space Intelligence Center (section 410); and quite a bit

See the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the FY 2007 Intelligence
Authorization Act, Senate Report 109-259, May 25,

The underlying bill, S. 3237, is here:

The intelligence bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Services
Committee for a ten day period.

There is No "War on Terror"....

Memorial Day Truth: There Is No “War on Terror”
By Pachacutec from

There is no "War on Terror."

There is, however, a "war" on the U. S. Constitution.

After September 11, 2001, we’ve learned that we can take a punch and move on. We’ve faced far worse threats to our national survival in our history - the Civil War, the War of 1812, World War II to name a few - but we never abandoned our Constitution. Until now.

Terror is an emotion. Emotions are part of human nature and cannot be eradicated. A "War on Terror" is therefore a war on humanity. The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil. Why?

The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money. We are witnessing a creeping coup in the United States, the overthrow of the idea, promulgated by our founders and by writers like Tom Paine, that the "Law is King:"

But where says some is the king of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

The Bush administration has explicitly denied this, claiming unlimited executive power under the president’s war powers against civilians and citizens. The president is not your "Commader in Chief" if you do not serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, he works for you, and he works for your representatives in the Congress.

There is no "War on Terror." There is only a war on the law, a conscious destruction of the U. S. Constitution. This is not the first time right wing interests have attempted to overthrow the U. S. government. An attempt was thwarted during the FDR administration. Then as now, America’s greatest enemies come from among the ranks of America’s ruling master class.

Bushco has enslaved Americans into a psychological reign of "War on Terror" that amounts to a criminal protection racket. We are told we must be afraid. That is, we are told we must live in terror. This is to protect us from. . . terror. Then, because we feel terrified, we must give up our freedom - freedom to write what we believe without fear of reprisal, freedom of due process and habeas corpus protection, freedom from secret intrusion into our private lives by government.

Today is Memorial Day. Today we remember countless patriots who died and fought for those freedoms our president tells us we must abandon. . . in the name of "freedom."

If there were really a "War on Terror," an emotion, Wes Craven would be hiring a lawyer: he scares people. The "War on Terror" is a sham. You know what changed after September 11th? We, the people of the United States, forgot how strong we are. We gave in to fear, when the only thing we should have feared was fear itself. Osama bin Laden wants you to be afraid. So does George Bush.

I know I’m not alone when I say, I’m an American and I’m not afraid. I know I’m going to die. I accept that I’m going to die, no problem. What I do not accept and will not accept is the notion that I must live as a slave to fear for the purposes of craven, cowardly men who, in their time, pissed the bed rather than fight an actual war, later to become powerful and use that power to line their pockets with my tax dollars. Give me liberty or give me death. Take your "terror" and shove it.

We went after the criminals who attacked us when we invaded Afghanistan, then quickly abandoned any pretense of being concerned with actual terrorists by fighting a ginned-up war of aggression against a tin-pot dictator for whom our chickenshit president and his buddies have always had a hard-on. If the U. S. were serious about thwarting terrorism or about minimizing our exposure to acts of violence designed to make us afraid, we would have rigorous port security and massive international goodwill and cooperation in the lawful identification of anarchic, violent networks. But we don’t have that. We have our sons and daughters fighting to maintain bases in the sand near oil fields, sacrificing their lives, bodies and minds for a pack of lies.

Ann Coulter and other right wing totalitarian cheerleaders like to talk about traitors to America. George Bush and the Republicans have betrayed America, the actual laws of America and the very idea of America. On Memorial Day, as we remember our sons and daughters who have sacrficed their lives in the blistering sands of Iraq, it does their memory due honor to point this out. Noble men and women fallen, their blood cries out for lawful justice.

In each of our minds lies the beginning of our return to freedom, so please, say it after me: "There is no ‘War on Terror.’"

It’s high time for America and Americans to remember our strength. We need not be afraid. When we surrender to fear, we lose our country, we lose our faith in each other, we lose our future and we lose our freedom. The best way to honor the sacrfices of our nation’s men and women killed in battle is to embrace, once again, that precious liberty.

It’s time to be America again.

Neo-cons realizing we can't conquer the world ?

Neo-cons question Bush’s democratisation strategy
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: May 29 2006 21:52

President George W. Bush has likened the “war on terrorism” to the cold war against communism.

Addressing military cadets graduating from West Point, Mr Bush reaffirmed at the weekend that the US “will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation”.

But as the US struggles to assert itself on the international stage, the president’s most radical supporters now dismiss this as mere rhetoric, and traditional conservatives are questioning the wisdom of a democratisation strategy that has brought unpleasant consequences in the Middle East.

Administration officials speak privately of a sense of fatigue over the worsening crisis in Iraq that has drained energy from other important policy issues. Senior officials are leaving – not so unusual in a second term, but still giving the sense of a sinking ship run in some quarters by relatively inexperienced crew.

Neo-conservative commentators at the American Enterprise Institute wrote last week what amounted to an obituary of the Bush freedom doctrine.

Bush killed his own doctrine,” they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.

The neo-conservatives offered no explanation for desertion of the doctrine, other than a desire to make quick but transitory short-term gains. “The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require,” they wrote.

But the ranks of the neo-conservatives are also being depleted. In his new book, America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the movement’s most outstanding intellectual force, confirms his defection from the brand concepts of “pre-emption, regime change, unilateralism and benevolent hegemony as put into practice by the Bush administration”.

“It seems to me better to abandon the label and articulate an altogether distinct foreign policy position
,” he writes.

Advisers to the White House say it would be premature, however, to write off the doctrine of pre-emption, which was restated in the National Security Strategy released in March. But on Iran, for example, they believe the Bush administration is moving towards a cold war-style strategy of containment and deterrence with as broad an international coalition as possible.

Graham Fuller, former diplomat and intelligence officer, suggests the US is suffering from “strategic fatigue” brought on by “imperial over-reach”.

“The administration’s bark is minimised, and much of the bite seems gone,
” he writes in the Nixon Center’s National Interest journal. “Has superpower fatigue set in? Clearly so, to judge by the administration’s own dwindling energy and its sober acknowledgment that changing the face of the world is a lot tougher than it had hoped.”

Short-term economic costs of the empire have been bearable, says Mr Fuller, but long-term indicators show it is not sustainable – massive domestic debt, growing trade imbalances, an extraordinary gap in wealth between rich and poor Americans, the growing outsourcing of jobs.

More immediately, the unprecedented unilateral character of the US exercise of global power has proved its undoing.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has tried to redress this in Mr Bush’s second term, but key allies – Britain’s Tony Blair, for example – are also suffering from weakened credibility.

In contrast, Russia, which Mr Bush saw as a declining power when he came to office in 2001, is asserting itself on the international stage. So is China.

Neither wants to declare itself explicitly at odds with the US, but they share a common agenda and ability to stymie Washington’s will. This is seen in their policies towards Iran, North Korea, Syria, the new Palestinian government led by Hamas, and Venezuela.

In the last few years, diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, complicate, limit, delay or block the Bush agenda through a death by a thousand cuts,” says Mr Fuller.

Even some traditional Republicans are challenging the concept that the global “war on terror” is the paramount issue for generations to come.

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate’s powerful foreign relations committee, suggested that “there are a good many who would feel that the possibilities for devastation of countries, including our own, may come much more from our myopia in terms of energy policy than our ability to track down the last of the al-Qaeda cells”.

Robert Jervis, professor of international politics at Columbia University, argues in the Washington Quarterly that the US system does not have the commitment to sustain the prolonged efforts required by Mr Bush’s “transformationalist” agenda.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Cheney Above the Law....again....


For the third year in a row the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney has
refused to disclose data on its classification and declassification
activity, in an apparent violation of an executive order issued by
President Bush.

"The Office of the Vice President (OVP), the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and the Homeland Security Council
(HSC) failed to report their data to ISOO this year," the Information
Security Oversight Office (ISOO) noted in its new 2005 Annual Report to
the President (at page 9, footnote 1).

The Office of the Vice President has declined to report such data since
2002. Yet it is clear that disclosure is not optional.

"Each agency that creates or handles classified information shall report
annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security
classification program," according to ISOO Directive 1 (at section

This and other ISOO directives "shall be binding upon the agencies,"
President Bush wrote in Executive Order 13292 (section 5.1). And an
"agency" is not only a statutorily defined executive branch agency, but
also includes "any other entity within the executive branch that comes
into the possession of classified information."

Despite this straightforward language, a spokeswoman for Vice President
Cheney told the Chicago Tribune in April that his Office is "not under
any duty" to provide the required information.

On prior refusals by the Vice President to disclose classification and
declassification data, see "Cheney exempts his own office from
reporting on classified material" by Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune, April
29, 2006:

Historically, the OVP has "not reported quantitatively significant
according to ISOO. So the Vice President's current defiance of
the executive order does not greatly distort the overall presentation
of classification activity.

But it signals an unhealthy contempt for presidential authority and
undermines the integrity of classification oversight.

Bush n Blair Admit Mistakes in Iraq.....DOH !!!!

Bush and Blair Admit Mistakes in Iraq
President Regrets 'Bring It On' Taunt to Insurgents

WASHINGTON (May 26) - Staunch allies in a long, unpopular war, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged making painful mistakes in Iraq. Bush said Thursday night he wished he'd never taunted insurgents with tough talk like "bring it on" or that he'd vowed to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

"That sent the wrong signal to people," Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know." The biggest mistake, Bush said, was the abuse of inmates by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We've been paying for that for a long period of time," the president said at a joint news conference with Blair as they celebrated the formation of a new unity government in Baghdad.

For his part, the prime minister talked about faulty judgments - that some things expected to be major challenges turned out not to be, and that other things unexpectedly turned out to be immense problems. In particular, Blair said coalition forces erred in the wholesale purge of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party loyalists from military and government positions after the fall of Baghdad.

Blair also acknowledged underestimating the determination of insurgents to stop the democratic process. "Maybe in retrospect ... it should have been very obvious to us," Blair said.

Both leaders vowed to keep troops in Iraq until the new government gets its footing and has a strong security force.

"Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing," Bush said. "Not everything has turned out the way we hoped."

For his part, Blair declared that after a meeting this week with Iraq's new prime minister, "I came away thinking the challenge is still immense, but I also came away thinking more certain than ever that we should rise to it."

Here for talks with Bush that will spill over to Friday, the British prime minister briefed the president on his discussions in Baghdad on Monday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said his forces are capable of taking control of security in all Iraqi provinces within 18 months.

"I think it's possible to happen in the way that Prime Minister Maliki said," Blair said.

Neither Bush nor Blair would give specifics on when soldiers from their countries can begin to go home.

"We're going to work with our partners in Iraq, the new government, to determine the way forward," Bush said. He said the goal remains "an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself."

He said one problem was the lack of an Iraqi defense minister, and he urged al-Maliki to fill the post soon.

Bush declined to discuss Pentagon hopes that the U.S. force, now at 131,000 troops, could be reduced to about 100,000 by year's end.

He called that "speculation in the press" and said he has not discussed specific reductions in troop levels with commanders on the ground. "We'll keep the force level there necessary to win," Bush said. WAIT ..I THOUGHT WE ALREADY WON ??? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED AND ALL.....

Britain has about 8,000 troops in Iraq. Blair, asked about al-Maliki's 18-month target for Iraqi control, said the goal remains that Iraqi security forces could "take control progressively of their own country."

But for that to happen, Blair said, "the first thing obviously we need is a strong government in Baghdad" prepared to enforce its rule throughout the country.

On another topic high on the agenda, neither Bush nor Blair would reveal their thinking on a possible package of incentives to draw Iran back to negotiations over its suspected nuclear-weapons program.

"Of course, we'll look at all options. But it's their choice right now - they're the ones who walked away from the table," Bush said. "I think we ought to be continuing to work on ways to make it clear to them that they will be isolated."

Bush was dismissive of recent back-channel overtures from Tehran, including a letter to him from Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush said he read the letter, and "I thought it was interesting."

But he added: "He didn't address the issues of whether or not they're going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon. That's the issue at hand."

In Britain, where Blair's alliance with Bush has drawn fierce criticism, the news conference aired beginning at half past midnight.

With casualties rising and violence rampant, Iraq weighs heavily on Bush and Blair. Both leaders have plunged in the polls and face growing calls for major troop withdrawals. At least 2,460 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war. Britain has lost 106 service personnel.

Bush is under additional pressure from fellow Republicans who are nervous about losing control of the House or Senate - or both - in the November elections.

Both leaders were asked about the toll the war has taken on their popularity.

"There is no question the Iraq war has created a sense of consternation here in America," Bush said, noting daily images on television of innocent people dying.

"It affects the mentality of Americans," he said. But he said a more important question now is, "Can we win? That's what they want to know." ONCE AGAIN I THOUGHT WE ALREADY WON....AND WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW IS WHY YOU FUCKED WITH THE INTELLIGENCE TO BRING THIS WAR ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE ??????

Blair urged both those who agreed with toppling Saddam and those who didn't to "just take a step back" and look at the larger picture.

"They want us to stay until the job is done," he said of the new democratically elected Iraqi government. WELL 400 BILLION IS A LOT TO SPEND FOR NOTHING ....ISN'T IT?

"Those people fighting us there know what is at stake. The question is, do we?
" Blair said.

In a lighter moment, both leaders were asked what they would miss about each other once they are both out of office, with Blair widely expected to step down soon given widespread unhappiness with his government.

"Wait a minute," quipped Bush. "I'll miss those red ties, that's what I'll miss." He quickly added: "Don't count him out. ... I want him here so long as I'm the president." Bush's term expires in January 2009. WELL I DOUBT YOU CAN FUDGE WITH THE BRITISH ELECTIONS TOO...SO I'D SAY THE BRITISH PEOPLE WILL DECIDE THEY'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR POODLE. AND HOPEFULLY GOD WILLING YOUR ASS WILL BE IMPEACHED BEFORE 2009.

Said Blair: "What more can I say? Probably not wise to say anything more at all."

Bush has described the formation of Iraq's new government of Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds as a turning point. But it's unclear what that means in terms of the need for U.S. troops. Pentagon officials are worried about the reliability of U.S.-trained Iraqi police and their religious and tribal allegiances.

British officials have said most coalition troops could be withdrawn by 2010.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Military are protected...but Phelps can keep protesting GAY Funerals....congress DISCRIMINATES once again

Congress Bans Protests at Military Funerals
Legislation Sent to White House for President's Signature

WASHINGTON (May 25) - Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House Wednesday

Individual states are also considering their own bans on protests near military funerals.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion,"

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace,
" Rogers said Wednesday before the Hosue vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcyle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.

5/24/2006 22:11:33

Wednesday, May 24, 2006




But it's OK to leak a Covert Agent.....


The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced
that it will hold a hearing on Friday May 26 on "the Media's Role
and Responsibilities in Leaks of Classified Information."

There is no legislation on leaks currently before the Committee,
and there are no governmental witnesses testifying at the
hearing. See:

In an invited statement for the record, I attempted to put the
issue into a larger context and to illustrate the fact that some
leaks serve a constructive purpose.

"I believe it is an error to focus on unauthorized disclosures as
if they were an isolated phenomenon, without consideration of the
corrupted state of the classification system and the difficulties
faced by whistleblowers who seek to comply with official
" I wrote.

"From my own perspective, it seems likely that the benefits of
leaks in preserving constitutional values greatly outweigh their
risks to national security.
" See:

The suggestion by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last weekend
that the government might prosecute reporters who publish
classified information was critiqued by Jacob Sullum of Reason
Magazine in "When Speech Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Speak," May

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra has been
an outspoken critic of classified leaks.

"Each year, countless unauthorized leaks cause severe damage to
our intelligence activities and expose our capabilities
," he said
in a speech last year.

"The fact of the matter is, some of the worst damage done to our
intelligence community has come not from penetration by spies,
but from unauthorized leaks by those with access to classified

Monday, May 22, 2006

Bush's Base Betrayal.... BOO HOO

Bush's Base Betrayal

By Richard A. Viguerie
Sunday, May 21, 2006; B01

As a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush was a Rorschach test. Country Club Republicans saw him as another George H.W. Bush; some conservatives, thinking wishfully, saw him as another Ronald Reagan. He called himself a "compassionate conservative," which meant whatever one wanted it to mean. Experts from across the party's spectrum were flown to Austin to brief Bush and reported back: "He's one of us."

Republicans were desperate to retake the White House, conservatives were desperate to get the Clinton liberals out and there was no direct heir to Reagan running for president. So most conservatives supported Bush as the strongest candidate -- some enthusiastically and some, like me, reluctantly. After the disastrous presidency of his father, our support for the son was a triumph of hope over experience.

Once he took office, conservatives were willing to grant this Bush a honeymoon. We were happy when he proposed tax cuts (small, but tax cuts nonetheless) and when he pushed for a missile defense system. Then came the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and conservatives came to see support for the president as an act of patriotism.

Conservatives tolerated the No Child Left Behind Act, an extensive intrusion into state and local education, and the budget-busting Medicare prescription drug benefit. They tolerated the greatest increase in spending since Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. They tolerated Bush's failure to veto a single bill, and his refusal to enforce immigration laws. They even tolerated his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul, even though Bush's opposition to that measure was a key reason they backed him over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the 2000 primaries.

In 2004, Republican leaders pleaded with conservatives -- particularly religious conservatives -- to register people to vote and help them turn out on Election Day. Those efforts strengthened Republicans in Congress and probably saved the Bush presidency. We were told: Just wait till the second term. Then, the president, freed of concern over reelection and backed by a Republican Congress, would take off the gloves and fight for the conservative agenda. Just wait.

We're still waiting.

Sixty-five months into Bush's presidency, conservatives feel betrayed. After the "Bridge to Nowhere" transportation bill, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and the Dubai Ports World deal, the immigration crisis was the tipping point for us. Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found last week that Republican disapproval of Bush's presidency had increased from 16 percent to 30 percent in one month. It is largely the defection of conservatives that is driving the president's poll numbers to new lows.

Emboldened and interconnected as never before by alternative media, such as talk radio and Internet blogs, many conservatives have concluded that the benefits of unwavering support for the GOP simply do not, and will not, outweigh the costs.

The main cause of conservatives' anger with Bush is this: He talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative.

For all of conservatives' patience, we've been rewarded with the botched Hurricane Katrina response, headed by an unqualified director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which proved that the government isn't ready for the next disaster. We've been rewarded with an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of "nation-building" that Candidate Bush said he opposed.

Republicans in Congress and at the White House seem oblivious to the rising threat of communist China and of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Despite the temporary appointment of conservative John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the current GOP leadership keeps shoveling money to the world body despite its refusal to change.

As for the Supreme Court, Bush's failed nomination of Miers, his personal lawyer, represented the breaking of what we took as an explicit promise to appoint more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases, and it was an inexcusable act of cronyism.

Conservatives hope that John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito will turn out to be conservatives, as we were promised, but we are aware that six of nine previous Republican appointees to the Supreme Court turned out to be liberals or swing voters. And none of Bush's Supreme Court nominees had a significant paper trail as a conservative legal scholar. That sends a message to conservative lawyers and judges: If you want to be on the Supreme Court someday, hide your conservatism.

But conservatives don't blame the current mess just on Bush. They recognize the problem today is also at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

For years, congressional Republicans have sold themselves to conservatives as the continuation of the Reagan revolution. We were told that they would take on the Washington special interests -- that they would, in essence, tear down K Street and sow the earth with salt to make sure nothing ever grew there again.

But over time, most of them turned into the sort of unprincipled power brokers they had ousted in 1994.
They lost interest in furthering conservative ideas, and they turned their attention to getting their share of the pork. Conservatives did not spend decades going door to door, staffing phone banks and compiling lists of like-minded voters so Republican congressmen could have highways named after them and so there could be an affirmative-action program for Republican lobbyists.

White House and congressional Republicans seem to have adopted a one-word strategy: bribery. Buy off seniors with a prescription drug benefit. Buy off the steel industry with tariffs. Buy off agribusiness with subsidies. The cost of illegal bribery (see the case of former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham) pales next to that of legal bribery such as congressional earmarks.

In today's Washington, where are the serious efforts by Republicans to protect unborn children from abortion? Where is the campaign for a constitutional amendment to prevent liberal judges from allowing same-sex marriage? (WHICH IS BULLSHIT LEGISLATION PUSHED FOR BY THE AMERICAN TALIBAN)

Instead of conservative action on social issues, the Republican-controlled House has approved more taxpayers' money for an embryo-killing type of stem cell research. And it passed a "hate crimes" measure that could lead to the classification as "hate" of criticism of homosexual activity. (GOD FORBID SOMEONE WILL PUT OUT "THE ETERNAL GAY" AND IT BE DEEMED A FELONY) (WITHOUT OUR HATE WE DON'T HAVE ANY POWER OR DOLLARS COMING IN TO OUR FAUX CHURCHES)

And in the Senate, Republicans have let key judicial nominees languish, even when Bush has nominated conservatives for lower courts. Would a strong Senate leader such as LBJ have let his party's nominees fail for lack of a floor vote?

As long as Democrats controlled Congress or the White House, Republicans could tell conservatives they deserved support because of what they would do, someday. Now we know what they do when they have control. Their agenda comes from Big Business, not from grass-roots conservatives.

But unhappy conservatives should be taken seriously. When conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen to the Republican Party.

In 1948, conservatives were unhappy with Thomas E. Dewey's liberal Republican "me too" campaign, and enough of them stayed home to give the election to Harry S. Truman. In 1960, conservatives were unhappy with Richard M. Nixon's negotiations with Nelson A. Rockefeller to divide the spoils of victory before victory was even achieved, and John F. Kennedy won.

In 1974, conservatives were unhappy with the corruption and Big Government policies of Nixon's White House and with President Gerald R. Ford's selection of Rockefeller as his vice president, and this led to major Republican losses in the congressional races that year. By 1976, conservatives were fed up with Ford's adoption of Rockefeller's agenda, and Jimmy Carter was elected with the backing of Christian conservatives.

In 1992, conservatives were so unhappy with President George H.W. Bush's open disdain for them that they staged an open rebellion, first with the candidacy of Patrick J. Buchanan and then with Ross Perot. The result was an incumbent president receiving a paltry 37 percent of the vote. In 1998, conservatives were demoralized by congressional Republicans' wild spending and their backing away from conservative ideas. The result was an unexpected loss of seats in the House and the resignation of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

The current record of Washington Republicans is so bad that, without a drastic change in direction, millions of conservatives will again stay home this November.

And maybe they should. Conservatives are beginning to realize that nothing will change until there's a change in the GOP leadership. If congressional Republicans win this fall, they will see themselves as vindicated, and nothing will get better.

If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done. We're like a union that agrees never to strike, no matter how badly its members are treated. Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat. If Ford had won in 1976, it's unlikely Reagan ever would have been president. If the elder Bush had won in 1992, it's unlikely the Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994.

At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups. (Let Big Business take care of that!) Instead, conservatives should dedicate their money and volunteer efforts toward conservative groups and conservative candidates. They should redirect their anger into building a third force -- not a third party, but a movement independent of any party. They should lay the groundwork for a rebirth of the conservative movement and for the 2008 campaign, when, perhaps, a new generation of conservative leaders will step forward.

I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up as they are today.
(GOOD, I HOPE YOU CONSERVATIVES CHOKE) The current relationship between Washington Republicans and the nation's conservatives makes me think of a cheating husband whose wife catches him, and forgives him, time and time again. Then one day he comes home to discover that she has packed her bags and called a cab -- and a divorce lawyer.

As the philanderer learns: Hell hath no fury. . . .


Canada new Land of the FREE!!!! PS... Up Yours FUNDIES I hope this makes your heads spin

METEGHAN — On a Friday night in Yarmouth this June, Const. Jason Tree and Const. David Connors will don their scarlet dress uniforms, stand before family, friends and co-workers and wed in the first same-sex marriage in the RCMP’s storied history.

In an interview in their Meteghan home Wednesday afternoon, the men said they’ve had great support from the national police force, the community and their families.

"I’ve never had a single problem," said Const. Tree, 27, a native of Fredericton, who has worked in southwestern Nova Scotia for six years and is posted in Meteghan.

The pair, who’ve dated since meeting at the University of New Brunswick more than eight years ago, will be married by a justice of the peace at the Rodd Grand Hotel on June 30. Each will write his own vows, and each will have a best man. They expect plenty of fellow officers to attend and have yet to decide if they’ll have their colleagues form an honour guard for them. They plan to honeymoon in France and England.

Provincial RCMP spokesman Sgt. Frank Skidmore said the force was happy to hear about the union, adding that they’re proud RCMP officers reflect all aspects of the community.

"This is a first for us," Sgt. Skidmore said Wednesday. "Certainly, the RCMP welcomes a workforce that is representative of Canadian society, and that is the case here."

Const. Connors, 28, who grew up in Nackawick, near Fredericton, and Const. Tree had met before university because their high school clubs met each other occasionally. However, once they got to university, they discovered their mutual attraction.

"He kind of stood out from the rest," Const. Connors said.

After three years at UNB, Const. Tree left his partner for RCMP training in Regina and was posted to Yarmouth.

Const. Connors earned a computer engineering degree and took a job in Halifax. However, the industry took a downturn and he was laid off, so he moved to Yarmouth. After a year there, he took RCMP training and at the graduation ceremony had Const. Tree present him with his badge as his partner in front of the entire class.

He was posted to the Yarmouth town detachment.

"I love it more than any job I’ve ever done," he said.

Const. Tree said being a Mountie was always his goal.

The two moved in together several years ago and registered as domestic partners around the same time, which gives them the same basic legal rights as married couples.

But Const. Tree wanted to make the strongest possible commitment and popped the question while the pair were driving home from Halifax in January.

The pair had talked about it before, and Const. Connors said yes and kept on driving.

It was "no big romantic thing," Const. Tree said.

"It seemed like a good time (to ask)," he said, noting that laws had recently changed, the pair were living in the same area and had great support.

Asked if the publicity about their marriage will bring derision on them, Const. Tree said Mounties have thick skin.

"That’s nothing new. People insult you all the time.

"Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and I don’t have a problem if people have that opinion as long as they keep it within the proper realm."

He said their decision to marry is entirely for themselves, but they do hope it helps change public perceptions about homosexuality.

"I think it really just shows that we’re representative of the community we live in."

Const. Connors said people in Yarmouth know he’s gay but haven’t tried to use it against him in any way, not that it would get them anywhere.

Although they have a lot of support from fellow officers, they aren’t immune to teasing and have heard joking remarks about being Brokeback Mounties.

"I’ve heard that, and it’s funny," Const. Connors said.

Both men have the support of their families, but Const. Connors admits to some challenges.

"My mother is the one who’s most concerned about it because she worries about her parents and what they’re going to think."

Const. Tree said his mother had trouble when he told her at age 19 he was homosexual but is now very supportive.

When asked how he thought other officers and members of the community might respond, Sgt. Skidmore said he doesn’t foresee any problems.

"It hasn’t been an issue. We’ve had gay officers for some time."

He said there shouldn’t be any problems when it comes to the officers working together. The RCMP’s policy regarding married couples, regardless of gender, is that one spouse cannot hold a position of power over the other in the same detachment.

"They can be nearby but not in the same exact environment," Sgt. Skidmore said.

Herm Wills, president of the Nova Scotia branch of the Campaign Life Coalition, isn’t eager to celebrate the force’s latest first.

Although he’s "not opposed to them doing what they want to do," he said the traditional definition of marriage should be respected.

There were differing opinions on the streets of Meteghan on Wednesday.

Two women who did not give their names said they oppose same-sex marriage.

A regular churchgoer, Gerald Deveau, 59, said the men can do as they please.

"It’s their business. What you do in your home is up to you."

Dwayne Beck, 23, also isn’t bothered and is comfortable with gay, married cops.

"It’s just their choice as men," he said.

Jack Murtha...not giving up

This morning, Jack Murtha appeared on CBS’ The Early Show to talk about the Iraq war. Murtha offered a sobering assessment:

[T]here’s not only no progress, it’s worse than it was prewar. this thing has been mishandled so badly. The American people needed to hear. we’re spending $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, $9 billion a month, and so we need to change course.

The facts appear to back Murtha up. Here’s a summary of key indicators, drawn from the Brookings Institute’s Iraq Index, using the most recent data available:

Pre-War Levels Now
Crude oil production 2.5 million barrels 2.14 million barrels [Apr. 2006]
Electricity 3,958 Megawatts 3,600 Megawatts [Apr. 2006]
People with access to potable water 12.9 million 8.25 million [Nov. 2005]
People with access to sewer system 6 million 5 million [Nov. 2005]

Full transcript:

CHEN: Congressman Murtha, your act of courage would be last fall when you spoke out against the war, after voting for it. Was that a difficult decision for you?

MURTHA: Well, they were irresponsive. And the thing that worried me, the troops – they went in with inadequate forces and inadequate equipment. Then in addition to that the army down the road was broken as far as I could see. And yet all the things they said were illusion. They said how much better it was getting and every progress report I saw was mischaracterized, misrepresented. So I felt an obligation to speak out in order to try to turn this thing around. The military won a victory. It was time to get out. As a matter of fact, these guys have done a marvelous job. The troops, you couldn’t ask for any more. But they’re caught in the middle of a civil war. I got a lot of criticism. I got lot a lot of people initially — as matter of fact — the war — over 50% of the people supported when I spoke out. And of course now it’s changed considerably. Because i think they wanted to hear exactly what has happened. Exactly whether there’s progress. And I said there’s not only no progress, it’s worse than it was prewar. This thing has been mishandled so badly. The American people needed to hear. We’re spending $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, $9 billion a month, and so we need to change course.

But of course Fox has Ann CUN*ER on swift-boating him. Go figure. See video at

What was that about open government ?


The Department of Defense budget request for 2007 includes about
$30.1 billion in classified or "black" spending, according to a new
analysis by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"In real (inflation-adjusted) terms the $30.1 billion FY 2007
request includes more classified acquisition funding than any other
defense budget since FY 1988, near the end of the Cold War, when
DoD received $19.7 billion ($29.4 billion in FY 2007 dollars) for
these programs,
" wrote author Steven Kosiak.

A copy of "Classified Funding in the FY 2007 Budget Request" is
available from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

The study was reported in "Classified military spending reaches
highest level since Cold War
" by Drew Brown, Knight-Ridder
Newspapers, May 19:


Pressure to adopt "sensitive but unclassified" control markings on
information that does not qualify for classification is growing,
along with opposition to such controls, among some academic
researchers who study terrorism-related topics.

See "Scientific Openness: Should Academics Self-Censor Their
Findings on Terrorism?"
by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Science, May 19:

"The secrecy that has become such a hallmark of the Bush
administration did not begin with Sept. 11, as the White House
often suggests. It began in the earliest days of January 2001, as
the administration was taking shape,
" according to a National
Public Radio account.

See "From the Start, Bush White House Kept Secrets" by Don Gonyea,
NPR Weekend Edition, May 21:

Bush hiding.....


The state secrets privilege has been invoked by the Bush
Administration with greater frequency than ever before in American
history in a wide range of lawsuits that the government says would
threaten national security if allowed to proceed.

In virtually every case, the use of the privilege leads to dismissal
of the lawsuit and forecloses the opportunity for an injured party
to seek judicial relief.

Most recently, a lawsuit brought by Khaled El-Masri, a German
citizen who alleged that he was kidnapped by the CIA and tortured
over a five month period, was dismissed after the CIA invoked the
"state secrets" privilege.

The dismissal was not based on a finding that the allegations
against the CIA were false.

"It is in no way an adjudication of, or comment on, the merit or
lack of merit of El-Masri's complaint,
" wrote Judge T.S. Ellis, III
in a May 12 order.

In fact, "It is worth noting that ... if El-Masri's allegations are
true or essentially true, then all fair-minded people... must also
agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our
country's mistake and deserves a remedy,"
he wrote in the order
dismissing the case.

"Yet, it is also clear from the result reached here that the only
sources of that remedy must be the Executive Branch or the
Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch,"
he suggested.

But in this case the executive branch is the alleged perpetrator of
the offense, and the legislative branch has no procedures for
adjudicating allegations such as El-Masri's, even if it had an
interest in doing so. That's what courts are for.

Terrorists can kill people and destroy property. But they cannot
undermine the rule of law, or deny injured parties access to the
courts. Only the U.S. government can do that.

The state secrets privilege has been invoked lately in a remarkable
diversity of lawsuits. See this selection of case files from
recent state secrets cases:

Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive reflected on the
growing use of the state secrets privilege and how it relates to
the larger climate of secrecy in "The lie behind the secrets," Los
Angeles Times, May 21:

Recently introduced legislation would "provide protection from
frivolous government claims of state secrets,
" the Project on
Government Oversight noted:

Wired News today published documents pertaining to the alleged role
of AT&T in NSA warrantless surveillance related to another lawsuit
in which the state secrets privilege has been invoked. See:,70947-0.html

Ted Koppel....more spine

Ted Koppel: Time for U.S. to Form an "Army of Mercenaries"?

By E&P Staff

Published: May 21, 2006 12:05 AM ET

NEW YORK Little known to the American public, there are some 50,000 private contractors in Iraq, providing support for the U.S. military, among other activities. So why not go all the way, hints Ted Koppel in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, and form a real "mercenary army"?

Such a move involving what he calls "latter-day Hessians" would represent, he writes, "the inevitable response of a market economy to a host of seemingly intractable public policy and security problems."

The issue is raised by our "over-extended military" and inability of the United Nations to form adequate peace forces. Meanwhile, Americans business interests grow ever more active abroad in dangerous spots.

"Just as the all-volunteer military relieved the government of much of the political pressure that had accompanied the draft, so a rent-a-force, harnessing the privilege of every putative warrior to hire himself out for more than he could ever make in the direct service of Uncle Sam, might relieve us of an array of current political pressures," Koppel explains, tongue possibly in cheek.

"So, if there are personnel shortages in the military (and with units in their second and third rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are), then what's wrong with having civilian contractors? Expense is a possible issue; but a resumption of the draft would be significantly more controversial....

"So, what about the inevitable next step — a defensive military force paid for directly by the corporations that would most benefit from its protection? If, for example, an insurrection in Nigeria threatens that nation's ability to export oil (and it does), why not have Chevron or Exxon Mobil underwrite the dispatch of a battalion or two of mercenaries?"

Koppel notes that Cofer Black, formerly a high-ranking C.I.A. officer and now a senior executive with Blackwater USA, "has publicly said that his company would be prepared to take on the Darfur account."

He concludes: "The United States may not be about to subcontract out the actual fighting in the war on terrorism, but the growing role of security companies on behalf of a wide range of corporate interests is a harbinger of things to come."

Friday, May 19, 2006

Examine the Quotes...decide for yourself

Original article at:

Are They Similar?

Jews Control Everything
Gays Control Everything

Jews 1% of population: control politics, world opinion, NYC, & have lots of money

"At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Jews sit at the junction of the world financial markets. They are an international power. Although only one per cent of the world's population, with the help of their capital, they terrorize the world stock exchanges, world opinion, and world politics. New York is today the center of Jewish power." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays 1% of population: control politics, have lots of money
"Homosexuals display political control far beyond their numbers. A tiny fraction of the population (about 1 percent), homosexuals have one of the largest and fastest growing Political Action Committees in the country (The Human Rights Campaign) and give millions of dollars to candidates". - Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying before the US Senate Labor Committee hearings on S.2238, July 29, 1994.

The gays control television & radio, Hollywood
"You know, the gays are in control in Hollywood; they are in control of television; they are in key positions at the Washington Post now; and they watch everything that is coming into the newspaper or television and radio, and they are editing it out." - Anthony Falzarano, Parents & Friends of 'Ex-Gays',

Gays more politically powerful than other Americans
"On average, they [gays] are far wealthier, more educated, and more politically powerful than other Americans." - WHY SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING YOUR KIDS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, Steve Schwalm, Family Research Council, May 14, 1998,

Jews Are Richer, More Educated
Gays Are Richer, More Educated

Jews have better jobs, more money
"Fifty-two out of every 100 doctors were Jews. Of every 100 merchants, 60 were Jews. The average wealth of Germans was 810 marks; the average wealth of Jews 10,000 marks." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays have better jobs, more money
"Homosexuals are among the most economically advantaged people in our country. Research by marketing firms shows that as a group homosexuals have higher than average per-capita annual incomes ($36,800 vs. $12,287), are more likely to hold college degrees (59.6 percent vs. 18 percent), have professional or managerial positions (49 percent vs. 15.9 percent..." - Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying before the US Senate Labor Committee, July 29, 1994.

Gays are an educated elite
"These life style advantages were enjoyed because gays were much more likely to be college graduates. Fully 60 percent of gays surveyed were college graduates, compared with 18 percent of the general population. This is not the profile of a group in need of special civil rights legislation in order to participate in the economy or to have an opportunity to hold a decent job. It is the profile of an elite. An elite whose insider status has permitted it to abuse the political process in search, not of equal opportunity, but of special privilege and public endorsement." - Joseph Broadus, religious right representative George Mason School of Law, testimony before US Senate Labor Committee, opposing legislation to protect gay Americans from job discrimination, July 29, 1994.

Gays are wealthy extremists
"[gays are] the wealthiest extremists of the amoral left" - Andrea Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, quoted by People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1988, p.9.

Gays have more money & education, live in luxury
"You find survey after survey showing gays are far better off than the general population in terms of college degrees, discretionary income, frequent flyer miles - Virtually every indicator of luxury." - Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying before the US Senate Labor Committee, opposing legislation to protect gay Americans from job discrimination, July 29, 1994.

Jews Are Diseased
Gays Are Diseased

Insidious Jews spread disease like rats

"In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly, and cruel, and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction - just like the Jews among human beings."- Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Disgusting gays are diseased
"The disgusting details of the homosexual lifestyle explain why so many diseases are present in the homosexual community." - American Family Association,, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

Gays disproportionately diseased
"Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of America's most serious STD's, including syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts, and hepatitis A and B." - Family Research Council,

Many STDs linked to gays
"the many sexually transmitted diseases linked to unnatural homosexual practices" -10-8-98, news release from Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, quoting Peter LaBarbera, who is the organization's head and also an employee at the Family Research Council,

Gays more diseased than straights
"Lesbians and homosexual men are 19 times and 14 times more likely, respectively, to have had syphilis than heterosexual men and women" - NARTH's Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. (a top psychologist of the "ex-gay" movement), the footnote reads: "P. Cameron, K. Proctor, and W. Coburn, 'Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,' Nebraska Medical Journal, Vol. 70 No. 8, August 1985, pp. 292-299." -

Jews Are Criminals
Gays Are Criminals

Parasitical Jews 1% of population, responsible for most of crime
"This parasitical Jewish race is responsible for most international crime. In 1932, Jews, only 1 per cent of the world's population, accounted for ... 47 per cent of crooked games of chance - 82 percent of international crime organizations - 98 percent of prostitution." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays 1% of population, responsible for 1/3 of child molesters
"Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters." - Family Research Council, "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," July 1999,

Gays commit over 33% of sex acts with children
"They commit over 33% of the sex acts with children. Of the pupil molestations, homosexual teachers commit as many as 80% of those acts." - Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, "The Gay Agenda," October 1998

Gays practice illegal behavior
"Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting sodomy." - - Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying before the US Senate Labor Committee hearings on S.2238, July 29, 1994.

Gays commit 80% of pedophile attacks on boys
"it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," Family Research Council publication, July 1999,

Gay lifestyle was criminal
"a lifestyle that just a few years ago was criminal in our country." - - American Family Association ACTION ALERT via email, 4/25/97

Gays are like kleptomaniacs
"It is [a sin]....just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs." - Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, Associated Press, June 15, 1998.

Jews Are Abnormal
Gays Are Abnormal

Jews are abnormal

"The Jew is interested instinctively in all that is abnormal and depraved. He seeks to disrupt the people's healthy judgment." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Homosexuality is abnormal
"There is no science that shows that homosexuality is anything other than abnormal." - Statement of Robert H. Knight, Senior Director of Cultural Studies, Family Research Council, Board Member, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, May 17, 1999,

Gay lifestyle is abnormal
"Ellen [Degeneres] tries to sanitize immorality with a lesbian lead character who is perfectly normal, healthy, and just like everybody else, even as she becomes more and more shrill in promoting an abnormal lifestyle," Leslie Carbone for the Family Research Council, "WILL HOLLYWOOD EVER GET IT?",

Jews Unnatural, Perverted, Pathological
Gays Unnatural, Perverted, Pathology

Jews are unnatural, perverted, pathological
"What he [a Jew] calls 'art' must titillate his degenerate nerves. A smell of foulness and disease must pervade it. It must be unnatural, grotesque, perverted or pathological." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

1) Gays are unnatural
"what are considered unnatural sex acts, sex between members of the same sex." - 700 Club, 12-24-93 (source: People for the American Way Foundation)

"[gays have an] attraction to unnatural acts" - Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, "The Gay Agenda," October 1998.

"homosexuality cannot be natural" - American Family Association,, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

"the many sexually transmitted diseases linked to unnatural homosexual practices" - 10-8-98, news release from Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, quoting Peter LaBarbera, who is the organization's head and also an employee at the Family Research Council,

"Abe Lincoln would have regarded homosexual conduct as sinful and unnatural." - news release, Aug 13, 98 - Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, run by Peter LaBarbera,

"Chief among those lies is the claim that homosexuality is a healthy, natural and fixed 'identity' - as opposed to a harmful, immoral and changeable behavior." - Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, run by Peter LaBarbera,

"It is abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is unnatural" - Claremont Institute,

2) Gays are perverted
"what a perversion of God's ideal homosexuality is." - Family Research Council's CultureFacts, June 23, 1999,

"To throw out morality is to bring in every perversion: Adultery; Homosexuality; Exhibitionism, Incest, Prostitution, Pedophilia, Bestiality, Sadism, Masochism, and Necrophilia." -"The Gay Agenda", published by Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, October 1998

"WBC will picket his memorial service, using the occasion to warn the living that the sodomite lifestyle guarantees Hell. That the Kansas City Star Fag Rag writing tributes, and his fellow perverts dancing and singing in his honor, will not buy one drop of water to cool Leni's tongue where he likely now is." - Religious right Westboro Baptist Church press release, September 28, 1996, on the death of UMKC dancer Leni Wylliams.

At different [sex] parties, I would say, "This is all you guys talk about." Every joke was somehow sexual. Every movement was somehow sexual. There was nothing that was ever talked about that didn't have to do with sex. And I said, "What is wrong with you that you can't think about anything else?" "What else is there?" was invariably the response. Always. It would concern me."- AFTAH Web site interview with Family Research Council's Yvette Cantu,

Michael Johnston, head of Kerusso Ministries (an "ex-gay" conversion center): "You know, really, when you think about it -- let me just be blunt here -- when an individual 'comes out' and proclaims their homosexuality, really, what they are doing is standing up and saying, 'I'm a sexual deviant, and I'm proud of it.' " - Oct 16, 96 - Family Research Council Web site,

3) Gays are a pathology
"The practices of those people is appalling. It is a pathology" - Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 6-6-88 (source: People for the American Way Foundation)

"anal intercourse, sado-masochism, sexual promiscuity, and substance abuse. These pathologies are an integral part of the homosexual lifestyle" - Robert Knight, Family Research Council, "Homosexual Teens at Risk," 1998,

Jews Threaten Children
Gays Threaten Children

Jews think it's ok to murder children

"The Jew Lorre in the role of a child murderer. Not the murderer but the victim is guilty, according to this film, which presents the criminal sympathetically, to gloss over and excuse the crime." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays recognize pedophiles as prophets

" of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," Family Research Council publication, July 1999,

Undercurrent of pedophilia in gay subculture

"There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture" - Robert Knight, Family Research Council,

Gays support pedophilia
"Prominent homosexual leaders and publications have voiced support for pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and even bestiality." - American Family Association,, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

Gays want to have sex with boys
"This is ultimately about the protection of America's youth from such groups as NAMBLA and militant homosexuals who seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of fourteen" - Charles Socarides, on the board of NARTH and the other top 'ex-gay' psychiatrist, from NARTH's Web site,

Gays seduce young boys
"Practicing sadistic sex and seducing young boys is not uncommon among homosexuals." - Reed Irvine, Accuracy in Media, Dec. 2, 1999.

Gays propagandize to children
"In fact, most mothers are more concerned with protecting their children from homosexual activists, who insist on their supposed 'right' to propagandize young schoolchildren." Jul 12, 98 - Americans for Truth About Homosexuality press release, organization run by Peter LaBarbera, who is also a Family Research Council employee.

Gays seduce children
"The seductions of the homosexual lobby are being brought to your children in your school, and that seduction is followed by destruction." - Steve Schwalm, Family Research Council, WHY SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING YOUR KIDS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, May 14, 1998,

Gays want access to children
"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," Family Research Council publication, July 1999,

Gays want to steal innocence from children
"There are those in our school systems that say the homosexual has every right to influence our children. Why, let them steal the innocence of our children?" - Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, "The Gay Agenda," October 1998

Jews Threaten Christians
Gays Threaten Christians

Jews consider Christians 'heathens', want destroy them
"What does the ancient Talmud law teach? Let us hear some quotes....[now supposedly quoting the Talmud] Praise to the Lord who has set apart the holy Israelites from other people. The heathen, who do not keep the law, will be destroyed." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays oppose religion
"Militant homosexuality is fundamentally opposed to religion, family, and anything that presupposes a natural moral order, a transcendent God, or something else higher than ourselves. The activist homosexual agenda and worldview are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity or any form of true religion, because homosexuality is ultimately narcissism" - THE ASSAULT ON CHRISTIANS BY THE MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT, by Steven A. Schwalm, Family Research Council,

Gay lobby smears Christians
"the [gay rights lobby] Human Rights Campaign -- that smears faithful Christians and Americans of all faiths" - news release, Sept 18, 98 - Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality,

Gays want to outlaw religion, think it's evil
"Religion is treated as irrelevant or downright evil. Homosexual books, magazines, and newspapers are filled with bitter and often obscene denunciations of religion in general and Christianity in particular. One activist calls for the outlawing of churches that disapprove of homosexual conduct. Another carefully outlines an advertising campaign that equates Christian clergy with Nazis and Klansmen. Homosexual stage performers dress up in clerical garb and commit obscene acts. A gay rights cartoonist depicts Christ having anal intercourse with His cross. These are not isolated examples from an otherwise gentle and loving literature. The attitude pervades the homosexual movement and is an essential part of their ideal curriculum." - Family Research Council, THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN SCHOOLS, by Robert H. Knight,

Gays don't love God, hate religion

"[Homosexuality] is the opposite of love for God. It is a rebellion against God and God's natural order, and embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion." - THE ASSAULT ON CHRISTIANS BY THE MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT, by Steven A. Schwalm, Family Research Council,

Gays have contempt for Christians
Gay people have] "Contempt for Orthodox Christianity" - Jun 15, 98, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality press release,

Gays want to silence Christians, blame them

"the real motivation behind such hate crime laws is to silence Christians. Gays will now feel free to blame any crime against a homosexual on Christians" - America Family Association ACTION ALERT via email, 10/16/98

Gays spit on Christ
"Homosexual activists who once asked for tolerance now show no tolerance or sympathy for Christians whose sacred symbols they defile. They are totalitarians who accuse everyone that disagrees with them of "hatred." Even as they masquerade under the banner of tolerance, they spit on the most sacred Person revered and worshipped by millions. They mock our religious symbols, deride our beliefs, and even desecrate our churches and sacraments. " - THE ASSAULT ON CHRISTIANS BY THE MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT, by Steven A. Schwalm, Family Research Council,

Gays undercut churches
"homosexuals seek to undercut the social authority of churches" - American Family Association,, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

Gays want to give churchgoers AIDS
"[Homosexuals]want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 1/18/95 - People for the American Way Web site,

Jews Are Like Rats
Gays Are Like Rats

Jews are like rats

"Wherever rats appear they bring ruin, by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly, and cruel, and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction - just like the Jews among human beings." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays are like rats
"Homosexuals, like rats, are crawling out of their holes, only to be fed lovingly by church people and politicians." - The 13th, right-wing Catholic newspaper in Austria.

Gays are like rats
"They are like rats, skulking in their closets, copulating in mad frenzies, unable to control their appetites, sniffing around the doors of school classrooms for fresh prey. Young prey. They are perverts and hedonists and will make fine kindling in Hell. But before then, before God gives them what they really deserve, they must be stopped here on Earth." - Fundamentalist TV preacher, quoted in "The Gay Agenda: Talking Back to the Fundamentalists."

Jews and the Bible
Gays and the Bible

Jews violate the Bible

"For example, in Deuteronomy it is written: 'Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.' " - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays are a big sin in Bible
"White, the Green Bay Packers defensive lineman who retired and unretired last week, used ethnic stereotypes and called homosexuality 'one of the biggest sins' in the Bible in his remarks last month" - ASSOCIATED PRESS, April 26, 1998

Gays worth of death, say Bible
"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death (Romans 1:32)," Rev. Fred Phelps quoted by State Press (Arizona State University), March 11, 1998.

Jews are Covert
Gays are Covert

Jews know how to assimilate

"The Jew has always known how to assimilate his external appearance to that of his host...Under this mask he increased his influence more and more in Aryan nations and climbed to higher-ranking positions. But he could not change his inner being. " - pamphlet handed out at "The Eternal Jew,"

Gays are circumspect
"In the United States, homosexual activists are more circumspect about their efforts to gain access to children...homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy"- "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999,

Gay rights are covert subterfuge
"Necessarily, much of the U.N. effort to advance homosexual 'rights' has been covert in nature....U.N. proponents of so-called 'gay rights' consequently employ a variety of definitional subterfuges." -
HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A "UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT", by Tom McFeely, Family Research Council Web site,

Jews And Religion
Gays And Religion

Judaism is "so-called" religion
"their so-called religion" - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Gay Christians are like Satan worshippers
"Religious Right groups went on the attack against President Clinton after Rev. Troy Perry, a gay minister, was included among the 120 religious leaders taking part in an ecumenical breakfast at the White House. Family Research Council's Robert Knight said, 'We are witnessing the Administration's moral meltdown. What's next? A memorial to Church of Satan founder Anton LeVay?' " - People for the American Way Web site,

Jews Spread Like a "Tide"
Homosexuality Is Part of a Tide

Jews spread like a "tide"
"They spread from Eastern Europe like an irresistible tide, flooding the towns and nations of Europe - in fact, the entire world." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Homosexuality is part of a larger "tide"

"Pro-homosexuality activists try to portray the success of their cause as inevitable. But it is not. The churches can stand against the tide of relativism and libertinism in our culture. And they can help to reverse the tide, restoring marriage to its proper place of honor" - People for the American Way Web site,

War on Jews
War on Gays

Germany declares war on Jews
"Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, Germany has raised the battle flag of war against the eternal Jew." - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Family Research Council and war on gays
"...wage the war against the homosexual agenda." - From the Web site of Bauer's Family Research Council, which calls homosexuality "destructive", source: Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998.

Annihilate Jews
Exterminate Gays

Annihilate the Jews
"...but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" - Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew,"

Extermination of Gays
"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, [Dr. Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995. (FYI - Cameron's now-debunked research forms the foundation of most religious right anti-gay 'studies' - see Mattthew Shepard Online Resources Hate Speech archives for more information on Cameron, and for a listing of religious right organizations that continue to use his faulty research.

Jack Cafferty: Man with a SPINE !!!!

Cafferty: Lunatic Fringe

Cafferty went off on Frist and Specter over the Senate committee's "constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage" that got Russ Feingold so upset.

See video at

Jack Cafferty: Wolf, Today's lesson in hypocrisy comes to us courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They met in a different private room behind closed doors today and approved a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. at one point the thing got pretty ugly. A shouting match, between the Republican Chairman Senator Arlen Spector and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who said he was against the Amendment as well as Spector's decision to hold the vote in a private room out of the public's view.
These guys are shameless. Feingold eventually stormed out telling Spector "I've enjoyed your lecture Mr Chairman. See ya."Senator Spector in a real show of courage, says that he is "totally opposed to the Amendment", but he voted for it anyway saying that it deserves a debate in the Senate. Majority Leader Bill Frist says the full Senate will now debate a Constitutional Amendment which has absolutely no chance of passing. Frist hopes to have a vote by June 5th.

This is all being done by the republican majority in an effort to appeal to Right-wing nuts in the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. Ignore all of the pressing issues facing the country, and instead go grovel at the feet of the lunatic fringe. Senator Frist should be very proud of himself. That's leadership. Here's the question: Is now the time for the Senate to consider a constitutional Amendment on gay marriage?"

The Republicans show their cowardice once again by hiding in a private room. Good for Feingold. Frist and the word "leadership" in the same sentence is scary. Lunatic fringe sounds about right to me. This should be called the "James Dobson" amendment.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Missouri Fascism ...Black Jack YOU LOSE ....

Town Cracks Down On Unwed Couples
Black Jack, Mo., To Evict Unmarried Couples With Children From Homes

BLACK JACK, Mo., May 17, 2006

"I'm just shocked. I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

(CBS/AP) The city council in Black Jack, Mo., has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together. The mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

Mayor Norman McCourt said starting Wednesday the city will begin trying to evict groups who do not fit into Black Jack’s definition of family, reports CBS affiliate KMOV-TV in St. Louis.

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

McCourt declined to be interviewed, but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

In the statement, McCourt said, "the city provides information about its occupancy permit requirements to anyone who requests it. ... As mayor, I am required by state law to uphold the laws of the city of Black Jack."

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Oh Let's Just Piss off Everyone......

Putin lashes out at 'wolf-like' America

· Response to Cheney attack feeds war of words
· US 'eats and listens to no one', warns president

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday May 11, 2006
The Guardian

Journalists are reflected on a television screen showing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, delivering his annual address to the nation in the Kremlin, Moscow. Photograph: Sergei Chirikov/EPA

Relations between the US and Russia sank to the lowest point in a decade yesterday when Vladimir Putin harshly rebuked Washington for its criticism last week and compared the US to a hungry wolf that "eats and listens to no one".

Mr Putin, stung by an attack from Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, used his annual state of the nation address to denounce US expansionism and military spending. He also questioned Washington's record on democratic rights. Although he refrained from mentioning the US by name, it was clear that the "wolf" in question referred to Washington.

The deterioration in relations is risky for the US at a time when it is trying to persuade Russia to support a United Nations resolution against Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme.
The acrimony will also encourage senior US Republicans such as John McCain to renew calls for Mr Bush to boycott this year's meeting of the Group of Eight, the world's wealthiest countries, which is scheduled to be held in Russia for the first time.

The war of words is a long way from the optimism with which George Bush said, after his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Putin in 2001, that he had looked into the Russian president's soul and liked what he saw.

Mr Cheney, reflecting Washington's growing disenchantment, told a conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, last week that Russia was sending "mixed signals" over democracy, as well as using its energy resources to "intimidate and blackmail" neighbours.

Mr Putin, in his speech, noted that the American military budget was 25 times the size of Russia's and said the US had turned its home into a castle.

"Good for them," the Russian president said, looking up from his notes, directly at his audience, "but this means we must make our own home strong and reliable. Because we see what is happening in the world. We see it."

He added, in what appeared to be a reference to the US-led invasion of Iraq and its approach to Iran: "As they say, 'comrade wolf knows whom to eat. He eats without listening and he is clearly not going to listen to anyone'." He accused the US of hypocrisy over its criticism of Russia's patchy human rights record.

"Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?

In another veiled reference to Washington's approach to Iraq and Iran, he said: "Methods of force rarely give the desired result and often their consequences are even more terrible than the original threat." He added that Russia was "unambiguously" against the spread of nuclear weapons.

In another apparent jibe aimed at the US, he said countries should not use Russia's negotiations over membership of the World Trade Organisation to make unrelated demands.

"The negotiations for letting Russia into the WTO should not become a bargaining chip for questions that have nothing in common with the activities of this organisation," Mr Putin said.

US senators visiting Moscow last month said Congress would consider its application in the light of Russia's behaviour on human rights and Iran.

Mr Putin said Russia had to resist foreign pressure by bolstering its army, which is currently a ragtag group of a million conscripts galvanised by special forces and nuclear weapons. "We must always be ready to counter any attempts to pressure Russia in order to strengthen positions at our expense," he said. "The stronger our military is, the less temptation there will be to exert such pressure on us."

Much of his hour-long address was dedicated to Russia's demographic plight, which some forecasts have suggested could see the population fall from 142 million to 100 million by 2050. "The number of our citizens shrinks by an average of 700,000 people a year," he said, promising to double state payouts for a first child to £30 a month, with £60 for a second one. He said a healthy population, free from the vices of smoking and drinking, was vital for a healthy army to protect the state.

Boris Makarenko, deputy head of the Centre for Political Technologies, said the speech marked the beginning of a new approach in which Russia, bolstered by high oil and gas prices, had stopped discussing democracy and other issues with the west and had said instead: "We are strong, we have wealth and we'll use it in a way we consider necessary."

Mr Makarenko said the bitter exchange between Washington and Moscow during the past week was designed to get their mutual criticisms out of the way prior to Russia chairing the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.