Wooohooo This is Good News!!!!!

In one of my earlier blogs I had a thing about a young man who was forced by his parents to go to a camp to make him straight.
Well they are being told to stop, not the parents, the place that is turning out ex-gays!!
Even from their words they can't make someone straight that's why they use the term ex-gay.
Here is the story for all interested.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/10/102205exGay.htm

This an excerpt from a news story in yahoo

This is written by:
Andrew Noyes,
PlanetOut Network

In March, a coalition of whistleblower protection and civil rights groups filed a complaint against the former ethics attorney for violating the very nondiscrimination laws his office is charged with enforcing.
Documents acknowledging that the probe would begin were released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) on Tuesday. In recent months, the case has been supplemented with new allegations against Bloch for supplying misleading information to Congress and misusing his office to support a person espousing creationist views even though the Office of the Special Counsel had no jurisdiction in the matter, PEER said. Bloch previously served as deputy director for the Justice Department's Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives.
Violations against Bloch include failing to uphold the long-standing interpretation of federal law that protects federal civil service employees from discrimination based upon sexual orientation, according to the Human Rights Campaign, one of the organizations that lodged the complaint.
According to PEER, the grievance specified instances of illegal gag orders, cronyism, invidious discrimination and retaliation in forcing the resignations of a number of his legal and investigative staff. The White House and the Office of Personnel Management's director Linda Springer have stated that federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in government jobs.
"No bureaucrat has the right to single-handedly roll back decades-old protections for workers securing our homeland and protecting our nation's health," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. He said OPM's Inspector General should reel in a "renegade appointee" who has "ignored the law to satisfy his own extremist agenda."


It seems this isn't the first time some one has tried to make things their way or not at all.

My Letter to the President

This is about federal money being used to rebuild churches and the religious schools.

president@whitehouse.gov
FEMA and Religious Buildings.

I don't think that is equitable to rebuild religious schools etc... with federal money. They do not pay taxes on that property or for their orginazations.
The churches and their schools get money from their parishioners and that is what should be used to do the rebuilding. Since when is the federal government the holding bag for any church?This is truely not seperation of church and state.

S. C. J.

Interesting spin on the apointee

STOP HARRIET MIERS FROM CROWNING BUSH AS KING
This is all the more reason to oppose the appointment of Harriet Miers, who they want to install as yet another rubberstamp crony for the Bush imperial power grab. So greedy is the right wing for absolute power in every respect they want, there are some reactionary commentators who are complaining that they have not been assured that Miers is radical enough for them. This is our nomination to stop, and then we can move on to the REAL struggle which is to fight for a true moderate as the next appointee. Click on the link below also and you can submit both action pages with the same contact information.STOP MIERS IN HER TRACKS at http://www.nocrony.com

We can take no satisfaction with someone just because they don't fulfill EVERYTHING on the wish list of the other side. We must stand up for what WE want and believe. Most of all we must build a national consensus that any new Supreme Court appointees must be true moderates at the worst. We can TAKE ADVANTAGE of the silly opposition of the neocon think tankers who are so intellectually greedy they will not settle for another clone vote like Thomas. Let them hold out for an "in our face" reactionary scholar. In the meantime we must all speak out on the absent merits of Miers and reject her OURSELVES as nothing more than a faith-based crony.
Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

So many of the orginazations I belong to feel the same way as the PEN.
I have to agree that Shrub is trying to become a dictator and using religion to do it.
I wish this country would wake up more.

Doesn't this prove that the "Religious Right" is a Hate Group

http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/10/15/20051015LNJMarriageAmendme.html

Again and again they foist their rules on every one and try to make good folks be "devils" just because we aren't like them. Isn't this how Hitler and his folks start in Germany to start WWII?

Honestly they would find any kind of way to make just about anyone an enemy just because we aren't following their sheeple mode of thinking. It's a control thing and they think they need to control how everyone lives.

This also makes me glad that I am Pagan and as a Pagan we have no need to limit the freedoms or beliefs of any one group of people.

This doesn't do anything to "protect marriage" or children or anything of real use in this society.
It is tearing the country apart and making it easier for hate and fear to run rampant.

Let's help this company !

Let's show them that the AFA and other hate groups like that have no place in our society.

http://www.madison.com/tct/home/topstories/index.php?ntid=57927&ntpid=3

I find this ariticle very interesting as the neo-cons would take away the rights of all women and put us back in the 1800 with their "morals".

Keith Olbermann's blog on MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665308/#051012a

Ok so I didn't keep track of days, but I'm glad that I am not the only one who noticed this "little" fact.
Distract folks with fear and hate then you can get just about any thing past them. Well I don't get distracted and I'm not afraid of what they want me to be afraid of. So thanks for the good blog.

Message: 2 From one of the online groups that I am in.

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:40:38 EDT
From: Proud Liberal 7@
Subject: Battle Hymn of the RepublicansBattle Hymn of the Republicans(to the tune of the above mentioned song Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Mine Eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling moron Bush;
He has blathered all the drivel that the neo-cons can push;
He has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up his tush;
The Doofus marches on.

I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to school;
Should we fault him for the policies -- or is he just their tool?
The lies keep piling on.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.

I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires' lone heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting -- do we really need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!

Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy -- and the U.N. says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!

Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no moral bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up other grounds;
Enraging several billions -- to his brainlessness redounds;
The Doofus marches on!

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
THIS...DOO...FUS...MAR...CHES...ON*
(from my email)

Thanks for putting this in the group I seem to remember one similar to this about one of the other persidents many years ago.
I think it may have been(I am not a crook) Nixon.

Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court - More of what he said

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Miers, who Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.
"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.
Democratic and Republican special interests groups were braced for a political brawl over the pick, Bush's second. But the lack of a judicial record may make it difficult for Democrats to find ground upon which to fight her nomination.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them.
Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.
Miers' pick came shortly before Chief Justice John Roberts was set to take his seat on the court for the first time Monday after breezing to nomination. Miers helped push his nomination through the Senate.
"She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. Conservatives apparently agreed.
"There's every indication that she's very similar to Judge Roberts — judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.
The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

This does nothing to make me less afraid, only more so.

The Pres Announces his Choice

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush picked White House counsel Harriet Miers as the next justice on the
U.S. Supreme Court and was to announce it on Monday morning, senior administration officials said.
Miers, a longtime ally of Bush's going back to his days as Texas governor, would replace Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court.
The announcement was scheduled to come at 8 a.m. EDT (noon GMT) at the White House with Miers present.
A senior administration official said the name of Miers, 60, came up in consultations with both Republican and Democratic senators as someone who could win bipartisan support.
The official also said some senators from both parties thought it was important for Bush to pick someone who was not a judge and could offer a different perspective on the job.
Bush offered her the job on Sunday night over dinner at the White House residence, the official said.
O'Connor was a key swing vote on the closely divided Supreme Court and her replacement was certain to undergo great scrutiny at the U.S. Senate, which must confirm Bush's choice.
The announcement will come just hours before the Supreme Court opens its 2005-2006 term with Bush's first choice for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, taking his seat for the first time.

He said she was a part of a group called Exodus, isn't that a right wing fundimental group?
She may be a good lawyer, but she has no experiance as a judge.
She also has no paper trail to tell us who she is and how she sees things.
This is scary.

Barbarism without limit War and Morality

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell
By what ethical standard should we judge the state?
One tradition, which we might call anti-liberal, asserts that there are special laws of morality that apply to the state alone. Another tradition, the liberal tradition, says that states must abide by the moral standards that apply to everyone in all times and all places.
The first view is the ancient one. It permitted and expected states to pillage and kill. The right and wrong of statecraft was dictated by the sword. The idea of universal moral laws and universal human rights did not find favor among the Caesars and Pharaohs, any more than this idea appealed to later dictators.
Yet the liberal tradition gradually abolished the idea of caste and special legal privilege. It asserted, more generally, that no group possesses a special license to lord it over others. St. Augustine might have been the first to observe that the moral status of Alexander the Great's conquests was more egregious than the pirate's depredations.
The pirate molests the sea, but the emperor molests the world.The view that states can do wrong is the most powerful theory of politics in the history of the world. It led to the birth of the dream of universal freedom. Slavery, imperialism, colonialism, militarism, and authoritarianism all came to exist under a moral cloud.
At the same time, freedom and individualism unleashed human energies and, in the setting of free economies, created a prosperity beyond any ever known. This made possible the vast expansion of the world's population, and human flourishing as never seen before. Given this history, and the central role that the American Revolution had in furthering the liberal idea, we must ask the question: what does the US government not understand about the evil of imperialism, the immorality of enslaving a foreign people, the malice of colonialism, and the intolerable brutality of authoritarianism?
In fact, the theory of the modern American regime is a throwback to the ancient view, that the US operates under special rules. The US believes it can starve foreign countries such as Iraq by imposing killer sanctions that a high US official said were worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. The US believes that it can use its weapons of mass destruction to threaten any country in the world on the very suspicion that it might be trying to defend itself. The US can then phony up intelligence, overthrow a leader, and install a regime of its choosing. Not to worry: its magical military Midas touch will transform that country into a paragon of democratic freedom — just as soon as all political opposition is silenced or destroyed.
In short, the US government believes that it operates under a different moral standard, not only from the moral standard that regular people apply to their own affairs, but even different from the moral standard that the US applies to other states. And who pays the price for this moral hypocrisy?
The victims of war. Of all forms of collectivist central planning, war is the most egregious. It is generated by the coercive force of taxation and monetary depreciation. Its means are economic regimentation and the violation of the freedom to associate and trade. Its ends are destruction and killing — crime on a mass scale. War leaves in its wake orphans, widows, parents without children, sickness, hatred, and spiritual and psychological trauma. It gives power to dictators on all sides. It is based on a lie that mass death can ever accord with justice. It attempts to silence those who tell the truth. Indeed, war is a kind of totalitarianism. It is a policy without limit. It demands from us all that we have to give: our money, our children, our minds, even our souls. Too often people give it all. Too often, Americans give it all. George Bush was brazen enough to make the doctrine explicit. If you are not for him, he says, you are for the terrorists. He said it because the state fears the advocates of peace. It fears the truth, and those who tell the truth. It fears those who dare to judge the state by normal standards of morality.
The state fears you. Why? Because you hold the opinions that you do, and refuse to surrender your mind, your talents, your soul. By joining the resistance, you help thwart their plans. You help establish the basis for peace in the future. You help preserve and develop civilization, for the human family can only thrive in a setting of peace.
So I say to you: Keep making the sacrifice. Believe in peace. Proclaim peace. Stand up to the state. Be a dissident. Tell what is true. And do not fear the emperor-pirates. They, after all, fear you. For you help tilt the balance of history against their barbarism, and in favor of peace and freedom.

This reminds me of this poem that I wrote not long ago.

Warrior Poet

Your commercial talks about the soldiers
being the ones to keep this country free
You seem to forget those of us who do,
have done both
Without the poet, protester and words,
the ideas, ideologies can't be shared,
it would just be fighting
Without the words to get people to to realize
when things need to be stopped wars
wouldn't end
Remember balance in all things
Without one there wouldn't be the other

Now flip your coin

Ok so how stupid can they get?!? Wait don't answer that...

High school project considered potential threat to Bush "The thumbtack in the photo was apparently placed somewhere on Bush's head." [ROFL!] 24 Sep 2005 A high school student's class project on freedoms in the U.S. attracted Secret Service agents to his school this week... In the student's photograph, a photograph of Bush is shown fastened to a wall with a thumbtack. Over the picture of Bush is a "thumbs-down" sign. The thumbtack in the photo was apparently placed somewhere on Bush's head, school spokeswoman Sandy Kinzel, said. Concerned that the thumbtack might represent a potential threat to the pResident, the company that developed the student's film notified authorities.

Cause this shows they can be real stupid.
1. Like a high school student would really have a chance to get close to shrub.
2. A high school student could afford to track down and follow shrub to get a chance to do anything.
3. Like the secret service would let JUST ANY one get too close to the idiot shrub anyway.

Gives me serious wonder just what the politicians are up to that they have the time to go after a high school child.

THOM HARTMANN DEVOTES MOST OF SHOW TO STOP ROBERTS MOVEMENT

If you were listening to Thom Hartmann on his widely syndicated radio program today, you know he was breathing fire in opposition to John Roberts. You also know from your own experience that the primary toll-free telephone number for Congress (877-762-8762) is mysteriously and suddenly out of commission with just a fast circuit busy signal (try it yourself), even in the middle of the night. Yes, Thom thought that was extremely odd also, especially with so many of us calling to declare our strong opposition to John Roberts.
WHAT WE MUST NOW DO is create a permanent record of this situation and use that to generate even more messages and phone calls to the Senate in the next 24 hours. If you are a member of any BLOGS go to ALL of them overnight and start a new thread or article, and/or leave a comment on an existing one. In your own words there are three simple key points we need to make in any order you like:1) Whether we have in fact overloaded the primary toll-free number with our calls or whether someone deliberately cut the line to slow down the calls, it is in FACT down now.2) There is a growing ground swell of opposition to the stealth reactionary Roberts that can no longer be ignored.3) To take action there are two alternative toll-free numbers still working, 888-818-6641 and 888-355-3588, plus an action page that will give you all the direct phone and fax numbers of your own senators, http://www.millionphonemarch.com.What we want to accomplish is to create as many entries on as many blog threads as possible, to reach as many people as we can who wish they knew what to do to stop this administration from scuttling our Supreme Court, but who just don't where to start. Feel free to make your own arguments as to why Roberts must be stopped, just as you do when you send your personal messages to your senators. If you would like some additional ideas, this piece from OpEd News might be useful:http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thepen_050914_we_can_stop_roberts_.htmLeahy, Feingold and Kohl have been excoriated on the blogs for their judiciary committee votes, which even they admit were "close calls." All we have to do is get one or two of them to heed the voice of the people and the MOMENTUM is on our side. All they simply need to say is that they have been hearing from their constituents, and while they may have been initially inclined to support Roberts, they can no longer do so.And you can also send your friends who want to know more about why Roberts must be stopped to the one click congressional email and letter to the editor action page, where there are many informative links, athttp://www.millionphonemarch.comALSO be sure to submit the email submission part of the above page yourself in addition to the calls you have already made. Take heart that we have achieved alot of radio visibility in the last couple days. More and more people are starting the question why Roberts is being hustled through the process without even a proper examination of what he really stands for. Will it be enough? That is entirely up to us alone. First we must BELIEVE we can win. After that the rest is easy.We must reach out to our fellow citizens every way we can. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Ok I have already done at lest 2 blogs against Roberts. Now I do this one. I will not repeat myself, but I will say Roberts is not the person for the job. We need to go forward not backwards.

Gas Stations near U that don't buy Saudi gas [Boycott~ Pass it ON]

I thought this was most useful.
To All..... WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS: Saudi Gas boycott
WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON-- Why didn't George W. think of this? Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us! The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor. An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil.
These companies import Middle Eastern oil:
Shell............................ 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco......... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil............... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco............................62,231,000 barrels
If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (oil is now $55-$60 a barrel)
Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
Citgo......................0 barrels
Sunoco...................0 barrels
Conoco..................0 barrels
Sinclair.................0 barrels
BP/Phillips............0 barrels
Hess.......................0 barrels
ARC0....................0 barrels
All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. It's really simple to do. Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I'm sending this note to about thirty people.
If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) .. and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers !!!!!!!
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it ..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days!

I got this from one of the yahoo groups that I'm a part of and think this is important. I don't drive, but when things can make a difference I tend to go for it.

When Dick Met Katrina - I got this from a friend of mine

The entire world has been shocked by the chaos and deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and across Louisiana and Mississipi.
In the words of one Afghan it looks more like Africa than America – most of the victims are black and the government response was so late and badly organised that it’s hard to believe that these poor suffering people could be citizens of the country boasting the most powerful government on earth. Afghanistan – one of the poorest countries on earth - is giving foreign aid to the US.
Was the Bush Administration to Blame in any way?
Were State and Local Government to blame as well?
‘Welfare state’ or poverty and no way out for the poor?
Does Global Warming exist? Is it man–made? Did it make Katrina worse?
Will the disaster change Bush administration policies or lose them support?
Is the US government really too democratic to respond to a crisis?
What lessons can we learn from this tragedy so we can save lives in the future?

Was the Bush Administration to Blame in any way?
Michael Moore seemed to overstate the case when he said that the deaths in Louisiana were NOT (in his capital letters) caused by the hurricane.
Clearly the hurricane caused the flooding, which caused most of the deaths – and hurricanes are not preventable.
Moore is right though that there are several reasons to think that the Bush administration’s policies were negligent and have probably led to more people dying than might otherwise have died.
Spending on flood defences for New Orleans had been inadequate for decades – but under the Bush administration it was reduced to lower levels than ever before. Spending on strengthening the levees on the Mississippi river was stopped altogether for the first time in almost 40 years. If spending had been higher it may or may not have been enough to limit the flooding to some areas or stop it happening altogether. We can’t be certain. We do know though that what’s happened in New Orleans has been predicted for years.
If people weren’t dying it would have been almost comic to hear the Bush administration’s claims that no-one could have predicted the disaster or been prepared to deal with it. It was entirely predictable, it was predicted repeatedly for years by scientists, by the media and even by theFederal Emergency Management Agency and it was predicted to the Bush administration – and they were negligent.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency which organises aid and evacuation in emergencies was merged into the new Department of Homeland Security in 2003. It’s budget was cut, it lost 500 staff (from over 5,000) and at the same time it was asked to do more with less by having to plan for terrorist attacks as well as natural disasters.
So it’s clear that the US federal governments preparation for and response to the disaster was inadequate and probably resulted in many people dying who might otherwise have survived – and what’s equally certain is that the Bush administration’s ideologically driven policies were the main cause of this. Bush has at least admitted that there were failures at a federal level.
Back to top

Were State and Local Government to blame as well?
The Bush administration has blamed the Louisiana State and local governments (mostly run by Democrats) for the lack of emergency aid to survivors.
First they claimed Louisiana’s governor had refused to approve a declaration of martial law or access for National Guard forces from other states. Whether you believe this will probably depend on your prior political affiliations. The Louisiana state government has provided documents which seem to show that they had requested both these things and federal aid before the hurricane struck.
There are also reports that the Department of Homeland Security prevented the Red Cross entering New Orleans because they want everyone to evacuate it due to the risks of disease from corpses, polluted water and malaria from mosquitoes. Was this the Louisiana state Homeland Security Department or the Federal one?
The policy of evacuating everyone may be wise. The problem is that the government(s) failed to evacuate people quickly and didn’t provide them with enough food or water while they were waiting to be evacuated – and even possibly prevented aid agencies supplying it.
There have been various other reports which allege that some local government officials at various levels were negligent.
It seems likely that there were failures at local and state level but a response to an emergency on this scale could only ever be effectively mounted at a national level by the Federal government so the majority of the blame must be placed with those with the majority of the power – the Bush administration.
Back to top

‘Welfare state’ or poverty and no way out for the poor?
What lessons have radical right wing commentators learned from Katrina? Some very strange ones. A popular theory for many right wing pundits is that the relief effort to New Orleans failed because the people of New Orleans failed to help themselves and/or failed to behave in a civilised way . This inability to look after themselves and/or barbaric behaviour is caused supposedly by the welfare state undermining people’s development of the ability to cope – and their morality.
The slight problem with this theory is that the welfare state in the US has been being cut constantly since Reagan came into power in the 80s. Under Clinton this continued with the President approving ‘welfare to work’ schemes which were another euphemism for welfare cuts , putting time limits on claiming benefit. Between 1993 and 1999 the number of Americans receiving welfare payments halved from 14 to 7 million. Further cuts under Bush increased the proportion of Americans living in poverty to 12.4%.
Nor was there any welfare state, or even any proper aid or evacuation programme, in New Orleans. It was lack of effective government, not too much government that was the problem.
In New Orleans before the flood 28% of the population were in poverty. These people couldn’t afford cars and there was no public transport provided by local,state or federal government – and only a 3 hour warning to evacuate – too little time to escape on foot. Then armed police closed the main bridge across the Mississippi to those who hadn’t had cars to escape earlier.
These police feared looting spreading to their areas – and no level of government had evacuated the poor or provided them with supplies or troops to prevent crime or fighting over what little food and water there was.
So much for the ‘welfare state’ causing ‘moral breakdown’. The government wouldn’t tax people on higher incomes to provide proper flood defences – and the government didn’t provide any way out for the poor. Some police even stopped them leaving. People in poverty don’t have the income to buy extra food to store for emergencies, they weren’t getting emergency supplies – so they stole it rather than die or see their children die. This doesn’t explain rapes or murders of course – these were the result of criminals taking advantage of chaos.
Back to top

Does Global Warming exist? Is it man–made? Did it make Katrina worse?
We can argue about whether global warming is being accelerated and intensified by the burning of fossil fuels (many scientists believe it is and personally I believe it is) and we could note that most of the members of the Bush administration are former heads of oil or oil services firms (most notoriously ‘Ricky’ Dick Cheney – former Chief Executive of Halliburton – ok I admit only I call him Ricky and only to get a better title).
While we know that hurricanes took place in the 19th century before oil and gas were burnt on a large scale some scientists also believe the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other natural disasters is increased by man-made global warming.
It would be sensible to change our energy policies given the certainty that fossil fuels cause air pollution and contribute to causing lung diseases including asthma – and even the possibility that fossil fuels are intensifying global warming should make use change our energy sources.
However it remains difficult to persuade many people on the global warming issue despite the majority of scientists arguing that their research indicates it has a large man-made element to it. This is due to the amount of extremely dubious ‘research’ funded by oil companies –like the report last year which claimed that climate change is a ‘myth’ which was largely funded by companies like Exxon-Mobil. They even invented a petition supposedly signed by 17,000 scientists denying climate change and used fronts like the ‘Heartland Institute’ to publicise it. It’s common knowledge that Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice used to be on Exxon’s Board of Directors.
Exxon also employed Phillip Cooney who worked as a White House official writing up policy documents on climate change which distorted the scientific evidence in the same way intelligence on Iraq was distorted. When his link to Exxon was revealed he resigned – and immediately got a job working for Exxon again.
Back to top

Will the disaster change Bush administration policies or lose them support?
Bush has definitely lost support as a result of the failure to provide food, water and medical treatment to survivors as fast as it could have been provided. In the latest polls under 40% of Americans approve of the job he’s doing as President – and in every poll over 50% disapprove. Whether the right lessons will be learned or whether the failures will be put down to some lack of the mystical property of ‘leadership’ is another matter.
The priority for the Bush administration remains massive redistribution of wealth – to the wealthiest. More tax cuts for the wealthy, more welfare ‘reform’ (i.e cuts in spending for the poorest) – and federal reconstruction contracts in Louisiana for firms they used to be executives of or got donations from (the same firms getting reconstruction contracts in Iraq - including subsidiaries of Halliburton). The firms getting these contracts in Louisiana won’t even have to pay the minimum wage to the people they employ.
Back to top

Is the US government really too democratic to respond to a crisis?
The other explanation repeated by many news agencies (who’ve all obviously been briefed by the White House) is that the US system of government is just too democratic for it’s own good. No one person has the power to organise quick and effective action in an emergency. Bush couldn’t have just sent in FEMA and the National Guard because he’d have been accused of being a dictator.
This is really quite weak stuff. When has the Bush administration ever worried about going beyond its constitutional powers, threatening people’s civil rights, or pushing the President’s massive powers to the limit? The idea that they have suddenly become strict constitutionalists who make the American Civil Liberties Union look authoritarian isn’t convincing.
Back to top

What lessons can we learn from this tragedy so we can save lives in the future?
The real lessons Katrina has taught us are simpler and we’ve known them for a long time.
Charities will never have enough funds to match public services – and private companies in a de-regulated market will always care about profits before anything else. Only a welfare state, public works and government emergency services funded by taxation can ensure a civilised society that can deal with man-made or natural disasters without collapsing into chaos.
Polluting our environment causes illnesses and deaths – and if we have an unequal society with no proper welfare state or public services the poorest will suffer and die from everything from lack of healthcare to pollution and environmental catastrophes.
Hurricane Katrina has shown that natural disasters can make a super-power look like a third world country when it’s run by a government that doesn’t believe in public services funded by taxation (unless they’re the police, the military or secret police and even then they favour mercenaries and part-privatisation and under-fund these services).
We’ve seen the most powerful government on earth fail tragically to protect its own citizens. There are lessons for governments on what policies work and for voters on what policies to vote. There are also lessons for each of us in how much we use cars as opposed to trains and bicycles for instance – but time, energy, health and inequality will limit what individuals can do without changes in government policies.
From Africa to America these problems can only be solved by co-operation on a large scale – and from Africa to America any country that doesn’t learn this will be vulnerable.
Back to top
copyright©Duncan McFarlane 2005

Duncan McFarlane

This is from one of Yahoo's news services.

Roberts eases concerns, but leaves plenty of wiggle room
2 hours, 51 minutes ago
John Roberts more than lived up to his billing Tuesday as a knowledgeable, superbly prepared, genial and highly articulate legal mind - and as a nominee determined not to answer any question that could cause him trouble. But all-day testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee nevertheless offered some new impressions of the prospective chief justice.
The first is that he is more likely to be a cautious, establishment jurist than a firebrand in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas or at least that is the impression he sought to convey.
Most notably, Roberts distanced himself from some of his most troubling past writings, attributing them to youth (many were written when he was in his 20s), the need to reflect the views of his employer (the Reagan administration) or to misinterpretation (a comment about not wanting homemakers to become attorneys was just a lawyer joke).
If that is self-serving, it is nevertheless enlightening.
On privacy, which Roberts once referred to as a "so-called right," he reversed field, asserting flatly that such a right exists even though it is not explicit in the Constitution. Scalia and Thomas both have questioned that premise, the cornerstone of landmark decisions asserting a woman's right to use birth control or seek an abortion. Roberts also expressed healthy respect for the importance of the court's precedents generally.
On discrimination against women, which he had once mocked, he expressed deep personal concern. On civil rights and voting rights, he similarly dismissed past statements.
All are encouraging reversals, though Roberts, as nominees generally do, left himself plenty of wiggle room.
Most notably, the nominee resolutely refused to discuss his views on abortion, and in doing so he gave both sides in the debate something to worry about. He seemed to signal that the barrier to reversing
Roe v. Wade would be high but not impossible.
Similarly, on civil rights and women's rights, the most critical question was left unanswered: What remedies would he allow the government to apply?
That is a matter of concern, and it was reinforced by his refusal to discuss the reach of Congress' power to regulate issues affecting health, safety, the environment, the workplace and other matters. His previous record has been raising questions.
Though no one expects Roberts to discuss pending cases, he could have been more forthcoming on key issues of settled law.
Still, the dominant impression left by his testimony was of a man who would likely be a dynamic chief justice with an independent - though surely conservative - mind. He went some distance toward easing concerns that he's outside the judicial mainstream.

I'm not convinced, nor satified that he is a good candidate for the court, let alone the head of said court! I have sent email after email to my Senators etc... and because they are bush kiss asses they will vote him(Roberts) in. Their view of morality is dark ages at best and Neo-Con to the inth degree.
They forget that not everyone in this country is the same religion as them and even some that are "christian" do not agree on the interpretation of the "scriptures".
Well our government will be bushed up for years. I just hope we can overcome the bushups shortly after he is gone.

Things Republicans Believe

by: i_cant_believe_she (41/F/Little Rock, Arkansas)
03/20/05 02:04 pm
Msg: 211 of 258
14 recommendations
Things Republicans Believe
1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy
2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
5. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
10. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
11. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

News Updates - More stupidity from the white house

from Citizens for Legitimate Government
28 August 2005

Bush Cut Hurricane, Flood Protection Funding to New Orleans 06 June 2005 In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding. It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said. I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district... The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now. [Please forward this news item to every media outlet and listserve.]
U.S. oil surges $4 to record above $70 28 Aug 2005 U.S. crude oil futures surged more than $4 in opening trade on Monday, hitting a new record high above $70 a barrel after Hurricane Katrina [US corpora-terrorists] forced Gulf of Mexico producers to shut in more than a third of their output.
Address to receive newsletter: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clgPlease write to: http://us.f526.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=signup@legitgov.org for inquiries. lrp/mdr
CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright © 2005, Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.

Well done Shrub!!! We all know that the area is likely to get hurricanes and that some of them are catigory 5's and those are the killers!!! What are you trying to get rid of your support base now???
I have heard of some stupid things, but this is the second worst from you that I have heard. The first was the war in Iraq.

Follow the link...

It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?coll=news_feature&sernum=1209&page=1


And people wonder why I am so worried about this country.

WASHINGTON - Prosecutors are investigating ...

who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of undercover officer Valerie Plame. Some questions and answers on the case:

Q: What are the origins?
A: In early 2002, Vice President
Dick Cheney read an intelligence report that said the African nation of Niger had agreed to deliver 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to
Iraq. In response to questions from Cheney's office and the departments of State and Defense, the CIA's Counterproliferation Division discussed ways to obtain additional information, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Plame, a CIA division employee, suggested her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as someone who had good relations with the prime minister and the former minister of mines in Niger. The CIA sent Wilson to Africa, where he was unable to confirm the intelligence report about yellowcake uranium.
More than a year later, with the U.S. government unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," and asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about
Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?"
Eight days later, columnist Robert Novak wrote an article in which he disclosed Plame's name and cited as sources two unidentified senior administration officials. Novak wrote that the officials had told him Plame had suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Q: Why would someone in the administration leak Plame's name?
A: Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine that. Wilson claims it was retribution for his article and for his criticism of the administration.
Q: Was it a crime for people in the administration to leak Plame's identity?
A: Under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, it must be shown that someone intentionally disclosed the identity of a person known to the leaker as having undercover status. Lawyers are divided over whether someone who describes a person but does not actually disclose someone's name could be prosecuted. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone, and it is not clear that he will.
Q. Is Fitzgerald looking solely at whether that law was violated?
A. Some legal experts have said they believe the focus of the investigation may have shifted to whether anyone lied to federal agents, prosecutors or the grand jury, or intentionally obstructed the investigation. They based their opinions on descriptions of grand jury testimony from witnesses and their lawyers.
Q: Judith Miller of The New York Times is in jail even though she did not write about Plame. Why is her testimony so important?
A. That is a mystery. It is known from court rulings that the prosecutor wants Miller to provide documents and testimony related to conversations she had with "a specified government official" in the days between the articles by Wilson and Novak.
Q. How many government officials discussed Plame with reporters?
A. Probably at least three, accounts by those reporters and others familiar with the case suggest. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were among the sources for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Cooper wrote about Plame after publication of Novak's column.
Cooper testified to the grand jury in July, following a legal battle over whether reporters had to reveal their confidential sources. Following his testimony, he disclosed his sources in Time.
Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus wrote that he spoke to a government official who volunteered information about Plame two days before Novak's column appeared. Rove and Libby responded to questions about the topic, Cooper and a person who was briefed on Rove's grand jury testimony have said.
Q. What is the significance of a classified State Department memo that mentions Plame and the dispute over the Iraqi intelligence?
A. The memo has become an important piece of evidence because it could have been the way someone in the White House learned — and then leaked — the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and played a role in sending him on the mission.
The document was prepared in June 2003 for Secretary of State
Colin Powell so that he would have an account of Wilson's trip, a retired department official has said. It was sent to Air Force One, the president's plane, because Powell was traveling with the president to Africa.
Q. Why has the name of John Bolton, the president's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations entered into this story?
A. Mainly because Senate Democrats are trying to persuade
President Bush not to give Bolton a recess appointment as U.N. ambassador. Bolton did not testify before the grand jury and was not interviewed by prosecutors in the leak case, State Department officials said. He was undersecretary for arms control and international security before the Iraq war.
However, Bolton didn't tell Congress he had been interviewed for a State Department investigation into the prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials in Africa. A spokesman said Bolton had not remembered the interview when he claimed on a form that he had not been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years. The revelation further raised the ire of Senate Democrats.
Bush, unable to get a vote in the Senate on the Bolton nomination, is expected to ignore Democrats and give Bolton a recess appointment. Under the Constitution, the president may bypass the Senate's authority to confirm an appointment if it is made while the Senate is in recess. It lasts only until the next session of Congress. The Senate began its summer recess Friday night.

Gay blogger released from ‘ex-gay’ camp Tenn. teen criticizes gay activists, who say new posts reflect coercion

By ANDREW KEEGAN Aug. 05, 2005

A gay Tennessee teen who gained worldwide attention after detailing his fear of being sent to an “ex-gay” camp in an Internet posting said the entire situation has been blown out of proportion, according to his latest blog.
But some gay activists who oppose the camp said the posting shows signs of intimidation.
After coming out to his parents, Zach Stark, 16, was enrolled on June 6 at Refuge for a reported eight-week session at a cost of more than $4,000. The Christian facility, a branch of Love In Action located near Memphis, Tenn., works to convert gay youth to heterosexual orientation. It receives adolescent referrals from Exodus, an organization devoted to helping gay adults become heterosexual.
Stark’s June 3 blog about coming out to his parents and his uncertainty about the upcoming retreat included suicidal thoughts, which quickly garnered widespread attention.
But in his latest blog, posted Aug. 1, Stark states that he “is annoyed toward a lot of things,” including that Love In Action was misrepresented.
There is no mention of what transpired during the 56-day stay at Refuge by the youth from Bartlett, Tenn. Stark says that homosexuality is still a “factor” for him, but he won’t let it “run my life.” He also includes an apparent slap at gay activists who led a campaign against Love In Action.
“I refuse to deal with people who are only focused on their one-sided (biased) agendas,” Stark writes. “It isn’t fair to anyone.”
Activists won’t abandon protestJohn Smid, Love In Action’s executive director, declined to comment on Stark’s postings, while gay groups said they would continue to question the ex-gay program’s efforts.
Stark’s original posting led Memphis residents to form the Queer Action Coalition, which began daily demonstrations at the Love In Action offices to raise awareness of the dangers of ex-gay therapy. According to one of the group’s co-founders, Morgan Fox, the protests continued for two weeks, beginning the day Stark was admitted.
“At the height of the protest we had about 80 people outside the offices,” Fox said.
Responding to the teen’s latest blog, Fox said the group has great respect for Stark.
“We have always tried to protect his identity and his rights,” he said, noting the group never divulged the teen’s last name, which was obtained by media outlets.
“But we’ve always said from the beginning that this is not all about Zach.”
Since Stark’s blog post, Queer Action Coalition has received numerous e-mails from former Love In Action clients disputing the organization’s claim of reforming gays, Fox said.
“We responded in forming QAC because it was frightening to read about a kid having to deal with this,” he said. “We absolutely will not judge Zach. What we will do is focus on the message that Love In Action promotes — a lot of people have been harmed by their claim to offer choice.”
Wayne Besen, a gay author who studies the ex-gay movement and has followed Stark’s plight, said he is certain that some type of coercion was exerted on the teen, given the wording of his latest blog.
“It’s disconcerting because the boy who blogged before entering the program has a different voice,” said Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth.”
“The boy who blogged after the program is no longer a free-spirited young man,” he said.
Besen points to several words in the latest blog as proof of intimidation.
“[Zach] now uses right-wing buzz words like ‘agendas’ and how homosexuality is a ‘factor’ in his life,” he said.
Besen recently posted on his Web site, www.waynebesen.com, a letter by a co-founder of Love In Action criticizing the conversion program.
Former ex-gay John Evans, who co-founded Love In Action with Rev. Kent Philpott in 1973, sent the letter July 30 to Smid, the ministry’s current director.
“In the past 30 years since leaving the ‘ex-gay’ ministry I have seen nothing but shattered lives, depression, and even suicide among those connected with the ‘ex-gay’ movement,” Evans wrote

Ok so this is 8 days old. I still wonder about parents like the young man's and wonder if my own folks would have done something like that if it had been around when I was a kid.
I whent through enough "hell" on my own without having to deal with treatment that is worse then just accepting and making a life.
You will probably never read this Zach, but I truely wish you well and have a happy life wheather you are gay or not. Only what's inside of you can truely tell you that fact.

Aretha Williams: Parents need to be compassionate and accepting of gay people

Web Posted: 08/01/2005 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

Dear Ms. Williams: I'm writing to thank you for your article about fathers, particularly about the importance of not assuming that one's child is not homosexual.
If parents would let their children know that their homosexual orientation is "OK" with them, what a vastly more humane world this would be. Thank you.
Grateful in Austin

Dear Grateful: You're so right — a compassionate accepting world begins at home. If as a parent you degrade gay people or never have gay friends you could be sending a deadly message to a gay child. "I don't have to worry about that because my kid's not gay," some would say. The trick here is that your child may never come out to you if he/she knows you won't be accepting.
For those parents who already know their child is gay, here is a helpful excerpt from an article dealing with the social pressures and warning signs associated with gay teens. From S. Kay Murphy at www.suite101.com/article.cfm/raising_gay_child/70698.
"Gay students may want to attend events such as football games (which are just as much social events as they are athletic), but again, they would have to interact with other teens as if they are heterosexual, constantly wary of every word, every gesture, every mannerism lest anyone even suspect they are gay. Although most teachers pretend not to see gay bashing, homophobic students at least have some constraints on them within the regular school environment. But those constraints are lifted at extracurricular events such as football games, and a gay student could very well be in danger if he or she is not careful.
"This is indeed a tough world to live in right now.
"That need to 'pretend' and dissemble in public is what makes gay teens feel 'really, really alone.' And isolation of that intensity for any teen, gay or straight, can be dangerous. Individuals who feel pain and also feel that no one understands their pain can be driven to taking desperate measures. Suicide is the third highest cause of death among teenagers. Undoubtedly, many teen suicides are committed by gays who felt they had no hope of ever living a normal, happy life.
"If you are raising a gay teen, it is imperative that you watch carefully for signs of depression or despondency, or any kind of messages, no matter how slight, that suggest hopelessness. If your teen begins to spend an inordinate amount of time separate from the family, locked away in his room, imposing further isolation on himself, bring him out. He may resist; we all recognize that teens generally only like to spend time with their own kind. But making contact, staying connected, can be critical at this point in his life."
It's crucial to know when you're in over your head and need professional help. Just be sure a therapist is friendly toward gay people and has worked with gay teens before. Avoid any programs that seek to change your child's orientation. This may only add to your teen's sense of hopelessness and rejection.

This is why teen suicide is so high. It's not easy being different in the first place and being different and gay under this religidiot's control of the country is even worse.
It's not that we are raised gay because I wasn't. It's not that we have real control over who we love anymore then any other person. To be happy, healthy, people we need to be ourselves and that means to have our partner, who ever they may be. Our "first loves" and every thing any other young person goes through. Human beings are human beings, like it or not we bleed the same, we learn the same, we love the same. It's time for us to be individuals again and quit letting everyone else speak for us. I know I am!

Charges dropped against mayor for gay weddingsAnti-gay group threatens to pursue further action

by Donald Miller

New Paltz Mayor Jason West following a July 12 decison by prosecutors to drop charges against him for marrying 24 same-sex couples.
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. — Following months of heated debate between forces on the right and left, a judge has finally dropped all charges against New Paltz Mayor Jason West who could have faced up to 24 years in jail for marrying same-sex couples on the steps of town hall.
West was among the first public officials in the nation to marry same-sex couples, following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February 2004.
West was charged with 24 misdemeanor counts of violating the state’s domestic relations law. The district attorney for Ulster County said he dropped the charges because he believed a trial would be unnecessary and divisive.
West called the decision a “complete vindication” and said the district attorney had been “wasting taxpayer money for 18 months.”
West has maintained he was upholding the gay couples’ constitutional rights to equal protection — and thus his oath of office — by allowing the weddings.
Although New York’s Gov. George Pataki and the state’s Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have said same-sex ceremonies violate state law, multiple cases have been filed on behalf of gay couples who hope to change the way that law is interpreted.
Criminal charges against the two Unitarian ministers who wed gay couples in New Paltz after West was forced to stop the ceremonies have also been dropped.
Regardless of the decision, the anti-gay, Florida-based Liberty Counsel group is still considering what other legal actions can be taken against West.
“We have not ruled out going after Mayor Jason West to remove him from office,” said Liberty Counsel’s Matthew Staver. “He has violated the law; he has expended taxpayer monies in doing so and as an elected pubic official he ought to be removed from office. And certainly, we are still considering, seriously, pursuing actions against the mayor.”
According to Staver the misdemeanor charges against West could be resurrected at any time.

This mayor tries to do something good and yet they slam him, while the mayor in Washington State is hanging on to his place and yet the republicans say nothing about him.

Libertarianism 101

by Sharon DuBois
Generally speaking, conservatives believe that citizens should have economic freedom, but that their personal behavior should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.

And, generally speaking, liberals believe that citizens should have personal freedom, but that their economic decisions should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.

Authoritarians, or Statists, believe that – for the common good – the government should control most of what the citizens do.

Libertarians believe that citizens should have all the freedoms, right up to the point where they start taking those same rights away from others. Then, and only then, should the government step in. As David Boaz says in his book Libertarianism, A Primer, “Conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do. Liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and wiping your nose. Libertarians want to treat you as an adult.”

The Constitution is very much a Libertarian document (or at least it was until the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing a tax on income, was passed), and for the first 120 or so years of its existence, the United States was a Libertarian nation. The Libertarian freedoms, of course, did not at that time extend to slaves or women. This was fixed by the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.

The Libertarian Party favors a much stricter interpretation of the Constitution than we have now, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which clearly says that, if the Constitution does not specifically grant a power to the federal government, that power is reserved to the state governments or to the people. Period.

The Libertarian Party is dedicated to a free-market economy, civil liberties, personal freedoms and personal responsibilities, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 by people who believed that the federal government has become so bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable that it no longer serves the needs of the people. They also believed that the citizens of the United States can do something about a bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable government. The Libertarian Party is a grassroots movement, and is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. There are members in every state in the Union. In the 2004 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik, appeared on the ballot in 48 states – more than any other third-party candidate.

This intreages me. I think I will have to talk with the people and find out more about them. I may end up shifting my alliance to these folks instead of the Democrats.

Dear Senator,

As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court.

If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...."

Appointment to the Supreme Court allows unparalleled power and opportunity to shape national law and policy for generations. An anti-choice judge, if elevated to the Supreme Court, could tip the balance in many cases dealing with reproductive rights and other personal freedoms.

Roberts, who has demonstrated hostility to the right to choose, will very likely be such a judge. The American public deserves a nominee that can be counted on to uphold constitutional rights.

Granted I know you are pro-life, but if we go back in history prior to the change in law in the 70's; we will have young women dying in the alleys and back office's of butchers who say they can help young women with abortions. If you take away the protections that women are in control of their own bodies then what happens? Do you men take over again and say what we as women can and can't do?
This isn't allowable nor should it be tollerated in our "civilization".

Sincerely,

By Ted Rall Mon Jul 18, 8:05 PM ET
NEW YORK--
"Karl Rove is loyal to President Bush " a correspondent wrote as Treasongate broke. "Isn't that a form of patriotism?" Not in a representative democracy, I replied. Only in a dictatorship is fealty to the Leader equal to loyalty to the nation. We're Bush's boss. He works for us. Unless that changed on 9/11 (or 12/20/00). Rove had no right to give away state secrets, even to protect Bush.
Newly loquacious Time reporter Matt Cooper has deflated half a dozen Rove-defending talking points since we last visited. Republicans, for instance, have argued that Rove had merely confirmed what Cooper already knew: that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That claim evaporated in Cooper's piece in the magazine's July 25 issue: "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."
"I've already said too much," Cooper quotes Rove as he ended their 2003 conversation.
Rove may avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, says John Dean, counsel at the Nixon White House. "There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated," he says, alluding to Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. The "leak of sensitive [government] information" for personal purposes--say, outting the CIA wife of your boss' enemy--is "a very serious crime," according to the judge presiding over a similar recent case. If convicted under the anti-leak statute, Rove would face ten years in a federal prison.
Even if Rove originally learned about Plame's status from jailed New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Dean continues, "it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)." Conspiracy will get you five years at Hotel Graybar.
Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert--while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade
Iraq is virtually indistinguishable from
Robert Hanssen selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.
And he's not the only high-ranking Bush Administration traitor.
In last week's column I speculated that Treasongate would almost certainly implicate
Dick Cheney. Now, according to Time, Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby is being probed as a second source of leaks to reporters about Plame.
We already know that Rove is a traitor. So, probably, is Cheney. Since George W. Bush has protected traitors for at least two years; he is therefore an accomplice to the Rove-Libby cell. We are long past the point where, during the summer of 1974, GOP senators led by Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon that he had to resign. So why aren't Turd Blossom and his compadres out of office and awaiting trial?
Democrats are out of power. And, sadly, Republicans have become so obsessed with personal loyalty that they've forgotten that their first duty is to country, not party or friend. Unless they wake up soon and dump Bush, Republicans could be permanently discredited.
Bush sets the mafia-like tone: "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it." His lieutenants blur treason with hardball politics--"[Democrats] just aren't coming forward with any policy positions that would change the country, so they want to pick up whatever the target of the week is and make the most out of that," says GOP House Whip Roy Blunt--and blame the victim--Rove, absurdly argues Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, was innocently trying to expose Wilson's "lies."
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Bush's credibility at 41 percent, down from 50 in January. Given events past and present, that's still a lot higher than it ought to be.
We don't need a law to tell us that unmasking a CIA agent, particularly during wartime, is treasonous. Every patriotic American--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--knows that.

And knowing all this now I am thinking and rethinking my political ties to the two party system. I am thinking there has to be something better then this.

Message sent to the following recipients:

Senator Brownback
Senator Roberts
Message text follows:
Wichita, KS 67211
July 20, 2005
[recipient address was inserted here] [recipient name was inserted here],

As a constituent of yours and a supporter of women's rights, I am writing to ask you to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.

Roberts has proved his inability to separate political ideology from the responsibility of fairly interpreting the law. The lives of all women and girls in the U.S. are at stake in your decision. Please vote NO on Roberts' confirmation.

Taking the place of O'Connor, who was the swing vote on these issues, Roberts would be the deciding vote on issues like abortion, birth control, affirmative action, workers' rights, environmental protections, voting rights, disability rights and Title IX—all of which he actively opposes.

For girls and women, the impact of the Court's decisions will affect their safety, livelihood, family health and in many cases their very future. Women and girls are affected by a whole host of issues on which the Supreme Court hears cases: educational equality, affirmative action, discrimination and civil rights, workplace protections and benefits, health care issues, pensions and retirement security, social security and environmental safety.

In addition, the civil and Constitutional rights of a majority of the people of this nation will be in question, whether the issues involve race, color, religion, age, gender, disability or sexual identity. The next Supreme Court justice must have a track record of giving more than lip service to these important protections.

And finally, please consider how important it is to protect the lives and futures of the girls and women who rely on the guarantees and protections of Roe v. Wade. Any potential jurist for the highest court in the land should respect the importance of this landmark ruling that accords women the final say in determining their reproductive future. Roberts clearly does not and must be opposed.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and will keep in touch with your office as the time for a vote nears.

Sincerely,

ME

This is the one I sent with the National Orginazation for Women.

Georgie boy's choice - bad idea

George W. Bush has nominated extremist Judge John G. Roberts to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the resignation of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Tell your Senators to oppose Roberts and any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade and limit the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards we have fought for and won.
As O'Connor's replacement, Roberts would cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O'Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5-to-4 split-issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts' votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.
Action Needed:
Contact your Senators immediately and demand their opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, a staunch opponent of women's rights and civil rights.
Forward this message to friends, family and colleagues. We need to flood the Senate with messages that our rights are on the line!
Support our organizing to defeat this nominee - and ANY nominee who opposes our rights! Your contribution will help us get the word out in key states!
Background:
Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has continually supported and promoted an anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda. NOW opposed his nomination to U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 on these grounds and will continue to do so to protect the lives of all women and girls in the U.S.
Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously: "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also wrote a brief in a case NOW brought against Operation Rescue in our effort to stop violent blockades at abortion clinics. His brief and oral argument supported Operation Rescue, and argued that the blockades were merely an _expression of opposition to abortion. The Court's failure to protect women and clinics from these attacks helped us pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act the following year. [Bray, et al. v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, et al.]
In 2001, Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX, the equal educational opportunity law for women and girls as applied to college athletic programs in NCAA v. Smith.
While in private law practice, Roberts served as lead counsel for Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, in which he argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case involved a woman fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform a major life activity, and thus was not protected by the ADA.
He is also member of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards. Federalist Society heroes and leaders you might recognize are Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
The character and record of anyone nominated to our nation's highest court must be thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Senate in their important "advice and consent" role. The Senate must be certain the nominee can discern between personal conviction and interpretation of the law as they balance the interpretation of our Constitution and our democracy's promise to protect and expand the civil liberties of all people, not just the privileged few. John Roberts does not meet those standards.
Again, take action NOW!

Yep you got it I have already fired off this one and one other and will keep it up as he doesn't speak for me in anyway shape or form.

Now Just What is Wrong With This Picture?

This page is about a letter that was received after an incident that occurred around 11:15PM, Friday, June 10, 2005. What happened to cause the letter to be sent to us...My Husband, Tony, and I were on our way home from Wal-mart. While shopping I had begun to experience joint pain (I have Degenerative Join Disease), so my husband in a kind gesture offered to drive the five miles home. Halfway home we were pulled over by the Greer Police. No reason was given for the stop and when I asked I was told there had been none. My husband had failed to get his driver’s license reinstated five years ago, so when he was asked for his, he handed them his old one. We had documents in the glove box verifying insurance coverage from the time the car was purchased until the beginning of this year, but we had insurance, the papers were just at home. After the Officers checked our ID’s and found nothing, they then checked the plate on the car. We were told that the plates were the wrong ones. They would not tell us whose they were, only that they belonged on a Chevy. They searched the car and found nothing (although they thought they had found something when they came across a geode in the glove box), and then called a tow truck to take the car overnight, even though we only lived three minutes away. My husband was hand cuffed and arrested. I was not arrested, but taken to the jail with my husband, along with our frozen food. At the jail, my husband had to show them how to use their new fingerprinting machine (he is in school majoring in programming). He was released on a signature bond even though he never saw a judge. The interesting part of this incident happened at the back of our car. Officer Stewart asked us if we had put the bumper stickers on or if the car had come that way. I of course told the truth and said I had put them on. The officer wanted to know what they meant so I explained that I was an ordained minister of the Emerald Sanctuary Druidic Church. The conversation continued and then Officer Stewart asked me if my church supported me? I asked him to explain what he meant by support and he clarified it as meaning ‘spiritually fulfilling’. He then begins witnessing to me and my husband. As they were putting my husband into the police car, and I was getting the bags of groceries out of the back seat, Officer Stewart came over to me and handed me $40.00 to help get the car out of impound and told me he would be writing the letter exhibited below. At the police station he continued to witness to me. They never offered to report our tag as stolen. They left the tag on the car and did not hold it in impound until all proper documents were produced. They had plainly stated that there had not been any reason to have stopped us in the beginning, “but it doesn’t matter, the plates are wrong.” Granted, my husband should not be driving, and he doesn’t, except this one time when I was in pain and we needed to get home. He was in the prosess to reinstate his license at the time this occured. We have bought new plates for the car, since our old plates are gone. And, thankfully a family member is the Chief of Police in another location, so we were able to find out who the plates belonged to. Officer Stewart never mentions a reason for being pulled over, such as weaving, speeding, wrong plates or anything like that. He does mention the bumper stickers. Whether he is a volunteer or regular, he should still be held to a code of ethics concerning violation of constitutional rights (freedom of religion without harassment). I firmly feel he over stepped his bounds the night of the incident and has continued to do so with his letter. He assumes about my faith, as he did that night, and offers a solution to all my ‘problems’ if I come to his church. I wonder about what is meant by “And for whatever reason, God is calling you to listen to words from the Baptists. This is clear! If you deny this, then you are pushing away the hand of God and that would not be wise.” He also tells me “Chances are that he sent this intercession after hearing the prayers of someone for your welfare. Maybe it was your prayers, or maybe it was a loved one or friend who cares for you. But he did send intercession. Now, you must respond without delay and without excuses.” So evidently ‘someone’ is praying for me to loss my faith! What I can gather from this letter is –
1. Officer Stewart views his position as an opportunity to convert people to his faith and his Church. “As a law enforcement officer, I am a reserve, meaning that I am an unpaid volunteer. The reason I have volunteered for the last 14 years is so that I can be at the places where God would have me to be and at the right time. You see, I have been a victim myself.” 2. He was aware of the opportunity to exercise this practice by the bumper stickers. “I see from your bumper stickers and from your testimony that are a druid priest.” 3. Life’s ‘problems’ (alcohol, drugs, poverty) can be over come by attending his Bible Class and Church. “You see, I have been a victim myself. I know poverty, alcohol and drug abuse and many of the other things my brothers and sisters know first hand.” And “It may tales weeks or month of obedience to learn the steps that it will take to get you back on the road to prosperity.” I write this to warn those who find themselves in the Greer city limits. I am assured that the tickets (four of them totaling $1890) will be dismissed. I wonder how they will dismiss my feeling of being singled out by the police of Greer when I go grocery shopping again? The LetterTony & DeborahI mentioned to Deborah that I would be sending something that I wanted you to respond to. Although the timing and setting may seem unlikely, our meeting on Friday Night June 10th was actually destined to happen. Let me explain: As a law enforcement officer, I am a reserve, meaning that I am an unpaid volunteer. The reason I have volunteered for the last 14 years is so that I can be at the places where God would have me to be and at the right time. You see, I have been a victim myself. I know poverty, alcohol and drug abuse and many of the other things my brothers and sisters know first hand. I felt your pain! I can feel the pain of others when luck seems to always be bad. I call it being a victim because, one piece of bad luck leads to another and soon, finding your way back to a place of peace is all but impossible. Driving without the correct license or insurance becomes a necessity. Then a cop steps in and enforces man's law and the hopeless situation only gets worse. Sometimes, it feels like there is no answer. But there is hope. I know, because I fell further down than almost anyone I have ever met. And, slowly, I was able to come back. But, it was not without a lot of help from others. All along my journey, there were people that God sent to reach out to me and speak his wisdom to me. Often, I pushed them away. And other times, I made excuses for not responding to them. My own free will became my worst enemy and stubbornness and pride also worked against me. Thank God that people were continually sent to be in my crossroads. Last Friday night I was sent to be in your crossroads. You see, my passion is not to wear a badge and enforce man's law. Instead it's to be where I need to be for people like you. Yes, I do enforce Caesar's law, but I care far more about following Jesus Christ who came to make a way to him through faith and not by works or laws. In your case, Jesus has reached out to you through me to say that he wants your attention. Chances are that he sent this intercession after hearing the prayers of someone for your welfare. Maybe it was your prayers, or maybe it was a loved one or friend who cares for you. But he did send intercession. Now, you must respond without delay and without excuses. I see from your bumper stickers and from your testimony that are a druid priest. I am not familiar with the Druids enough to make conversation. But I am ordained in the Baptist church. And for whatever reason, God is calling you to listen to words from the Baptists. This is clear! If you deny this, then you are pushing away the hand of God and that would not be wise. Too many events were manipulated by God to bring us together to be a coincidence. Actually, I only police every 2nd Friday night, so just being on duty was rare. You must respond to the words he wants you to hear. And you must be patient and faithful. It may tales weeks or month of obedience to learn the steps that it will take to get you back on the road to prosperity. One visit, a few prayers and an occasional opening of his Bible will not be enough. You must be prepared to make some serious changes and do so now! You may not get another intercession. Who knows? But you must admit that you've been contacted by God! And you must respond. What's your next step? I lead a bible study class on Sunday mornings at Mt. Lebanon Baptist church. It's a unique class where jeans and t-shirts are normal and many of those who attend are in some sort of crisis or toting burdens of some kind. There is no pressure to speak, pray or answer questions. God does bless us with miracles and wisdom. And there is no pressure to attend worship across the street afterwards. You are free to attend worship afterwards when and if you are ready. The class is very small and is the next thing God wants you to do. He will speak his wisdom to you while you are there. And be prepared to come more than once. To get there: From HWY 29 in Greer, Go up HWY 14 north about 4-5 miles to Mt. Lebanon Church road on your right (look for our church sign). Turn right and go to the 4-way stop and go straight thru. We are on your left across the street from the church in the Gymnasium. 9:15 Am-10:15 AM572 Mt. Lebanon Church Rd. Greer, 895-2334 - Your brother - Tony Stewart ,_

The pictures of the bummperstickers and the scan of the letters didn't go through, but they were not obnoxious stickers from my point of view. In fact I'm glad to know that they are happy with their walk in life.

Voicemail from Chief of Police(if someone knows how I can get this to place, please email me)Returned Reciept for first Certified letter to the Chief of Police, Dan Reynolds.

The First Letter...
Didn't make the trip to my blog.

The Second Letter...
On Friday June 24, 2005 we were informed by a Mrs. Pressley from the City Judge's office that our motions had been granted. We had filed a Motion for Discovery under South Carolina Criminal Procedure Rule #5 requesting copies of the officers' notes and a transcript of the radio communications between the Officers and dispatch. Since it was noted in the information that the normal amount of time to wait for this evidence was 30 days, we asked for a 45-Day Continuance to allow the Police enough time to respond. When the documents from the court arrive I will also post them. On Monday, June 27, 2005 we should receive a certified letter from the City of Greer. We will also post this when it arrives.

Ok folks tell me what is wrong with this picture of a cop?
He isn't just being a cop.
This has been in the making for awhile I'd say, I wonder how many others he (the cop) has done this to in the course of his work shift? How many times has he carried through with his "comments" about things happening?
Is the whole world now supposed to become Baptist?
I really want to know more of this and of what happens to the cop.
Mixing church and state? Yes. Out of line? Yes.

Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays

By HOPE YEN,
Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.
Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was by a 5-4 margin.
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.
In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol — one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot — was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.
"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.
"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.
Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and justices
Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.
The rulings were the court's first major statement on the Ten Commandments since 1980, when justices barred their display in public schools. But the high court's split verdict leaves somewhat unsettled the role of religion in American society, a question that has become a flashpoint in U.S. politics.
"While the court correctly rejects the challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order," Thomas wrote in a separate opinion.
Dissenting in the Texas case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"
"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas State Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.
"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."
Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

Religious History of this country???? Since when did we get a national religion?? Since when does just one religion in the country have say over all the other religions and beliefs in the country?? This country is NOT A THEOCRASY!!!! How many times does that need to be yelled at you idiots!!!! Yes I called you IDIOTS!!! I will do so to your face if I were to ever see you. I'm not "christian". Why do I need to have your brand of "christianity" run roughshod over my beliefs and feelings at every turn??? There is no one lead protestant religion in this country, there are many who are catholic, unitarian, 7th day etc... Do you claim to speak for them too??? How about those who are Wicca, or any of the many lines of pagan ways of belief??? Or how about the people of Islamic faith??? This slaps all of us in the face!!